Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#151

Post by heraldgeezer »

OlivOnTech wrote: post #146
heraldgeezer wrote: post #128

Just use Firefox with ublock origin. On Android too. Nightly has tabs on tablet. At work I use Edge (MS integration w SSO and all). Edge has some nice features like vertical tabs and copilot. (yes, email writing with AI is nice) We are allowed Chrome and FF so have those too with ublock on FF. Chrome is 3rd choice if a site really needs it and for testing.

Firefox has had vertical tabs (and tabs groups) for few months now

Indeed. I love the FF vertical tabs too, I should say.

Too bad the work one is still locked to 128 ESR :(

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#152

Post by h2zizzle »

card_zero wrote: post #76
krelian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do. If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.

I don't use Youtube at all, but I keep thinking I'm missing out and should make the effort to find a way to circumvent tracking. I can't see that the morality points to an obligation to absorb adverts. There can be no contract on the basis of what your mind must do. Edit: let's step through this. If I use a towel placed over the computer to block ads, that's morally the same as using blocking software, I think? If I…

Adding: advertisements use as many hacks as possible to grab your attention. You could broadly categorize things that behave in this way as akin to a) a baby's cries (attention-seeking by something that absolutely requires your assistance), b) an alarm (attention-seeking by something that seeks to warn you), or c) being accosted (attention-seeking by something that seeks to harm you for its own benefit). Which are advertisements most closely aligned with? Is it the same across all advertisements, or do intentions vary? People likely assign varying levels of morality to the above examples; does advertising inherit the morality of the most closely aligned example?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#154

Post by cbeley »

fakedang wrote: post #96
cbeley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.

Folks be adopting all sorts of irrational arguments just so they can defend their habits. Do you also prefer having middlemen in other areas such as healthcare and education? Creators can just as easily pop a Patreon or BuyMeACoffee these days in a few clicks. In fact, most creators constantly admit that Google pays them peanuts for their view counts. But support the leviathan for reasons unknown I guess.

I also back people on patreon. Isn't it irrational to expect something for free? If you don't like the service or it doesn't align with your values, simply don't use it.

Also, isn't patreon also a middleman by your definition?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#155

Post by const_cast »

sensanaty wrote: post #142
phendrenad2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people seem to believe that switching to a de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough. I think that's a psyop promoted by Google themselves. Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome. Brave, custom Chromium builds, Vivaldi, etc. are all very similar to Google Chrome, they just don't have Google spy features. The argument that "Google still control…

> Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome I find this notion completely baffling. I use Chrome, Firefox and Safari more or less daily cause I test in all 3, and other than Safari feeling clunkier and in general less power-user friendly, I can barely tell the difference between the 3, especially between chrome and FF (well, other than uBlock working better in FF a…

I agree, there's little to no friction in switching to Firefox and I have never, not even once, noticed a difference with websites. The same is not true for Safari.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#156

Post by layer8 »

h2zizzle wrote: post #130
layer8 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A YouTube subscription doesn’t exactly break the bank. Being able to afford it doesn’t make you wealthy. Apart from that, you can bet that YouTube is pricing it in a way that they aren’t losing out compared to ad revenue.

It's a decent chunk of change for the sole purpose of avoiding ads on a single platform that barely pays the people actually producing the content. If you're looking to access premium content and YouTube Music, it's a slightly better value proposition (but only slightly, because YTM sucks, especially compared to what GPM used to be). For that ~$120 a year, you could buy a bunch of Steam games to occupy the same amoun…

I mean, yeah, if you don’t actually get much use out of YouTube, then it might not be worth it to you. But that’s the same for all streaming services. And I wasn’t commenting on whether it’s worth it or not, which of course is subjective, but on how big an expense it is in absolute terms. The former doesn’t relate to the “higher net worth ads” argument, the latter does.

Personally I do like YouTube Music, due to all the user-uploaded content that isn’t available on other platforms.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#157

Post by Brian_K_White »

dwedge wrote: post #103
SSchick wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switched to Firefox yesterday, I suggest you do the same.

Are they still funded to the tune of a billion a year by Google so that Google can pretend they don't have a monopoly? Are they still intent on redefining as an ad company?

The google money isn't any great gotcha. It's wrong of them to have grown to be so dependant but so what? All it means is that some day the funded development will stop, just like all the forks are already.

Let them take google money for as long as it flows. You can switch to librewolf at any time if FF itself ever actually goes bad in any critical way. But there's not a lot of reason to do so until the minute that actually happens. Go ahead and take the funded work and updates as long as it exists.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#158

Post by const_cast »

fny wrote: post #118
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find switching from chrome to safari essentially doing nothing. If you switched to a non-big-company owned browser, it would make sense but Apple has plenty of lock in which is as bad as chrome lock in.

I'm a huge fan of Orion by Kagi: you should have a look! It's a little rough around the edges but the extension support on iOS is amazing.

Orion is the only viable option on iOS IMO. The fact that, to this day, Safari has no way to block ads on iOS means it's just awful. Before Orion, I avoided using my web browser like the plague, because the experience was just bad.

Now I'm on Android, and Ironfox is pretty good and Firefox is also available. The browser story on Android is leaps and bounds ahead of iOS.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#160

Post by perching_aix »

kentm wrote: post #90
hk__2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you can, but do you?

I don’t think they need to for there to be value. Sure, maybe there’s spyware in free software that they haven’t found. But we know that these advertising companies are putting e-stalking code into all their products right now. Trading that certainty for an unknown is a net benefit.

Tracking typically works through fingerprinting. Using free software alone won't magically protect you against this, every website's a program with JavaScript on. Lots of free software is also multiplatform. You'll want to apply additional defensive measures, but you can apply those even on Windows, running Firefox or Chrome. Mind you, you'll then stand out for using those defensive measures.

I generally appreciate source code access and independent auditability, and I do have an appreciation for the intent. But the way people discuss these topics is downright embarrassing, which is what I was hoping to shake out of this. "Just install Linux bro, it's better than pussy bro. What, u still got dat spyin machine goin on?? [links a 30 minute Mutahar video with him faffing about with some technologically trivial bollocks he visibly barely understands]" Please. I think it's pretty agreeable at least that this about as far removed from well supported decision making as one can casually get to be.

Most people switching to Linux and free software alternatives in hopes of better privacy do so based on vibes, not on any rigorous research. And that's fine. Just wish they didn't pretend it wasn't the case.

Post reply on HN