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

Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 347 posts

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#211

Post by vr46 »

QuiEgo wrote: post #206

I find this whole thing frustrating. Chrome is going full on user hostile. But, most people use it, so webpages "just work." It's also reasonably good on battery use and memory (as of late 2024 - it's come a long way). Safari is resource efficient but has very few browser extensions, and sometimes webpages just don't work correctly with it. Firefox has uBlock but has noticeably worse battery life, and does not honor…

Ad-blocking, etc, are too important to me personally to delegate to just an extension, hence I use NextDNS, but naturally it can’t manipulate the DOM to tidy up the page.

Luckily I have long-preferred Firefox but I recognize that it’s not for everyone, or hardly anyone for that matter.

Maybe a local pi-hole would do the job properly.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#212

Post by viraptor »

viraptor wrote: post #187
Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if you want the same fate in about a year

Have you got any source for that?

Just in case: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manif...

> Support for Event pages, along with support for blocking webRequest, is a divergence from Chrome that enables use cases that are not covered by Chrome’s MV3 implementation.

> Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#213

Post by southernplaces7 »

olliej wrote: post #172
SnowingXIV wrote: post #95

There has to be google engineers here. Does this just fall on deaf ears? I realize it’s a massive corp but imagine high ranking staff have a say and input. Maybe they don’t and Sundar isn’t worried about that. Or they do a simple cost analysis and short-term they see the benefit and are willing to to risk long term erosion that maybe be minimal. Weird returning to Firefox, but I did and there is nothing in chrome I m…

So there are multiple factors here - I used to work on browsers so have some experience here :D First off, there are legitimate security concerns with the kind of functionality required for effective ad blocking given the immense work the ad industry (i.e google) have put into preventing purely static filters is also very powerful for exploitation. Those powers can (and have been) abused: the recent news about "Honey…

Hard disagree. I've been using ublock across the board with Chrome and with absolutely no problems with malicious nonsense or even performance. These are real risks in a general sense, to be sure, but many extensions are run well enough to be relatively safe.

In any case, if such were Google's logic, they'd do more, or other things to mitigate said threats, which can also be extrapolated to any number of other widely used and permitted extensions, not conveniently remove a specific, well-run and widely trusted extension that conspicuously works at removing the firehose of utter garbage that they push at you through various parts of their platforms and on YouTube.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#214

Post by x0x0 »

ffsm8 wrote: post #155
irobeth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is amazing how things have come full circle from the point where chrome positioned itself as a "Libre" alternative to the IE near-monopoly There was a point between IE and chrome when Mozilla was always in the near-foreground offering alternatives to every internet hegemony, right around web 2.0, kinda makes me optimistic for the internet to see a resurgence of recommendations

Huh, I don't remember that narrative at all... From how I remember it, we started with Netscape, IE outcompeted that by adding new features until they had enough share to strangle the competition. By that time IE became mandatory because of their extensions. Windows systems couldn't get updates without opening IE. Eventually it (IE) fossilized and Firefox became the better browser with more features (remember that de…

> IE outcompeted that by adding new features until they had enough share to strangle the competition.

ie won because it wasn't an utter piece of shit. Netscape 3 crashed if you looked at it crosseyed, and ie3 was significantly more stable and performant. I worked at one of the first companies to ship a serious app targeting a browser and, at one point, 1/3 of our front-end code was fingerprinting various netscape versions and working around their browser bugs. The world rushed to ie3/4 because it wasn't garbage.

I'm not saying Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly position or compete in underhanded and illegal ways, but they originally won purely on quality. People shipping serious web apps begged their users to get off netscape.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#215

Post by spauldo »

rchaud wrote: post #135
KurtMueller wrote: post #58

Come join the Firefox revolution!

Uh, YT on FF is unusable now. They'll show the "adblockers not allowed" message if you have Ghostery enabled. Even if you disable that, they will add tons of artificial lag on things like key input, clicks and screen draw speed. I know it's artificial because it worked fine for years and then one day....

I pay for premium because I watch a lot of youtube and it's not worth my time to fight their anti-adblock stance.

I use Firefox with uBlock and I don't see any slowdowns or breakages. Just another data point.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#216

Post by foolswisdom »

talldayo wrote: post #154
fransje26 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non Google ads. That's the best way to get antitrust breathing down your neck. So, with talks of Google monopoly ramping up, either this is extremely shortsighted and reckless, or they will choose to not throw oil on the fire and will not go down that road.

Believe it or not, the DOJ (and EU) have almost entirely ignored AdSense and it's integration as a monopoly force. They consider Chrome and Google Search to be the primary source of harms - the war against adblock is perfectly legal even if client-side modding should always be morally correct.

There are two different trials in the USA, one focused on search as a product (which Google lost, and plans to appeal after remedies are determined), and another antitrust trial about advertising (of which the trial happened, but no ruling yet).

I don't know much at all about the ads ecosystem so I have no idea how may adsense should be playing in either trial though.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#217

Post by spauldo »

octopoc wrote: post #83
pogue wrote: post #39

Both Brave & Opera have built in adblockers that are not dependent on Manifest to run. I haven't played with Opera too much, but Brave lets you add custom lists and works quite well. Combine that with a DNS based adblocker such as HaGeZi [1] or OISD from free DNS providers like ControlD or NextDNS and you'll be golden. [1] https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists?tab=readme-ov-file#...

Yeah plus Brave on iPhone auto blocks ads. No extensions or configuration needed. Not sure if Firefox does that.

No, and it shouldn't. Firefox is a general purpose browser, so it should display web pages as the author intends. Security/anti-malware is expected, but changes in content are outside its scope. That's what extensions are for.

If you're installing Brave or Opera, you're not interested in a general purpose browser. Adblock is part of their advertised feature set.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#218

Post by HDThoreaun »

singleshot_ wrote: post #191
HDThoreaun wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a proxy to do DNS blocking has significant failures modes. They wont work on youtube because youtube uses the same endpoint to serve the videos and ads for starters.

No, not DNS blocking; content parsing and editing before it arrives in the browser. I agree DNS blocking is mostly trash. It's not just youtube/google, but anything that uses Akamai will be pretty hosed too.

Then the problem is you have to wait for the ping to your proxy/emulator every time you want to run some JS because it needs to run whatever blocking script youve got on the output.

Re: Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer supported

#220

Post by spauldo »

mancerayder wrote: post #112
pixxel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave CEO once said some mild hurty words about a fragile group, and so the lefty hive must not publicly support his endeavours (whilst using his JavaScript all day long lol).

I haven't the first clue about the politics but I'm guessing the response is more toxic than the original message.

IIRC, the guy donated some money to some anti-LGBT groups back when he was CEO of Mozilla Corp. People associated it with Mozilla in general (even though they were personal donations, not from Mozilla) and he ended up having to resign. He then founded Brave.

Honesty I feel more antipathy for him (and Andreesen) for saddling us with Javascript, but I understand why people don't want to use his products.

Post reply on HN