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

251–260 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#251

Post by Spooky23 »

jowea wrote: post #89
Barbing wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could browse the web kinda like this but minus the human: Make Signal video call to someone in front of a laptop, provide verbal instructions on what to click on, read to my liking, and hang up to be connected with someone else next time. (EFF’s Cover Your Tracks seems to suggest fresh private tabs w/iCloud Private Relay & AdGuard is ineffective. VMs/Cloud Desktops exist but there are apparently telltale sig…

https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html section "How I use the internet" ?

It must be exhausting to be Stallman!

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#252

Post by slenk »

janalsncm wrote: post #228
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.

“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome” I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.

Most sites let you ignore that, but just keep like Ungoogled Chromium around as a backup

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#253

Post by StrLght »

Hizonner wrote: post #239
StrLght wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Google is fully responsible for MV3 and its' restrictions. There's no reason to shift blame away from them. Let's do a thought experiment: if OP hasn't reported it, what do you think would happen then? Even if different ad blockers would find it later and use it, Google would have still removed this. Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.

> Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store. So now it's abuse to make the user's browser do what the user wants, for the user's benefit, to protect the user from, you know, actual abuse.

Well, I don't think so — hence the parenthesis. Although, I am pretty sure that's how Google looks at it, given all MV3 changes.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#254

Post by slenk »

worldsayshi wrote: post #249
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.

The main thing holding me back is lack of pwa support, since there are a few apps that i need to use that only exist as progressive web apps on Linux. And using another browser for pwa has shown to be a bit cumbersome. I know pwa is coming back to Firefox soon-ish.

Firefox on Windows has PWA support at least

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#256

Post by slenk »

guywithahat wrote: post #215
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.

[flagged]

Brave = Chrome

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#257

Post by jwitthuhn »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #27
Neywiny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be shocked if anyone actually believes them. This article starts with the obvious conflict of interest. Of course letting an extension know what websites you visit and what requests are made is an insecure lifestyle. But I still do it because I trust uBO more than I trust the ad companies and their data harvesters.

I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users. I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more acc…

An extension I trust is by definition trusted code. What is trusted is for the user to decide, not the broswer developer.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#258

Post by Steven420 »

zos_kia wrote: post #245
oehpr wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep chrome installed and fall back iff forced to. That way the majority of usage statistics show up as other browsers so when developers are making guesses at which browser to support, those statistics will push them away from chrome. Additionally: you would be surprised how infrequently you have to switch to chrome

Can't remember the last time I actually had to open a website on chrome for compatibility reasons. Is that still a thing?

I only have to switch to chrome for e-transfers. Everything else seems to work

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#259

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

oehpr wrote: post #241
janalsncm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome” I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.

Keep chrome installed and fall back iff forced to. That way the majority of usage statistics show up as other browsers so when developers are making guesses at which browser to support, those statistics will push them away from chrome. Additionally: you would be surprised how infrequently you have to switch to chrome

Btw, the 'website requires chrome browser' problem is often solved if you just make Firefox user agent say it is Chrome.
Post reply on HN