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

451–460 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#451

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

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.

How? Seriously, I keep seeing this argument against using Firefox, but as a long time user I fail to see any glaring issues with it.

The only websites that break for me are those I broke on purpose by using ad-block.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#452

Post by Sunspark »

nfriedly wrote: post #300
galangalalgol wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.

Yep, you can run Firefox on every Mac released for the past couple of decades. (Maybe more?) Most of them also work with Linux, although it's a little more spotty on the more recent ARM-based ones ("apple silicon"). Macs are essentially "real computers" that you can run whatever software you want on, whereas iPhones and iPads are much more locked down. (Even when they have the same CPU.)

Yes, and the different browsers on iOS are all actually just skins on top of Safari's WebKit.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#453

Post by ndriscoll »

fud101 wrote: post #380
XorNot wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average user does not notice any of these things. Except the YouTube thing but that's because I'm not even sure what you're talking about: I leave YouTube windows open in Firefox for weeks.

Bro you probably have a monster mac pro with 256gb unified ram. I'm typing this on a N100 minipc. We're not the same. I just tried to switch to firefox (with 3 tabs including HN and youtube) and my load topped out at 2.5. I'm back to chrome now with the same tabs (and a couple more) and it's hovering at 1.

I've been using an n100 as my daily driver for months with librewolf and it's fine. I tend to end up with dozens of tabs at least before I finally decide I'll never sort through them and close the window.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#454

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

snowram wrote: post #426
fooker wrote: post #413

Earlier 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.

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.

> the number of website that ever gave me trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand

Also important is that they tend to be Google assets like Gmail.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#455

Post by rightbyte »

brookst wrote: post #273
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.

Consumers never really pick products for ideological reasons, no matter how galling that is to ideologues

You should block adds for practical reasons too though, not just for moral reasons.

I can't fathom how there are so many devs that don't use adblockers. It is so strange and when I look over their shoulders I get a shocking reminder how the web looks for them.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#456

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

ndriscoll wrote: post #437
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Mozilla can have this position (and probably have it due to most of their funding coming from an ad company), but can still hold the position that the user must remain in control and be able to remove ads if they wish, even if it goes against the beliefs of Mozilla. Meanwhile, Google is actively working to make it harder to block ads in Chrome and in general work on technology which take away users freedom to control how their own computers should behave.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#457

Post by mattigames »

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.

Hit then where it hurts would be political action, not individuals switching to Firefox, that does nothing.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#458

Post by ndriscoll »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #445
ndriscoll wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> Those "default options" are precisely "intentionally leav[ing] users vulnerable to hostile ad tech" (e.g. PPA). The difference between Firefox's 1x and Chromium's 100x + 100x is in the degree of harm visited upon the user. Finding harsh fault with former while giving the much more egregious example a pass -- this makes sense if one feels Firefox isn't abusive enough towards it's users.

Like I said chrome is worse, but both are made by ad companies who sell their users. I use and recommend librewolf as a better firefox.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#459

Post by leptons »

userbinator wrote: post #442
leptons wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because Microsoft got slapped on the wrist way back when. Google should get slapped too, and they might be headed that way... https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/nx-s1-5367750/google-breakup-... Safari is also pretty user-hostile, which is why Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for purposely hobbling Safari while forbidding any other browser engine on IOS. They did this so that developers are forced to write native app…

There's a huge difference between antitrust concerns, and mass surveillance and anti-user hostility. MS' business back then was to sell software, not monetise users.

You don't think Microsoft is doing mass surveillance? They own Outlook and Teams, and Windows 11 is quickly turning into a platform for training AI on your data. I doubt Edge is going to be much different. It's the reason I'm switching to Linux.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#460

Post by jklas2hjdsdk »

slig wrote: post #368
znpy wrote: post #181

Somebody 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.

Exactly... brave is the de facto choice for cryptobros. The copying of UBOs work is a nice addition too.
Post reply on HN