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

391–400 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#391

Post by eviks »

zulban wrote: post #361

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 "bypa…

> for 20 years ... just temporary bandaids

Using superior software for two decades is a very good bandaid

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#392

Post by djrj477dhsnv »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #382
Aperocky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never realized anything was happening as I was on Firefox, until I saw ads as my wife was browsing youtube despite installing ublock for her years ago.

YouTube recently started showing ads through uBO in Firefox.

On what platform? I've been using Firefox and uBO on Linux and Android for over a decade and never seen a YouTube ad.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#393

Post by paulryanrogers »

azangru wrote: post #330
pjmlp wrote: post #136

Earlier 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.

> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application I am confused. - The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article. - The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps i…

> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them.

They have so much market share that they control the standards bodies. The tail wags the dog.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#394

Post by thayne »

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…

Has any chromium based browser committed to continue supporting MV2 or building an alternative API for ad-blockers to intercept web requests in MV3 even after the code for MV2 is removed from upstream chromium?

If not, then no, switching to another chromium based browser is not enough.

And fwiw my experience trying Brave was that the user experience was actually more different from chrome than Firefox.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#395

Post by djrj477dhsnv »

acdha wrote: post #353
rustcleaner wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Brendan Eich's hateful hands LOL California Proposition 8 was pretty mainstream opinion back then. Maybe stop with the ex post facto persecution?

Hate can be popular but that still doesn’t make it right. He knew that he was spending money hoping to take away rights from people he knew, to tell some of them that their marriages shouldn’t be allowed, and did it anyway. That’s hateful regardless of how many other people joined him.

By that definition, all politics is "hate". Passing a law will always take away the rights of a group in some way or other, and politics is the debate of whether or not that's a good or bad thing.

Personally I'm 100% for letting everyone express their gender or sexual identities. But I'm not going to demonize someone for having a different opinion and making a small donation to support their political views.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#396

Post by hannofcart »

owebmaster wrote: post #385
zulban wrote: post #361

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 "bypa…

I'm with you with this idea but relying on firefox is not much better. I use PWAs a lot and Firefox decided that PWAs are not worth implementing or maintaining their past implementation. I still use firefox 70% of the time but this is wrong and go against what the users want.

+1 to this. This is probably the only thing that keeps me from ditching Chrome/Brave and going back to Firefox.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#397

Post by thayne »

bloaf wrote: post #285
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.

There are definitely sites which block firefox, even though they work fine in firefox. Most of the time, the block can be bypassed with simple user-agent spoofing.

There are also a handful of sites I've run into that only work on cheomium based browsers because they rely on non-standard experimental APIs that are only implemented in chromium.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#398

Post by linguae »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #362
worik wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The history is a little more complicated than this…it is true that South Africa was eventually sanctioned by the US for its apartheid policies, and this helped lead to the end of apartheid. However, the US supported South Africa during much of the Cold War period as a bulwark against communism. Some US politicians were willing to look the other way when it came to apartheid before support for South Africa became increasingly politically difficult.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#399

Post by vmladenov »

agile-gift0262 wrote: post #117
high_priest wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not happening

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.

How do multi-account containers differ from Chrome profiles? I hadn't paid much attention to Firefox outside of Linux installs as I mainly use Safari with Chrome as a backup, but I'm interested to try again.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#400

Post by pjmlp »

azangru wrote: post #330
pjmlp wrote: post #136

Earlier 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.

> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application I am confused. - The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article. - The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps i…

Web features being pushed by Google via Chrome, aren't standards, unless everyone actually agrees they are worthy of becoming one.

Shipping Electron junk, strengthens Google and Chrome market presence, and the reference to Web standards, why bother when it is whatever Chrome is capable of.

Web devs with worthy skills of forgotten times, would rather use regular processes alongside the default system browser.

Post reply on HN