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

201–210 of 779 posts

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

#201

Post by boterock »

scrollaway wrote: post #97
abtinf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current title ("Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin") is more reflective of linked comment. The essential quote from the linked comment is this: "If this ...[change to chromium is implemented]... [it] essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist." "can no longer exist" is much closer to "disable" t…

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…

I don't think companies should ever get the benefit of the doubt. If they are doing something people think it's bad, they are bad until they have their defense. That's why big companies have PR people. People may have the benefit, but companies shouldn't.

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

#202

Post by stiGGG »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #86
devoply wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It fast. That most important thing.

Firefox on Windows is no slower as far as I can tell, and renders fonts better. Firefox on Mac is noticeably slower.

In my experience Firefox on Mac got a good amount faster in the last year.

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

#203

Post by Hippocrates »

sridca wrote: post #159
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'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.

People who feel that they have “nothing to hide” don’t quite understand the extent to which they’re being mined for personal data. Google offers all of this amazingly polished software for free so naive people like you will feed them your browsing history, email, location and search queries. They will then monetize that data by targeting ads to you, which generates over 80% of their revenue.

If you are ok with that and still think you have nothing to hide, ask yourself if you’d be ok with this trove of data ever being exposed publicly.

Ever googled something embarrassing? Perhaps a medical condition or symptom? Sent a very personal email? Visited a less than savory location, or lied to an employer about your whereabouts?

I’d be willing to bet most people have some data that could be weaponized for blackmail.

Surely many people (especially the ignorant) will find Google’s products and services “worth using” but privacy concerns are anything but overblown.

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

#204

Post by bytematic »

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.

The great dev tools and overall design is pleasing.

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

#205

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#206

Post by the8472 »

beezischillin wrote: post #164
novaRom wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't but I'll give it a shot, thank you!

If you want to try their experimental GPU rendering (webrender) you can enable it via about:config -> gfx.webrender.all = true

It works well on windows, I don't know how far the mac support is.

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

#207

Post by arkh »

sridca wrote: post #159
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'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.

> I have got nothing to hide

So if you don't mind would you share some nudes, your CC numbers and your medical history with us?

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

#209

Post by mrieck »

foob wrote: post #115
swypych wrote: post #37

You can read the spec here "In Manifest V3, we want activeTab-style host permissions to be the default, with a number of extra options. Instead of being granted access to all URLs on installation, extensions will be unable to request , and instead the user can choose to invoke the extension on certain websites, like they would with activeTab. Additional settings will be available to the user post-installation, to all…

Yikes! I'm one of the maintainers of the Remote Browser open source project [1]. It's a cross-browser compatible automation framework which heavily leverages the power of vanilla JavaScript and the Web Extensions API to offer features comparable to those of Selenium (without the legacy cruft). Removing the ability for extensions to interact with arbitrary pages would effectively break Remote Browser's compatibility w…

I made an extension called the "Productivity Owl." It only has 10k users, but the owl would definitely be dead with this change.

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

#210

Post by tracker1 »

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.

frankly, I love the UX and developer tools in Chrome more than FF... however, this would have me jumping back to FF as my daily driver.
Post reply on HN