I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypasses" are just temporary bandaids?
Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
361–370 of 962 posts
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another. The only few examples of ostensible outcomes were critically meaningless and necessitate zero-friction alternatives, like when bud light was encouraged to spend a bit of its marketing budget differently — wow, really showed them!! There's no detour for politics.
> History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another The South African apartheid regime was brought down by boycotts. The Israeli genocide regime will suffer the same fate if there is any justice left in the world. Boycotts are very powerful. Users boycotting ads is dismantling the surveillance web.
South Africa didn’t have the U.S. Government and its allies actively propping it up, and punishing anyone who tried to boycott it.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#363> But I don't know how to make an adblocker, so I decided to report the issue to Google in August 2023. It was patched in Chrome 118 by checking whether extensions usin Well, thanks for nothing?
Author here, sorry. I don't think any open-source extension (especially large adblockers with millions of users) could actually get away with using this bug, because Google is paying close attention to them. It would've been patched immediately either way.
You’re right, and good on you for paying attention to the human/business context behind the code.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#364Even 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.
Treat it as isolating banking from the rest of your browsing, there are enough CVEs coming out for Chromium in spite of (or maybe because of) Google pouring billions into it.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.
Excuse me. If it's on MDN, I'm going to use it if it's useful for my app. Not my fault if not all browsers can keep up! Half JK. If I get user complaints I'll patch them for other browsers but I'm only one person so it's hard and I rely on user feedback. (Submit bug reports y'all)
Why not only use features that are compatible with all browsers? You don’t need to use every bleeding edge feature to make a website.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#366> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that. Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true. Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's…
It depends on how you interpret the word "properly". There are ads and adblocker-detection techniques that can't be blocked by MV3-style static filtering.
If "properly" means "can block all ads" then you're wrong. If it means "can block some ads" then you're right. If it means "can block most ads" then you're currently right, but likely to become wrong as adtech evolves around the new state of play.
Don't forget Chrome launched with built-in popup blocking. Now we just have popunders, in-page popups, back-button hijacking etc. Ads, uh... find a way.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#367[flagged]
If a major adblocker used a bug or security vulnerability to work around restrictions, it would have been patched away immediately.
The uBlock team was never going to ship code that depended on a bug to work.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#368Somebody should probably fork chromium. I remember when Firefox was getting traction, it had a killer feature: speed. A chromium fork could come with a simple killer feature: bringing back the possibility of blocking requests. I’m pretty sure it would quickly gain traction.
That's Brave, a fork with native AdBlock.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#369I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…
You should read the article before commenting; your comment is a non-sequitur.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#370So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.
Said bypass would exist for maybe a day max before getting nuked from orbit by Google. If anything, there was a non-zero chance OP would've gotten paid and he took it. I don't blame him.
They do it for free