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

341–350 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#341

Post by matthewaveryusa »

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.

Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#342

Post by isaacremuant »

pjmlp wrote: post #136
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 monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.

Not everyone. Some of us used Firefox all along and didn't just go with the "default" invasive thing.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#343

Post by elyobo »

matthewaveryusa wrote: post #341
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.

Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.

Really? I've been FF only for years and everything works reliably, including banking sites (Australia & New Zealand).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#345

Post by CamperBob2 »

geraldwhen wrote: post #269
madeofpalk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is more questionable than Google? By using Brave you're still staying within the Google ecosystem, sending them the signal that their Chromium internet is the better one. I swear - people have such a hard on for hating Mozilla because it fails to live up to an impossibly high standard, while giving all the other corporations doing actual harm a free pass.

The Mozilla foundation is overtly political. The fact that they also support a browser is secondary.

How much do you know about Brendan Eich?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#346

Post by rustcleaner »

crazygringo wrote: post #94
rstat1 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.

It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice. Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now. And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally w…

I think the ultimate fix is to make it a felony to pay someone to say a message as if it's his own (meaning an actor Ford pays to be in an ad needs to say "Ford paid me to say ..." at the start of every sentence uttered which states an opinion, if that is not the true opinion of the actor). It must also be a felony for someone to accept money in exchange for stating provided opinions as if they were his own. Customers in ads giving true testimonial reviews must state they are being paid (if so) at the beginning of their statements in the ad. Only quantitative and qualitative content about the product or service advertised should be allowed, anything which sets tone, vibe, or otherwise emotionally communicates to the viewer needs to be banned. This also goes for food product boxes, with the additional rule that 75% of the non-barcode front label area must be nutrition and ingredients, while logo/brand work and propaganda is limited to the remaining 25%. Back label is an exact (maybe B&W) copy of the front. Ads should also mostly be found in directories where people go looking for services or things, and NOT plastered everywhere ready to rape brains for quick nickels. We need an advertising censorship board that keeps records on both ad makers and client businesses, so that chronic offenders get smacked down hard.

Once advertising is dead, you will see a much more free and level internet.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#347

Post by guywithahat »

myko wrote: post #218
guywithahat wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Brave seems much more questionable concerning ethics, given Eich's history

I'm sure Eich has political opinions, but he doesn't use the Brave blog to push them and he doesn't impose them on his contractors or customers in the way Mozilla does.
Post reply on HN