Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

491–500 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#491

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.

like most solutions to complex societal/economic issues:

it’s almost certainly going to take both of your ideas, more diversity in the browser space and political actions. and then other actions as well.

the collective We have fallen into a trap where we consistently talk down other important ideas because we think ours is important too (and it is.) i definitely catch myself doing this far too often.

i just hope We can get back to a place where We recognize that different ideas from our own are also important and will need to be used in our effort to solve some of our issues. because so many of these cracks we’re facing will require many many many levers being pushed and pulled, not one magic silver bullet.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hi, I appreciate your opinion, but really disagree. First of all, this is one bug, and most of the ones I find don't "act against user's interests" (not that this one could have been used effectively without being patched anyway). Doing bug finding is how I make a difference and a skill I feel proud of. I USED to keep bugs (read: exploits) for myself without sharing them, but after a while I realized it was not worth…

Yes, this is a mature way of looking at things.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#494
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…

Another advantage of this approach is that collectively it applies pressure against such toxic business models. This pressure can have an outsized impact for the number of people that do it because it skews towards technical people who will naturally influence their area of expertise more than the same number of lay users.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Long time user of FF on Linux. Primary email is on Gmail and I've never had any trouble. Is there some particular feature that doesn't work?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#496
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Also important is that they tend to be Google assets like Gmail. Long time user of FF on Linux. Primary email is on Gmail and I've never had any trouble. Is there some particular feature that doesn't work?

It loads much slower, sometimes I even get a progress bar for a small blip.

I don't blame that on Fx, though, more Google doing something wonky just to show me a list of emails.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#497
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…

Firefox still doesn't work.

1 - Google Meet consumes 40%-100% of my CPU on Firefox, and my laptop becomes a space heater

2 - My Yubikeys don't work. Touching them doesn't get into any of the websites I use that use 2FA.

So, no Firefox.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#498
post #283
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit. I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot…

> super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? It's a feature I use, a user-facing setting, not an under-the-hood technicality. (Budding web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance and being interested in the actual text on the webpage was not their job description) I'…

> web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance

Mac's have this font thing where it basically makes font's have a heavier weight. This is the result of that.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 using opt_webViewInstanceId actually had WebView permissions. For the report, I netted a massive reward of $0. They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. The ef…

It was never going to last long enough anyways, being sure to get patched as soon as any adblocker uses it. It's however still interesting in the sense that it might be fairly trivial to change, so chances are the next adblockers are going to ship executable that wrap chrome, modifying something like that at launch, allowing their extension to make use of it. Obviously Google is going to hate it when random popular e…

Meanwhile, mobile Safari literally has a menu item to allow you to use Firefox for ad blocking.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" .... Because that's what it means to be a hacker. Yes, installing Firefox is simpler (and I'm a Firefox user) but I respect the effort to overcome Google's measures in disallowing certain addons.

> 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 using opt_webViewInstanceId actually had WebView permissions. For the report, I netted a massive reward of $0. They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. The ef…

The blog post shows clear effort that falls under the "hacker" umbrella. That I respect.

The author informing google of the exploit was not the complaint of the parent comment which I took issue with.

Post reply on HN