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

Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 250 posts

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#141

Post by WirelessGigabit »

fbdab103 wrote: post #64
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #3

Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers. I suspect this will be good for Firefox.

It is truly unbelievable how bad it has become. Even informational articles might only have a paragraph of text between ads. Plus, the frequent animations/pop-unders/whatever. Everyone can decry the loss of the "small web" as much as they want, but the cram-ads-into-every-pixel dystopia means why should anyone bother? Even big brands are not immune to this behavior. At least if someone stays on the Instagram/Reddit/T…

Even the text on the web has gotten more and more drawn out.

So much more text to make it look like they have more content where 1 paragraph would've sufficed.

It's like my English teacher took over the web '3,000 words minimum'... except that doesn't count if you just don't have more to say.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#142

Post by SuperCuber »

linza wrote: post #72
nmilo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So switch then instead of just talking about it. It's not a big deal, it takes like 1 minute, and no one can seriously tell me you have a significantly different browser experience on Chrome vs FF.

It's very subjective, but I won't try switching again before certain things I value in Chrome are available or work similar well on Firefox. You can switch based on ideology alone but I want convenience more than that.

What things are you talking about? I haven't used chrome outside of work for years, so forgive my ignorance

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#143

Post by Vinnl »

insanitybit wrote: post #115

> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…

> I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact.

As I understand it, the APIs that are removed only remove the ability to modify network requests; the remaining APIs will still allow you to inspect requests.

(Disclosure: I work at Mozilla but not on extension APIs or even Firefox. I have written extensions myself though.)

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#145

Post by insanitybit »

Vinnl wrote: post #143
insanitybit wrote: post #115

> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…

> I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact. As I understand it, the APIs that are removed only remove the ability to modify network requests; the remai…

Ah, thank you. So the idea here is that extensions will still have the read access to requests, which is all attackers care about (typically). Confirmation would be interesting - at minimum I thought that inspecting requests (read only) Was being limited, but I'm just a casual observer.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#146

Post by snailmailman »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #102
stephc_int13 wrote: post #11

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a br…

This is sadly true

My grandmother uses the Google app to browse the web on her phone. Not Chrome. Not safari. the Google Search app.

Because every single time she does a search, google tells her to install the app.

And I have a few friends that either uninstalled Adblock. Or stopped watching YouTube on PC in response to this new Adblock crackdown. All of them use chrome.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#147

Post by THENATHE »

insanitybit wrote: post #136
jimbob45 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Google explained why the limit is so low? I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.

Well, I don't see how this would impact Google at all. Obviously as one of the biggest advertisers all of Google's advertising will fit within the limit and will be highly prioritized over others.

Yea, I would be okay with spending all 30k of those on just YouTube ads, and pihole for the rest. Google is the biggest advertiser, so logically their ads would go first or close to the top

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#148

Post by erichurkman »

insanitybit wrote: post #115

> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…

Is that 30,000 limit per extension, or global?

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#149

Post by timeagain »

Solvency wrote: post #144

Can anyone explain why there isn't a robust and thriving adblocking solution available at the router or OS level? Why are we all forced to grasp at the straws of the browser?

There is in the sense that there are robust black lists you can put in your `/etc/hosts` file, but that only blocks known senders of advertisements. But how can your OS know that this `div` is an ad and that one is content? Since the browser is the authority on what is rendered on a web page, it makes sense that it is the tool that should be utilized to block/hide rendered elements.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#150

Post by Forgeties79 »

Solvency wrote: post #144

Can anyone explain why there isn't a robust and thriving adblocking solution available at the router or OS level? Why are we all forced to grasp at the straws of the browser?

My guess is less variety on browsers than routers but no clue with OS’s.
Post reply on HN