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

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 779 posts

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#151

Post by wongarsu »

QML wrote: post #94
metalliqaz wrote: post #4

Another reason to be glad that Firefox is still standing.

Someone correct me, but can’t ad blockers just be installed through the OS and not be dependent on the browser? I recall this is what I had to do for Safari since there wasn’t a supported extension for the new browser yet. This would lessen our dependency on a browser for ad blocking in this ongoing browser war.

You can block the network calls to ad networks on the OS level by intercepting the DNS requests. That's a lot cruder and less flexible than the fine grained control over the DOM provided by a browser-based ad blocker though. If DNS level ad blockers became prevalent websites would also move to circumvent them, which would be a lot easier than with browser-based ad blockers.

It's better to just not let a browser that's user hostile enough to prevent ad blocking win a browser war.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#152

Post by dbg31415 »

Annoying, but just block at DNS or host level.

* Pi-hole®: A black hole for Internet advertisements – curl -sSL https://install.pi-hole.net | bash || https://pi-hole.net/

* GitHub - StevenBlack/hosts: Extending and consolidating hosts files from several well-curated sources like adaway.org, mvps.org, malwaredomainlist.com, someonewhocares.org, and potentially others. You can optionally invoke extensions to block additional sites by category. || https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

Someone will make money selling an ad blocker device that's just a configured Raspberry Pi with a consumer-friendly way to install it on a home network.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#154

Post by kowbell »

Memosyne wrote: post #96
sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

I use Chromium on linux because Firefox doesn't have touch-screen support and smooth-scrolling feels a little rough. I wont hesitate to switch over if these changes are made though.

I've had great success getting touchscreen scrolling to work with https://superuser.com/a/1155441 (Surface Pro 3 running KDE Plasma)

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#155

Post by scrollaway »

abtinf wrote: post #130
scrollaway wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is I see a ton of people in the comments assuming this is a change made with the intent of disabling/breaking ublock. Clearly it's not, and it will affect more extensions than just that. We should demand a LOT more evidence before claiming that Google intends to break adblockers before accusing them of that. If they are doing that, I want to be the first one raging against them, and I don't feel comfortab…

> Clearly it's not What is your basis for this claim? I am not an expert on this topic, but Gorhill is and has a demonstrated history of technical/privacy judgement. Gorhill's comment makes it clear that impacting the functionality of blockers is an intentional change, as the proposal not only removes previous functionality, but also enshrines one particular and limited approach to blocking. Edit: I would also note t…

I've explained the logic in the post you're replying to. I'll rephrase it:

There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. We should demand such evidence before implying that this is the intended outcome.

If such is the goal, have at it with the headlines. They write themselves. "Advertising Giant Google Forcefully Breaks Ad-blockers in Chrome Update".

But until the evidence is there, we should be responsible about this.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#156

Post by jchw »

metalliqaz wrote: post #65
jchw wrote: post #17

Ouch, I understand why they want to not have a blocking webRequest API but I consider uBlock Origin to be a must-have extension. Hopefully this is relaxed somehow. I personally still use Firefox at home despite recent issues, but I honestly would prefer having both as an option, plus I always recommend uBlock Origin to everyone. (Disclaimer: I work at Google but not on Chrome, opinions are mine and not my employer's.…

Have there been recent issues? I've been using Firefox consistently for years and lately it seems better than usual.

My main concern is the questionable use of Studies and other experimental paths to test things like advertising in Firefox. I don't like this. I would prefer my browser to be more neutral.

Of course I can disable it if I want. But, I wish I could simply trust my browser vendor to do the right thing.

The browser itself seems solid, I've been happy since Quantum and look forward to seeing WebRender rollout.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#157

Post by amatecha »

The comment author provides these notable examples which would no longer be possible:

> the blocking of media element which are larger than a set size, the disabling of JavaScript execution through the injection of CSP directives, the removal of outgoing Cookie headers, etc.

Seems like pretty fundamental stuff for any user-side content filtering, especially for the use of bandwidth and privacy considerations, ad-blocking aside.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#158

Post by novaRom »

beezischillin wrote: post #111
devoply wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It fast. That most important thing.

Yeah, even with all the speed increases from the rewrite, Firefox still feels awkward and slow at times when compared to Safari and Chrome. Every time I decide to try and switch over from Safari, I get pages where scroll performance is a lot slower than what I'm used to and then I get bothered by it and switch back. It annoys me because I really want to use it. I'm very happy that we have it and I hope that the wider…

This is strange, because Firefox is much faster than Safari for me. Have you tried Firefox Nightly?

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#159

Post by sridca »

sixothree wrote: post #33
metalliqaz wrote: post #4

Another reason to be glad that Firefox is still standing.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

I'm invested in the Google ecosystem, and have recently got myself a Pixel Slate that I carry everywhere as my primary computing/ media device (no more separate laptop and tablet). It would now be silly of me to use Firefox in place of Chrome. Moreover I have got nothing to hide, so all these privacy-fears don't concern me; in fact I often feel like they are being overblown.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#160

Post by engineeringwoke »

dragonwriter wrote: post #114

The design doc — the part quoted in the note linked here even — explicitly notes that it will probably be required to retain some degree of the existing functionality slated for eventually removal until the new API and other replacements cover all use cases; the response linked here appears to (not improperly, in the context of making a case for why much of the functionality is needed) ignoring that and treating the…

I think most of the meaning here isn't found in a design document
Post reply on HN