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

201–210 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#201

Post by lapcat »

creato wrote: post #172
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.

It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.

This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API.

Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equally important IMO is arbitrary JavaScript injection into web pages, which MV2 allows but MV3 does not.

MV3 is so locked down that you can't even use String.replace() with a constructed JavaScript function. It's really a nightmare.

Google's excuse is that all JavaScript needs to be statically declared in the extension so that the Chrome Web Store can review it. But then the Chrome Web Store allows a bunch of malware to be published anyway!

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#202

Post by sensanaty »

const_cast wrote: post #184
maest wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely website that do not support Firefox, especially in the US. Whole portions of the Verizon website, for example. Or the website of a well known kindergarden I was researching recently.

I'm sure they exist, I've just never seen them. I use banking and websites like Netflix, too. And, if I had to wager, you could bypass a lot of this "doesn't work on Firefox" by just changing your user agent. I think it's a case of yes, it does work, but web developers don't think so, so they implement checks just for kicks.

> And, if I had to wager, you could bypass a lot of this "doesn't work on Firefox" by just changing your user agent.

Indeed, even in the codebase at $JOB that I'm responsible for, we have had some instances where we randomly check if people are in Chrome before blocking a browser API that has existed for 2 decades and been baseline widely available. These days 99% of features that users actually care about are pretty widely supported cross-browser, and other than developer laziness there's literally no reason why something like a banking app shouldn't work in any of the big 3.

I guarantee you that if you set your `userAgent` to a Chrome one (or even better yet, a completely generic one that covers all browsers simultaneously, cause most of the time the implementation of these `isChrome` flags is just a dead simple regex that looks for the string `chrome` anywhere in the userAgent), all problems you might've experienced before would vanish, except for perhaps on Google's own websites (though I've never really had issues here other than missing things like those image blur filters in Google Meet, which always felt like a completely artificial, anti-competitive limitation)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#203

Post by bigstrat2003 »

Etheryte wrote: post #97
pnw wrote: post #56

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

Of all the browsers you could be using, giving your data away to sketchy crypto bros should really not be at the top of the list.

I really don't care about crypto stuff. If you do, I can understand why that's a dealbreaker for you. But for me, it doesn't matter at all. I just turn the crypto features off and continue on my way.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#204

Post by ThunderSizzle »

kenmacd wrote: post #86
j45 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same experience. The family plan is nice to share with family to reduce how much everyone's exposed to ads. In-Video sponsorships are a pain, sometimes they are chaptered out enough and can be skipped. If I could pay for an ad-free google search I probably would. Off the shelf, not doing API calls.

SponsorBlock ( https://sponsor.ajay.app/ ) It works amazingly well provided a video's been out for at least a half hour or so. It also has the option to skip the "like and subscribe" parts too. I also tried the https://dearrow.ajay.app/ extension to replace clickbait titles, but decided I'd rather know when a channel/video is too clickbait-y so I can block/unsubscribe.

I wish many of these suggestion worked for casting.

Browser extensions don't fix a chromecast skipping ads, for example. It'd have to be written into the casting client, I'd presume.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#205

Post by stevage »

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…

Me too. On mac, FF and chrome basically look and feel identical. Only devtools are quite different.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#206

Post by xboxnolifes »

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…

Firefox has multiple, user-affecting, memory leaks related to Youtube (unconfirmed if just youtube), going back at least 7 years. Tab scrollbar as no option to be disabled, so I had to write CSS to get tabs into a form close to what I would like similar to chrome. Tab mute icon has no (working) option to disable the click event, so I had to write CSS to remove it.

I made some other changes, but I forget what. At least FF still has the full uBlock Origin.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#207

Post by WrongAssumption »

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.

Patreon and BuyMeACoffee are middlemen...

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#208

Post by MangoToupe »

galangalalgol wrote: post #175
nfriedly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is great on Mac too. You have a point about iPhones, though. It's almost pointless, but not quite: it does get a few features, like cross-platform sync. "Real" Firefox is one of the things that keeps me on Android.

Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.

You can use whatever you want on macos

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#209

Post by jampekka »

sensanaty wrote: post #138
vehemenz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn’t selling my data, and they make the best consumer hardware, so at this point there aren’t many downsides to Apple lock in.

> Apple isn’t selling my data Sorry to break it to you, but yes, they are. https://ads.apple.com/

The greatest trick the Ad ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#210

Post by card_zero »

cbeley wrote: post #164
card_zero wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think giving money to the world's largest ad agency will encourage them to change their business model?

Their business model is already in line with my values. I give them money and in exchange I get an ad-free experience. They don't need to change.

If you care about whether content is ad supported or not, then Google are behind most of the world's ad supported content, and need to change, irrespective of your own transaction, unless you think transactions like that will change them. That's why I asked. It would be nice if it worked.
Post reply on HN