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

Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#151

Post by yogthos »

Silhouette wrote: post #147
yogthos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fundamental difference between you owning your tools and somebody else loaning them to you. You can save some time in the short term. However once the company starts going in a direction that doesn't work for you, then you end up getting screwed. I've been burned enough times over the years that I'd much rather use open source tools whenever possible. The beauty of open source tools is that they're not driv…

However once the company starts going in a direction that doesn't work for you, then you end up getting screwed. That is true, but if the more free/open alternatives were never at the same starting point in the first place, you were probably screwed that way too. Neither option let you start in a good place and then move in a good direction, and this is the unfortunate reality I was commenting on above.

I think open source does let you move in a good direction though. I switched from a Mac to Manjaro Linux for my main desktop, and I haven't missed anything so far. Latest Gnome and KDE are both really nice desktops, there are apps for everything I need, and the OS is rock solid.

I've used Linux on the desktop previously and it left me wanting, so the fact that I haven't gone back tells me that things are indeed improving.

Meanwhile, OS X hasn't added a single feature I use since 10.6. All I've experienced over the years is that it kept getting more bloated, slower, and flakier.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#152

Post by yogthos »

Silhouette wrote: post #148
yogthos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the choice we each have to make for ourselves. Be a serf in corporate walled garden for short term convenience, or help build and improve the open ecosystem so it can catch up.

That's the choice we each have to make for ourselves. Yes it is, but the reality is that if almost everyone is making the other choice, we stand to lose a huge amount by not following the crowd. That's not a price that most people are willing to pay, which limits the interest in and contributions to the open alternatives, and thus the vicious circle is closed.

It's not about the total users you have or marketshare. The only thing that's important for open source is that there are enough users to keep it going. And that's certainly been the case for many years now. The fact that most people use something else doesn't affect me one bit vast majority of the time.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#153

Post by ngold »

justanother- wrote: post #115
hrktb wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s frightening is that most people agreed with his views, but weren’t willing to commit to them because of practicality. I of course am one of them. Decades later, I think we are still at a point where following his ideas come at a very steep price in performance and day to day usage. For instance any dev that touches an iOs app in any way or form (even if it’s just to run in on test devices) is better off with a…

If you are willing to try, microg mimics play store and apps will work without it. Happy user for ~2 years. https://lineage.microg.org/ Read faq.

Thanks for the heads up. Definitely checking it out.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#154

Post by Khaine »

cptskippy wrote: post #136
justanother- wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well quite frankly, I dont care what google does. I am doing if old school since forever, squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers, but is completly out of control of browser and ad blockers or OS vendor. Anyway there is firefox too, while for chrome, as everything from google, I can only say - I told you so (10 years bac…

To do a mitm with squid you have to setup a trusted root cert on all of your machines right?

Only if you want to MITM SSL connections. If you just want to do HTTP, you don't need a certificate.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#155

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #42
rajeshmr wrote: post #33

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

In my opinion its not really a conspiracy. People at Google are so far up their own ass that they don't understand the importance of content blockers. Personally I just can't deal with websites without ublock modifying them.

I don't think they are far up their ass. They don't give two shits on a popsicle what tech users think. They have an absolute monopoly on almost everything on the internet. Apps, ads, search, phones, browser. Where we gonna go if they kick us out?

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#156

Post by kretor »

tyingq wrote: post #79
jackewiehose wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages that users browse; a potentially huge privacy hole. I hate that argument if it's used to cripple the users ability to have full control of their own devices. It is NOT a privacy hole when you install software that has access to your data. If you don't want that, don't install that software. If you don't trust that software, don't install it.

Google isn't removing any ability to observe, log, and forward information about requests, in any way. So the privacy angle is pure bullshit. They are removing, among other things, the ability to dynamically cancel requests, and replacing it with a declarative API. That limits how well an adblocker can function.

When users try to install a Chrome extension, the browser is telling them what permissions it needs, e.g. the capability to read browsing traffic. So you could just decline the installation and install a different ad blocker that works without that permission.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#157

Post by amanaplanacanal »

andreigheorghe wrote: post #112
kerng wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that the majority is Windows is a bit unexpected to me. Really shows how powerful and omnipresent Windows actually still is - something that is often forgotten when living in certain tech bubbles. Linux with 11% is quite high, I like that. What seems lower then expected are the Mac numbers to me. Thanks for sharing.

The linked article, and its footnote quoted above, are from 2005.

Yes, I would expect unix/linux to be the majority now, since that is what people are running on their phones.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#158

Post by cptskippy »

Khaine wrote: post #154
cptskippy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do a mitm with squid you have to setup a trusted root cert on all of your machines right?

Only if you want to MITM SSL connections. If you just want to do HTTP, you don't need a certificate.

I can't imagine Ads are served up primarily via HTTP, especially with the push to HTTPS everywhere.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#159

Post by kirion25 »

XorNot wrote: post #71

Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox.

You seem to have forgotten the extremely agressive marketing from Google. At some point, practically all major free software was bundled with Chrome, which installed by default. It was almost similar to malware in its persistence, and adopted many dark patterns just for the opportunity to get on your PC.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#160

Post by londons_explore »

xkapastel wrote: post #78

Google did NOT backtrack on ANYTHING. From the new thread: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still n…

> There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this

Citation needed. My personal experiments show that blocking webrequest has more latency than the network connection!

Post reply on HN