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

uBlock Origin 1.20

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#101

Post by lotsofpulp »

Causality1 wrote: post #82
pmoriarty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bright side of Google's anti-ad-blocking efforts is that ad-blocking is clearly no longer just an insignificant blip on their radar. There must be enough users of ad-blockers now to start to significantly affect their bottom line. There might even be a critical mass of people who are against advertising to attempt to make some legal headway on this issue in Washington. Just as there has been legal action against…

They're more likely to outlaw adblocking than they are outlaw advertising. Frankly I fear we're nearing the end of a golden age, where those in the know have an incredibly easy time blocking ads with a simple extension while our content providers are funded by the ignorant tech commoners watching ads. I don't want a future where ads are baked right into the YouTube video stream and articles refuse to load until they…

The funding to produce the media people want to consume has to come from somewhere. If it’s not baked into the video stream, it will be baked into the video itself, aka product placement.

Watch any new movie or TV show, and it’s unbearable to see the videography just to catch a car logo or drink logo. Shame. There’s even been full on descriptions by the actors of a car’s features, basically a commercial within the dialogue of the media.

My solution is to stop consuming it, not that I consumed a lot to begin with, but there’s no other option.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#102

Post by elyobo »

izacus wrote: post #83
Marsymars wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of support is in the other direction - Safari doesn't support uBlock Origin anymore. The only way to block ads is with Apple's Content Blocking API, which is fundamentally not how uBlock Origin works.

Interesting, didn't know that - why wasn't there the same kind of outcry as for Chrome API changes?

I guess because Safari is relatively unimportant in terms of market share. Not totally unimportant, but not quite the same league.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#103

Post by elyobo »

ianlevesque wrote: post #90
izacus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, didn't know that - why wasn't there the same kind of outcry as for Chrome API changes?

Safari lets extensions precompile a list of patterns to block and then it does the actual blocking. The extension never sees your browsing history or network requests.

Sounds a lot like what Chrome is bringing in.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#104

Post by _v7gu »

worble wrote: post #99
scardine wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not forget WSL. I just got the WSL2 upgrade - it turns a Windows 10 desktop into a quite decent software developer workstation. Seriously guys, if the last time you used Windows was a few years ago it is time to give it a another shot.

If the WSL is the only reason windows is a decent development workstation, then why not just use Linux in the first place? What unique factor is Windows offering here?

Being able to run two OS'es at the same time seamlessly is pretty cool. Many programs I use are either Windows or Linux exclusive so it saves me a lot of time rebooting compared to double-booting.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#105

Post by _v7gu »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #19
taurath wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has every incentive to believe ads and user surveillance is not evil

Agreed. The problem with a mission statement like “do no evil” is that in today’s pluralistic world (especially in the west), there’s no generally agreed-upon definition of evil. Philosophically, defining “evil” requires defining “good” first, and a definition of “good” depends entirely on one’s notions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny — one’s worldview. In google’s case, it’s probably better business to sim…

> there’s no generally agreed-upon definition of evil.

Philosophically, yes. But moral relativity does not hold well due to the existence of culture. For western countries, no one can defend the morality of slavery or genocide. While those are pretty extreme, we have also collectively (democratically) decided that screwing over customers for your own profit is also not moral and should not be allowed. That's why antitrust law exists.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#106

Post by skovorodkin »

agumonkey wrote: post #100
nocture wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I send a small mental thanks to Raymond almost every day - his impact is stunning when you think of it

yeah, because of him, everytime I use ublock-less chrome on android I get angry, thanks a lot gorhill ! ;)

I suppose you know it, but Firefox on Android supports add-ons! It's amazing.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#107

Post by fwn »

de_watcher wrote: post #70
aluren wrote: post #54

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In…

Well, if something is distributed for free but developed by someone who doesn't work for free then it serves the interests of the one who is paying.

Yes, but in a good way.

AFAIK that's exactly why the primary developer of uBlock forked uBlock (from it's rough new owner) into uBlock Origin and chose not to seek donations.

...to not have any obligations regarding the community.

It's just that in this case, the owners intention to have a great content blocker does seem to align with the needs of many other users.

Keep in mind that it's a product, not a service and open source, so no lock-in. The project being rarely forked shows the satisfaction of its users.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#108

Post by gempir »

ehsankia wrote: post #66
aluren wrote: post #54

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In…

There are definitely a few OSS that don't get anymore as much love as they deserve. VLC and OBS are two example of programs that are so damn good, even paid alternatives hardly can compete.

OBS seems so insane to me. The devs do amazing work delivering a high quality product and creators make millions with their software.

I wish someone would campaign a bit for the devs and support the development of OBS with all that money made from streaming with OBS.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#109

Post by Yizahi »

paul7986 wrote: post #6

Just read Microsoft will allow ad blocker extensions (May build one in) in their new Chromium browser. Looks like I’m going to rewind 13 years and use IE again(IE of today). Such a stupid move by the do no evil company! Now they do no stupid too. EDIT: Here is link... https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/micr...

Yes, but only for as long as Google allows them to do it in their Chrome mod. Microsoft will keep away from centain Chrome features in Chromium as long as all they need to do is to turn them off. i.e. stay on the same trunk but without certain optional element. Key here is - optional elements. If Google will change something that will require to branch Chromium (and I mean really branch, with internal changes) to stay away from such changes, I highly doubt that MS will do it. They don't wan't or can't to maintain a separate different browser as they already shown with Edge.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#110

Post by Arbalest »

As much as Advertisers want to be able to use their own domains to be able thwart fake clicks, this approach leaves them open to ad blocking. At what point with the wish to deliver ads outweigh the want to measure user engagement? Once ads are slipstreamed, adblockers are going to have to get a lot more aggressive, more like antivirus scanning for code signatures.

Thanks to the team (and especially Ray) for keeping us free of performance bogging, malware delivering scripts.

Post reply on HN