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

Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

webiterate.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 648 posts

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#421

Post by hackernud3s »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #349
hackernud3s wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If they're falling for things that they didn't used to fall for, that's sounds more like dementia than age.

Or maybe there are more things using the same tactics / scammer's reach keeps increasing. My parents "fell" for fundamentalism early (as kids - raised in it), for televangelists in their 40s, and Fox News in their 70s/80s. Fox News so recently only because they didn't get it very often until about 10 years ago when they moved into a retirement home (didn't have cable before that).

Right that's why I qualified that with "things they didn't used to fall for".

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#422

Post by WarmWash »

PokeyCat wrote: post #415
arcanemachiner wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this scam work? Why would someone pose as a locksmith specifically?

I've had this happen to me personally on vacation - we were locked out of our rental car, asked a person at the nearby place to call a locksmith to get me back in, and they didn't quote price over the phone. When they got there, they popped the lock and then wanted $200, cash only so you couldn't chargeback, which I learned after the fact is completely outrageous for that service. They had a lot of fake Google review…

$200 for an emergency specialty service is shockingly...fair?

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#424

Post by what »

mikestew wrote: post #385
electriclove wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, maybe we can try going after the scammers.. but we can’t even stop scam callers and junk mail

You can stop junk mail for $8: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47619939 Sorry, no solution for spam calls/texts.

Sadly does not apply to political organizations, which is probably the largest source of spam “mail” (to mention nothing of text/sms spam). The amount of crap stuffed into my mailbox every election season is insane.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#426

Post by glenstein »

wtallis wrote: post #406
glenstein wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They moved over to a new extension platform for legitimate development reasons. I agree there was pain but it wasn't a self interested flexing of power to remove ad blocking extensions.

Having what you consider to be a good excuse doesn't mean it didn't happen. Multiple times.

The "excuse" is a distinction between different types of motivating factors and consequences which has everything to do with the relative merits of those two examples.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#427

Post by WarmWash »

mrd3v0 wrote: post #5

One Google doom over, another to go: https://keepandroidopen.org/

Blame the brain damaged judge that literally told Google

"The Apple app store is not a monopoly because Apple has no competitors on their platform."

Google is just doing what they need to do to stop being a monopoly....by becoming a monopoly, because of a ruling that the internet actually celebrated. Which we can trace back to Epic not being happy that sideloading on Android wasn't perfectly frictionless.

(Note: Epic also sued Apple, but lost, because the Apple app store is not a monopoly.)

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#428

Post by what »

PokeyCat wrote: post #415
arcanemachiner wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this scam work? Why would someone pose as a locksmith specifically?

I've had this happen to me personally on vacation - we were locked out of our rental car, asked a person at the nearby place to call a locksmith to get me back in, and they didn't quote price over the phone. When they got there, they popped the lock and then wanted $200, cash only so you couldn't chargeback, which I learned after the fact is completely outrageous for that service. They had a lot of fake Google review…

The person charging you more than you think is reasonable in hindsight doesn’t make it a scam? It also doesn’t mean you can do a chargeback?

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#429

Post by WarmWash »

Henchman21 wrote: post #8
abroszka33 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AND try to not use Google, Facebook, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Oracle and other similar products made by asshole companies.

Honestly, at what point do we just throw our kit in the trash and go back to pen & paper?

Never, because you have to pay for pen an paper, and the most reliable way to determine what the internet will favor is simply "Does it cost money or show me ads". That is literally as deep as the internets interest goes.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#430

Post by zamadatix »

taviso wrote: post #356
zamadatix wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... has a few of the more practical concrete examples. Namely content can load without the blocker being ready to filter, CNAME cloaking can't be handled properly (in Chrom* at least), and the filter rules aren't as flexible. Interestingly, the rule count limits themselves do not (currently) seem to be much an issue despite it being one of the more common co…

> content can load without the blocker being ready to filter This isn't an MV3 issue, it's a Chromium design decision that extensions cannot block browser initialization. It was also true with MV2. In fact, MV3 has improved the situation because DNR rules are enforced immediately. You could certainly argue that Chrome should allow extensions to block browser initialization, or that it should be user configurable - bu…

Any MV3 issue could probably be summed up as "MV3 isn't so bad, just the implementation in Chrome" where Chrome defines MV3 (as it's not a W3C standard) and ships it as such.

That said,

> Chromium design decision that extensions cannot block browser initialization

It's not "browser initialization" that was blocked, it was blocking network requests for pages until they were processed by all components in the chain. Notably, this could never apply applied to the browser or its internal pages itself.

> It was also true with MV2.

With MV2 you used the blocking version of https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/w... which no longer works with MV3 extensions in Chrome and then the request had to wait until it was given to and processed by the blocker.

Firefox is a great example about all of the above points: MV3 still supports blockingWebRequest there, so it gets the best of both worlds.

> did you know that you can change your User-Agent with uBO lite?

With MV2 you'd use blocking webRequest and chrome.webRequest.onBeforeSendHenders. I'm not sure uBO ever bothered with this before uBO Lite, but it's a bit of a double standard to say "MV2 didn't offer blocking requests, that was a different API which happ

Post reply on HN