Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

411–420 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#411
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.

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

It’s an opt out fee from Ads.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#412
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.

It’s a personal choice.

Once someone reaches a level of individual support that’s fine.

YouTube remains a place for discovering channels and people and some people especially the majority who are not technical, can outwit a simple family fee.

I use YouTube premium more than I ever used for paying Netflix for far longer. Value (and proven convenience) is in the eyes of the user.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#413
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…

Great, except firefox is pretty bad nowadays.

Not their fault of course, with people not testing websites on non chrome derived browsers.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#414
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…

You should read the article before commenting; your comment is a non-sequitur.

Right back at you. If you think my comment is a non-sequitur, maybe you didn't read the article?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#415

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…

> Google still controls Chromium so it's not good enough" is exactly the kind of FUD

Ok, so which of the forks plan to support MV2?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#416
post #413
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…

Great, except firefox is pretty bad nowadays. Not their fault of course, with people not testing websites on non chrome derived browsers.

> except firefox is pretty bad nowadays.

Pretty bad as in that isn't true?

Firefox is the option that doesn't intentionally leave users vulnerable to hostile adtech. Firefox is the option with containers. Past that it is performant and reliable under a wide variety of user loads and platforms.

or Pretty bad as in Firefox+forks are better than the alternatives?

It is true that some unfortunate default options were recently added to Firefox configs.

Those options are unfortunate because they are variants of anti-user options baked into Chromium - options created to keep Chromium users susceptible to big-tech's worst intentions.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is true though. Like, literally. Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me? > Why do you think it is called Lite? Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2. > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO ca…

Switch to v3, and not notice as adtech slowly starts leaking through, such as people have already started seeing on Youtube. The key is to slowly crank up the number of ads that get through, boiling the apocryphal frog.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there's little to no friction in switching to Firefox and I have never, not even once, noticed a difference with websites. The same is not true for Safari.

I get serious slowdown with multiple (3--5) youtube tabs open in firefox, but not chrome. Seems to happen when tabs are open for a long time (weeks), so probably some leak. Lots of others mention it on forums.

Google has a history of sabatoging Youtube on Firefox. See for example https://www.tomshardware.com/news/youtube-responds-to-delaye....

It isn't unique to youtube either. Gmail offline mode only works on chrome, even though other browsers have the necessary APIs. And menu copy and paste in google docs uses a special chrome-only extension that google pre-installs in chrome, instead of the clipboard API that works in other browsers as well.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#419
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in his defense it would have been patched immediately after the first adblocker used it, and he would have gotten nothing at all out of it. Oh wait he got nothing at all anyway ;)

Not really, this sort of fame farming is what makes candidates stand out in infosec interviews. A bug in Google systems is good for his future career.

[flagged]

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#420
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…

What makes firefox better than brave?
Post reply on HN