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

AdFlush

dl.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: AdFlush

#101

Post by Gud »

bityard wrote: post #52
Gud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

I don't know what you mean. They are already blocking adblock users on YouTube and there is certainly no exodus happening there. A few people complain about it and get a handful of upvotes on social media from their friends, but it hasn't even come close to rising to "backlash" status.

Are they? I block ads on YouTube and I’m still allowed watch videos.

I suspect they have silently stopped blocking ad blockers.

I remember there was a lot of reports about this being the case, but there is no way I am not blocking Google.

Re: AdFlush

#102

Post by tomjen3 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #72
avmich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't control the browser, user does.

Firefox has 2.9%. Safari has 18.12%. Everything else is Chrome or reskinned Chrome, with Chrome itself being 65.3%. Unless you’re running that 20%, Google controls it, and they basically write the standards anymore.

And if addblocking doesn't work on Chrome, Firefox usage will go up.

Re: AdFlush

#103

Post by kmlx »

hathawsh wrote: post #92
kmlx wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my task was to rectify an issue in one of these crowd sourced lists of ad servers. they were blocking a whole domain instead of blocking the ad-serving subdomain. the issue was rectified, the main domain was replaced by the ad-serving subdomain.

Still, as pbhjpbhj suggested, if I were publishing both content and ads, I would consider publishing the ads on a different domain (not just a subdomain) to reduce technical issues. Domains with ugly names are very cheap.

of course, and this is a valid proposal. but that was outside the remit.

Re: AdFlush

#104

Post by dbsmith83 »

shpx wrote: post #82
babypuncher wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real easy problem to solve by just switching back to Firefox

The first thing you see when you open Firefox is an ad for Amazon and Expedia.

I don't. Are you talking about 'sponsored shortcuts'? You can turn those off in the settings. It's on the first page you see when you hit the settings button in the top right

Re: AdFlush

#105

Post by HWR_14 »

zx8080 wrote: post #98
GioM wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet. Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules…

How complex is to revert changes to manifest to bring supporting v2 back to Chromium? Or is it intentionally made super complex by Google?

Microsoft decided it was prohibitive for them. So probably overly difficult.

Re: AdFlush

#106

Post by CatWChainsaw »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #68

Always a joy to see efforts in the ongoing battle against advertisements. There are few things I feel radical about, and Ads are one of them. I believe they are a drain in several ways: They waste computational resources and electricity on both ends. They compromise the visual design and layout of webpages. They distract and take mental energy away from the user. They make the internet (and anywhere ads exist) more "…

Careful, apparently not wanting your mind polluted with psychological manipulation makes you a filthy communist..

Re: AdFlush

#107

Post by CatWChainsaw »

rustcleaner wrote: post #61
inversetelecine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter. Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.

Do you remember IE exodus to Firefox pre-2010? Yeah Google better watch its hyperback.

They learned from Microsoft's mistake and most browsers run off the Chromium while they have Firefox by the balls with their default search engine deal. Not to mention Firefox is hellbent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Re: AdFlush

#108

Post by jgalt212 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #96
GioM wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet. Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules…

If Manifest v3 is really this bad then it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. It should also not affect browsers with built-in adblocking like Brave and Vivaldi.

> it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser.

I like this. or possibly the COM API. but I'm not a Windows expert.

Re: AdFlush

#109

Post by xnx »

nolist_policy wrote: post #67
GioM wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet. Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules…

Chrome allows at least 30000 static rules + 30000 dynamic rules[1]. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...

10x more https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi...

"Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."

Re: AdFlush

#110

Post by efdee »

ladzoppelin wrote: post #48
4ggr0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that's why uBO Lite exists :) I started using it a couple of months ago instead of Ublock Origin, and still haven't seen any ads since. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home

I think eventually there is nothing that can stop certain adds on Chrome once specific API's are removed, even using manifest 3. Maybe someone could chime in on this as its really confusing now since Google keeps pushing back the date to remove manifest 2. (This might be outdated info)

And that will be the day Chrome dies.
Post reply on HN