Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[deleted]
Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
431–440 of 962 posts
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#432I 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.
[deleted]
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#433Why couldn't someone just compile Chromium and strip out webRequestBlocking from the code?
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#434Would love to give Firefox a chance but one thing that stops me (apart from occasional website loading bugs) is inability to install PWAs. Not sure why it’s not implemented like it has been for a long time in Chrome and all its forks. I have found a 3rd party extension that claims to facilitate this (0) but still feel uncomfortable to use this for privacy reasons. (0) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pw…
If you really care, it's ok to just Firefox for the majority of your web browsing activities but use Chrome or a fork for PWA. Although using Firefox increasingly means a worse experience, including: * infinite loop of Cloudflare verification * inferior performance compared to Chrome (page loading, large page scrolling) * subtle bugs (e.g. audio handling) * WebUSB support I have personally run into all of them. Some…
I don't run into CAPTCHA loops with Firefox. Have you tried changing your user agent to pretend to be Firefox on Windows or Mac? I've heard Linux users are more likely to be interpreted as bots.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#435I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.
Don't let everyone responding gaslight you. YouTube Premium is absolutely stuffed with ads[0] (sorry, 'promoted content' / 'sponsorship'). The only probable explanation I have for this is that Google has successfully boiled the frog and people mentally don't even register these things as ads anymore. And that's not to mention pretty much every single creator stuffing sponsored sections into their videos now. We have…
And that's not to mention pretty much every single creator stuffing sponsored sections into their videos now.
Fortunately I mainly watch the videos which are not made by "creators" looking for $$$ but just people sharing something interesting and useful; the ones which have no annoying intros or outros, "like share and subscribe" drivel, and are often not much more than raw unedited content. They still exist on YouTube.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.
This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API. Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equa…
There must be ways of injecting custom non static js because mv3 version of tampermonkey works https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgff...
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rec…
Those "default options" are precisely "intentionally leav[ing] users vulnerable to hostile ad tech" (e.g. PPA). It's built into the browser and on by default. Mozilla have very explicitly stated they believe ads are critical for the web. It is still better the chrome though (and a patch set like librewolf is better still).
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#438So theoretically Chrome is open source.
Open source is supposed to prevent issues like this, as it is possible to fork Chrome pre-MV3 and preserve this functionality.
However, this appears to have not happened.
Perhaps we need a better definition of “open source”, or well-funded organizations that are adversarial in nature to the maintainers of open source commercial software.
Lots of f/oss has malware and misfeatures in it, hiding behind the guise of “open source”. It doesn’t count unless there are non-corporate interests at work in the project that are willing and able to fork.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#439I 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…
The article is clearly not intended as an ad-blocking tutorial, it is an article about security research and API weirdness.
Sure, it inspires ad blocking meta-discussion, but if you're complaining that the author has a strategically suboptimal approach to blocking ads then you have missed the point.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users. I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more acc…
> Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. It's entirely possible to manually vet extension code and extension updates in the same way that Mozilla does as part of their Firefox recommended extensions program. > Firefox is committed to helping protect you against third-party software that may inadvertently compromise your data – or worse – breach your privacy with malicious intent.…
> It's entirely possible to manually vet extension code and extension updates
I thought the core vulnerability of Manifest v2 is the new code can be loaded by an extension on the fly without any extension update. How would you vet that?