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

151–160 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#151

Post by MrGilbert »

newman8r wrote: post #137
stevekemp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There must be enough users of ad-blockers now to start to significantly affect their bottom line. I host a bunch of websites, and about five years ago I stuck adsense adverts on them. Due to the decent traffic I was earning about £80/month and that was stable for 3-4 years. This year, and last year, I instead earned about £100/year, despite having much more traffic/visitors, and more "aged content". When I get a ch…

You can always do a direct ad deal if it's the right niche. Better privacy for your users and it's impossible to block.

> [...] and it's impossible to block.

That's not entirely true. Troy Hunt had (and still has) that[1], and his banner got added to EasyList none the less.

[1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#152

Post by cwtpk »

elcomet wrote: post #128
axylw wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPC-HC and mpv are much better than VLC.

I'm not sure they are comparable. One force of VLC is that it litteraly runs everywhere . MPC-HC only works on windows, so it's not comparable. mpv has also a lot of target platforms, but not as much as VLC. It's really nice though, and I think a bit of competition is good.

VLC runs everywhere, but do you really need something that runs everywhere literally? Is this like the old hat trick of running Doom on your fridge? I'm content using mpc-hc on Windows and mpv on Linux/Mac. What else is there?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#153

Post by uponcoffee »

Arbalest wrote: post #110

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 u…

> At what point with the wish to deliver ads outweigh the want to measure user engagement?

It could be argued that self selection from advertisements makes ad campaigns more cost effect per impression/click. If a person wants to block ads they might be less influenced/willing to purposefully click on adverts.

The other end of the stick is that website owners cant be trusted to self report metrics which influence payout.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#154

Post by icebraining »

_mghw wrote: post #125
Arbalest wrote: post #110

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 u…

That wouldn't be the worst future though. In my head, once the adverts are being hosted on the website domain, there'd be a lot more incentive to a) NOT deliver malware, and b) NOT have those wearisome video/sound/flashing/js-heavy adverts.

Why? It's not like the user can distinguish the two, so in term of giving a bad image, it's essentially the same.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#155

Post by rusk »

vimslayer wrote: post #120
TeMPOraL wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always: I would download a car if I could :).

Fun fact: the line of the ad was twisted by internet people for meming purposes. The actual line is "You wouldn't steal a car".

I always thought a good answer to this was "well I'd think about copying a car if I could..."

How sweet would that be? Friend gets a car, I make a copy of it at zero cost!

I guess the standard answer to that would be "but you're depriving the manufacturer of money to cover the costs of providing the car in the first place"

Which is reasonable, but I'd have to question their business model if their manufacturing costs are so high and yet I can copy it for free ...

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#156

Post by mehrdadn »

feanaro wrote: post #94
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.

Isn't the surveillance/telemetry problem still as much of a problem as it was on day zero? As far as I know, it hasn't been removed nor lessened. As far as I remember, it is absolutely overreaching, collecting your name, email address, browsing history, searches, application usage and more. Microsoft also keeps a copy of your full-disk encryption key. " rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-boug…

> As far as I know, it hasn't been removed nor lessened.

IIRC they lessened it by some ε > 0 in 1803. [1]

> As far as I remember, it is absolutely overreaching, collecting your name, email address, browsing history, searches, application usage and more.

Some of these seem more alarming than others. Where are each of these pulled from? If you have a Microsoft account they already have your name and address. Most people use Chrome and I assume Windows isn't sending that info to Microsoft (although this does make me worry for those who use IE/Edge). Searches and application usage I haven't heard explicitly but those would worry me more.

> Microsoft also keeps a copy of your full-disk encryption key.

Wasn't this only when you had a Microsoft account or something? We can debate how they shove MSAs down users' throat (I want to punch my computer when they do that too), but as far as the FDE key is concerned, I feel like those who don't want this also wouldn't want to use a Microsoft account for their logins to begin with?

[1] https://windowsreport.com/windows-10-v1803-privacy/

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#157

Post by jefftk »

Arbalest wrote: post #110

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 u…

> Once ads are slipstreamed, adblockers are going to have to get a lot more aggressive, more like antivirus scanning for code signatures.

Adblockers also do CSS blocking. Look at how uBlock origin blocks the (included in the page HTML) ads on google.com.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#158

Post by rusk »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #101
Causality1 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

You know it's funny, I was watching horrible bosses last night, and was thinking just this. Some fairly blatant product placement for a major car manufacturer.

It didn't spoil the movie though, and in fact the bare-facedness of it even added some humour (-:

I don't think product placement is soooo bad. It's up to you if you're making a movie to make it fit. If you don't it detracts from the quality of your movie which to me seems a good enough motivator to get it right.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#159

Post by fanttazio »

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…

Maybe a good start could be sponsoring the maintainer since GitHub added the feature?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#160

Post by xrisk »

rvnx wrote: post #142
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…

"for free". There are at least two revenue sources on uBlock Origin... The software is free-to-use yes, but it doesn't mean that gorhill won't put money in his pockets.

What are these revenue sources?
Post reply on HN