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

511–520 of 648 posts

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

#511

Post by p0w3n3d »

doginasuit wrote: post #343
Night_Thastus wrote: post #25

I know Firefox's share of browser share has dwindled to almost nothing. I know sooner or later, well within my lifetime, it will be gone. But I will keep using it until they pry it from my hands. And if they do, I'll use forks until those break down too. I can't stand Google, or what Chrome has become. No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information.

> I know Firefox's share of browser share has dwindled to almost nothing. I know sooner or later, well within my lifetime, it will be gone. Market share appears to be hovering around 4%, which sounds small but that is still a massive amount of people, over 200 million users. It is even more impressive considering it doesn't have an OS with a large market share feeding it users, people overwhelmingly just use what is…

> it doesn't have an OS with a large market share feeding it users

Remember when Microsoft was sued for having installed one browser in their OS and making it default?

Now suddenly we're okay with another company installing another browser in their OS

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

#512

Post by _carbyau_ »

WarmWash wrote: post #411
_carbyau_ wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just Google, the Internet stops existing. Uh? No? The internet existed before being overrun by corporate presence. It still does. Advertising pays a lot, but take the ad money away and let it scale accordingly.

The worst thing about the modern internet is people's innate expectation that others will work/pay to entertain or inform them for free. What existed in 1993 was a cultural blip, it's never coming back, so let it go.

> What existed in 1993 was a cultural blip, it's never coming back, so let it go.

Ha! I am under no illusion it is coming back. But even though it flows like the unstoppable tides, ad money is not a requirement.

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

#513

Post by daleswanson »

qudat wrote: post #464
cisc wrote: post #60

The solution is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin always worked best in Firefox anyway: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

Or just run pihole or any other dns blocking service

DNS blocking just isn't as good as a browser extension, because it can only block based on domain names. Pihole helps block ads on non-browser apps, but a real ad blocker extension in a browser is much better. I run pihole on my network, but I still run uBlock Origin on Firefox.

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

#514

Post by somat »

tentacleuno wrote: post #15
Henchman21 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Reintroducing pen and paper to your note-taking repertoire might not be such a bad idea, anyway -- it's a much more creative medium than most digital, textual forms.

A similar life hack is the next time you have to give a presentation, you know, what is normally a brain numbing powerpoint slide deck sort of thing, rehearse and do the slides live on a chalkboard. The novelty of the spectacle means people will actually pay attention. Whiteboards are ok but really lack that visceral staccato punctuation that a chalkboard brings to the table.

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

#515

Post by izacus »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #211
izacus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://www.ghacks.net/2012/02/26/avast-7-will-install-googl... https://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pa... https://community.adobe.com/questions-638/adobe-flash-instal... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission https://www.findmysoft.com/news/google-gets-pushy-with-chrom... Etc. This stuff was very real and is a ten second search away, maybe try that before accusing parent of having a…

Just because they advertised the browser, it didn't mean it wasn't actually better no matter how much you hate that fact.

It's really disgusting to see such misinformation spread because you hate what actually happened.

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

#516

Post by izacus »

kej wrote: post #230
izacus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Both things can be true. Chrome was generally faster [1], and also some of Google's growth tactics were shady [2]. [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/528214/browser_speed_compari... [2] https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/google-chrome-bund...

Advertising a browser is now "shady"?

And yes, both things can be true which is why lying about one of them is wrong.

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

#517

Post by izacus »

kome wrote: post #243
izacus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Rewriting history? Google used the most scummy techniques to get Chrome installed, mostly bundled with completely unrelated things.

None of my machines or most other machines used those tactics to install it. We installed it because it was heck of a faster browser in times when others sucked.

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

#519

Post by abustamam »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #449
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just the networks (although preferably also the networks) but also the publishers. If a newspaper took money to advertise blatant, obvious scams, I assume a judge would consider them at least partially responsible for restitution, if not an accessory to the crime. Looking away really hard (and delegating the task of looking away really hard) shouldn't get you out of this. Hold the publisher responsible, they can…

Given the colour of the text, I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with this: > If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it. If they don't want to take responsibility then they should guarantee that the responsible party have provided valid credentials that can result in their being held responsible. That would clear up the quagmire that is internet advertising pretty darn quick.

I am working on a hobby project to help me manage my Toastmasters clubs and Id love to get it into more hands because its genuinely helpful but more hands means more maintenance and opération costs. I asked Claude if I could charge for it and it basically said that as long as its a hobby project Im safe but once I start charging, then the Toastmasters organization could sue me or issue a cease and desist for using their IP to make money without permission, which makes sense. It did advise me to talk to a lawyer which I haven't done, but assuming it's right, then financial incentives causing other parties "harm" (for some definition of the word) are illegal.

In other words, I think the law wants what you and OP said to be true, but seems like it doesn't apply once you get big enough. Anecdotally, Amazon and Walmart and other big retailers seem to not be held responsible when they sell goods that dont work as advertised or even actively harm people.

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

#520

Post by dingaling »

forgotaccount3 wrote: post #355
zx8080 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information. Cloudflare with their "checking if the site connection is secure" (while being MITM) is another example.

To a degree, sure, but is it really 'MITM' if the site you are trying to visit has chosen to add cloudflare into the middle? You may as well say all load-balancers are MITM because you might connect to a different host on each attempt and there's a man in the middle influencing your connection. What makes it any different if the website executed the same logic cloudflare is on their own box?

"What makes it any different if the website executed the same logic cloudflare is on their own box?"

Without Cloudflare it's highly unlikely that 20% of websites _would_ implement the same logic.

Post reply on HN