Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

helium.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#11

Post by vitally3643 »

willtemperley wrote: post #7

In the same sense that a blockchain can be forked by using software that only accepts certain types of block, is it possible to fork the WWW in a similar manner? e.g. with changes that neuter the ad-mongers. For example coming up with a way to get rid of these god awful cookies. Maybe ad-monger sites could be allowed in the same way an insecure connection is allowed behind a series of warnings?

The internet is literally just a pipe. There's no limitation binding us to HTTP. You can use any protocol you want over the internet, anything at all.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#12

Post by bjord »

gruez wrote: post #4
pogue wrote: post #3

How are they going to be adding uBlock Origin to Chromium going forward if manifest v2 gets completely deprecated/removed entirely?

AFAIK some of the other chromium forks (brave and/or edge?) were committed to backporting manifest v2 (or more specifically the webRequestBlocking API) for future chromium versions.

this is not correct. neither brave nor edge has committed to that.

as of yet, there's no (publicly stated) contingency plan if the upstream mv2 code is excised, but I could be mistaken.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#13

Post by willtemperley »

vitally3643 wrote: post #11
willtemperley wrote: post #7

In the same sense that a blockchain can be forked by using software that only accepts certain types of block, is it possible to fork the WWW in a similar manner? e.g. with changes that neuter the ad-mongers. For example coming up with a way to get rid of these god awful cookies. Maybe ad-monger sites could be allowed in the same way an insecure connection is allowed behind a series of warnings?

The internet is literally just a pipe. There's no limitation binding us to HTTP. You can use any protocol you want over the internet, anything at all.

Well quite. So why are we living in this surveillance hellscape?

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#14

Post by bastawhiz »

vitally3643 wrote: post #11
willtemperley wrote: post #7

In the same sense that a blockchain can be forked by using software that only accepts certain types of block, is it possible to fork the WWW in a similar manner? e.g. with changes that neuter the ad-mongers. For example coming up with a way to get rid of these god awful cookies. Maybe ad-monger sites could be allowed in the same way an insecure connection is allowed behind a series of warnings?

The internet is literally just a pipe. There's no limitation binding us to HTTP. You can use any protocol you want over the internet, anything at all.

Not sure I'd call it just a pipe, but maybe a series of tubes.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#17

Post by rpdillon »

bjord wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK some of the other chromium forks (brave and/or edge?) were committed to backporting manifest v2 (or more specifically the webRequestBlocking API) for future chromium versions.

this is not correct. neither brave nor edge has committed to that. as of yet, there's no (publicly stated) contingency plan if the upstream mv2 code is excised, but I could be mistaken.

Brave has integrated uBO directly into their core logic. Visit brave://settings/extensions/v2 and you can download it, even with no MV2 support. I'm not aware of any other browser adopting this approach.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#18

Post by eipi10_hn »

rpdillon wrote: post #17
bjord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not correct. neither brave nor edge has committed to that. as of yet, there's no (publicly stated) contingency plan if the upstream mv2 code is excised, but I could be mistaken.

Brave has integrated uBO directly into their core logic. Visit brave://settings/extensions/v2 and you can download it, even with no MV2 support. I'm not aware of any other browser adopting this approach.

They said until they can't afford to maintain it.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#19

Post by bjord »

rpdillon wrote: post #17
bjord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not correct. neither brave nor edge has committed to that. as of yet, there's no (publicly stated) contingency plan if the upstream mv2 code is excised, but I could be mistaken.

Brave has integrated uBO directly into their core logic. Visit brave://settings/extensions/v2 and you can download it, even with no MV2 support. I'm not aware of any other browser adopting this approach.

firefox 149+ actually bundles brave's adblock-rust as well, it just doesn't really use it. waterfox does enable it and use it, though they're still testing (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182).

all of that being said, I was answering the question about mv2 broadly, not ad blocking.

Re: Transparency efforts behind the Helium Browser

#20

Post by rpdillon »

eipi10_hn wrote: post #18
rpdillon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave has integrated uBO directly into their core logic. Visit brave://settings/extensions/v2 and you can download it, even with no MV2 support. I'm not aware of any other browser adopting this approach.

They said until they can't afford to maintain it.

The exact misimpression I was trying to counter.
Post reply on HN