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

191–200 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#191

Post by kingo55 »

Beijinger wrote: post #75

I did not even realize my ublock origin was turned off. My HOST FILE script did the same service: https://expatcircle.com/cms/privacy-advanced-ublock-origin-w... More concerning is that social fixer was turned off: https://socialfixer.com/ MFGA Make Facebook Great again ;-)

Changing your hosts file helps but it would only block hostnames primarily used for ads and trackers - it wouldn't address those trackers and ads loaded from hostnames shared with actual content. The more sophisticated sites will proxy their tracking and ads through their main app:

E.g. www.cnn.com/ads.js

I prefer having multiple layers just in case anything drops off:

1. VPN DNS / AdGuard local cached DNS 2. uBlock Origin

It's like wearing two condoms (but it feels better than natural).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#192

Post by phendrenad2 »

poly2it wrote: post #123
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…

Isn't that the exact argument behind the Serenity project? I legitimately feel there is a grave issue with the internet if one wallet controls all of the actual development of our browsers. Control over virtually all media consumption mustn't be in the hands of a corporation.

The argument just doesn't hold water, though. That's like saying Y Combinator shouldn't be the only company paying for our tech forum. It's perfectly fine unless Y Combinator decides to ruin HN it somehow. And, if they did, wouldn't people just switch to one of the many HN clones overnight? That's what's known as FUD - "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". FUD is often spread about the present, but it's often just as useful to spread it about the future. "Don't use product X, the company that owns it could make it unusable someday". Part of me thinks Google keeps threatening to disable adblocking (but never actually does it) as part of a grand strategy. But part of me thinks it's just a coincidence that Google isn't capable of pulling off such a tricky psychological operation.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#193

Post by h2zizzle »

layer8 wrote: post #156
h2zizzle wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

$12 is a week of chicken thighs, man. It's enough gas to make $60-$80 running UberEats orders. In America. In "absolute terms", it's $100+ dollars a year to turn off ads on a single platform for content the creators are compensated pennies for.

People who choose that without much thought - because it's barely an expense for them - are definitely tending towards "higher net worth" nationally, let alone globally. A lot of those people just don't realize it, because the entire point of seeking that kind of status is so that they can enter a socioeconomic bubble and not have to care about annoyances (like advertising).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#194

Post by deryilz »

Supermancho wrote: post #98
pnw wrote: post #56

Haven't missed Chrome once since switching to https://brave.com/

Not being able to run Twitch on it has me switch for brief periods.

From my experience (as a Brave user), using a User-Agent switching extension and setting it to Firefox for twitch.tv gets around that :)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#195

Post by ThunderSizzle »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #19
labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

Paying to avoid ads just makes your attention even more valuable to them. Always block them unconditionally and without any payment. Ads are a violation of the sanctity of our minds. They are not entitled to our attention. It's not currency to pay for services with.

Or rather, don't use YouTube without paying.

Youtube isn't free, and unlike a simple blog, requires tons of infrastructure and content creation. None of that is free, and people wanting that to be free is why we're in adscape hell.

Edit: I'd love for a competitor to youtube, but there isn't. Rumble isn't a real competitor, and none of my favorite channels place their content there either.

I wish there was a youtube alternative that was more of a federation, but every attempt I've seen of federations have been mess.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#196

Post by jwrallie »

tredre3 wrote: post #100
zwaps wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. " This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it. Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

> Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

It can be relevant depending of how you define properly. If it depends on any of those functionalities that are missing, then it’s relevant.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#197

Post by Phemist »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #91
al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

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…

I once made a comment along these lines (de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough, as it supports the browser monoculture and inevitably makes Chrome as a browser better) and got a reply from from Brendan Eichner himself.

His point was that there isn't enough time to again develop Firefox (or ladybird) as a competitive browser capable of breaking the Chrome "monopoly". I don't know if I really agree.

Evidently, Google feels like the time is right to make these kinds of aggressive moves, limiting the effectiveness of ad blockers.

The internet without ad blockers is a hot steaming mess. Limiting the effectiveness of ad blockers makes people associate your browser (Chrome in this case) with this hot steaming mess. It is difficult to dissociate the Chrome software from the websites rendered in Chrome by a technical lay person. So Chrome will be viewed as a hot steaming mess.

I guess we will soon see if people will stay on Chrome or accept the small initial pain and take the leap to a different browser with proper support for ad blockers. In any case the time is now for a aggressive marketing campaign on the side of mozilla etc.

I am in no way affiliated with Google. So if you still think this is a PsyOp, please consider Hanlon's Razor:

> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Although, please also consider that Hanlon's Razor itself was coined by a Robert J. Hanlon, who suspiciously shares a name with a CIA operative also from Pennsylvania. It is not unimaginable that Hanlon's Razor it in itself a PsyOp. ;)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#199

Post by bigstrat2003 »

rollcat wrote: post #132
pnw wrote: post #56

Haven't missed Chrome once since switching to https://brave.com/

It's the same Blink engine underneath. Talk about lipstick. I'm not aware of a Blink-based browser that isn't dropping manifest V2. That would be a soft fork, and wouldn't survive long.

The point is you don't need to worry about manifest v3 interfering with ad blockers, because Brave has an ad blocker built into the browser. Also makes it a good Chromium-based option for mobile, since you can't install extensions on Chrome mobile at all.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#200

Post by WrongAssumption »

vinyl7 wrote: post #70
raincole wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube premium has been ad-free for 10 years. What kind of track record do you need? 20 years? 100 years?

Netflix and other streaming sites have ads on some paid subscriptions. First they start with ad free subs, then introduce ads and introduce a higher priced tier to get rid of ads

Can't you just stop subscribing when that happens? You aren't signing a 5 year contract.
Post reply on HN