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

421–430 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#421

Post by porridgeraisin »

hannofcart wrote: post #396
owebmaster wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep. That and stuff like the filesystem API. That thing is so useful for apps like excalidraw, photopea, etc,. They really need to implement it.

They should at least implement it behind a feature flag, if they feel like virtue signalling how they're oh-so-concerned for the privacy implications. (while simultaneously launching an ads business in the backdrop)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#422

Post by userbinator »

deryilz wrote: post #173
m4rtink wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be quite different if they patched it and broke important extensions, possibly facing serieous outcry and bad publicity.

I agree that would change things but I can't picture an open-source extension with millions of users pivoting to rely on something that's clearly a bug.

At that point it's a feature, not a bug.

Having millions of users on your side is great ammunition.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#423

Post by paulryanrogers »

greatbit wrote: post #336
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.

Ditching Chromium for Firefox isn’t much better since Firefox sells user data. Next would be Safari.

Firefox only shares anonymized data with partners. Is there evidence OHTTP can be deanonymized?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#424

Post by rightbyte »

labrador wrote: post #14
iLoveOncall wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So pay now and stop paying if they introduce ads? It's not like it's a lifetime subscription. I've been paying for it for a year+ for my girlfriend who was watching more ads than content and we've never seen ads since.

That's good to know. I was hoping for a reply like yours. I will subscribe. YouTube is an amazing resource for human kind and I agree those of us who can afford it should pay to support it.

Seems strange to me to support Google with your money from a moral perspective. It is a spyware company.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#426

Post by snowram »

fooker wrote: post #413
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…

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

I browse the web daily, and the number of website that ever gave me trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand. The website compatibility issue is vastly overblown.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#427

Post by userbinator »

deryilz wrote: post #165
fracus wrote: post #153

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#428

Post by charcircuit »

consumer451 wrote: post #378
charcircuit wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not true either. Updating rules is allowed. The restriction is about updating code.

Hmmm, according to this post [0], ad blocking lists must now be updated via store updates. Is that not the case? [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/17as8o8/the_r...

>Remotely hosted code, or RHC, is what the Chrome Web Store calls anything that is executed by the browser that is loaded from someplace other than the extension's own files. Things like JavaScript and WASM. It does not include data or things like JSON or CSS.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...

Rules are not javascript or wasm.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#429

Post by stubish »

djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #392
thaumasiotes wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do staged rollouts, maybe a-b testing. It seems to generally be region based rather than platform.
Post reply on HN