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

221–230 of 779 posts

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

#221

Post by scrollaway »

boterock wrote: post #201
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…

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.

But I'm not advocating people treat this as any less important/urgent. The consequences of this change are clear: uBlock/uMatrix would break, this is bad, and it needs to be fixed. However at this point in time, it's an open issue, on an open bug tracker, and Google should be given space to adjust before we can actually declare they're doing this on purpose.

If the change goes through despite the issue being known, that is bad, and that will be a clear sign they don't care that adblockers are getting shut out. Still won't be proof it was intended to do that, but at least there's a different level of outrage you can apply to it.

This is not about who does or doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's about not having knee-jerk reactions to headlines. In the current political climate, that should be given some serious thought.

Edit: In fact, so far the only thing this thread has achieved is having people go in the issue tracker and leave their comment. You can guess what will happen next: Outrage and abuse in the comment section, followed by a lock, because of fucking course they should lock when there's abuse. This happens every damn time there's a github issue being linked on HN.

What this behaviour does is it prevents an actual discussion from happening.

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

#222

Post by jinnko »

albru123 wrote: post #171
QML wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox just doesn’t have enough advantages yet that would convince someone comfortable with Chrome to switch over. While privacy is an ever growing concern, it isn’t a strong enough feature for most people.

Firefox does not stack tabs like Chrome does and does not load all the restored session tabs at once either. Aren't these dumb design decisions enough to switch to a product where people actually think about how it's going to be used?

Laying all the trans at one cripples my core i8 system for some time. Firefox's lazy tab loading is a much better user experience. Together with TreeStyle Tabs and the recent multi-container add-on, Firefox is just a better experience.

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

#223

Post by twblalock »

vertexFarm wrote: post #190
saagarjha wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's totally fine, but it's still disingenuous to claim that Firefox is the only other browser out there.

Chrome------------------64.15% Internet Explorer--------10.83% Firefox-------------------9.89% Edge---------------------4.30% Safari--------------------3.80% Opera--------------------1.58% Safari will survive since Apple is their patron. Obviously Internet Explorer is only a lumbering undead husk at this point, and it's pretty shameful that it's still outgunning Firefox by a small amount. Even more sad that it's got…

These numbers do not appear to include mobile browsers. Mobile browsers are just as important as desktop browsers these days, because a lot of people use them as much or more than they use desktop browsers.

If you include mobile browsers, Safari's market share is closer to 17%, which makes it the #2 most popular:

https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?options...

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

#224

Post by nopriorarrests »

scrollaway wrote: post #155
abtinf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Chro…

>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.

Yes, but what's the point of this change, if it is only a side effect? I've read this thread and I haven't seen clear explanation what this change strives to achieve, other than breaking some popular anti-tracking/ad-blocking extensions.

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

#225

Post by throwaway2048 »

wtallis wrote: post #107
snarfy wrote: post #62

> we will strive to limit the blocking version of webRequest, potentially removing blocking options from most events Is there any rationale why?

The "blocking version of webRequest" means that page loading stalls until the extension decides whether to allow, deny or modify each request. This gives extensions enormous power, which can easily ruin user experience if the extension is slow about handling requests.

unlike say, ads doing the same thing.

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

#227

Post by BLKNSLVR »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #56
darkpuma wrote: post #26

So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.

"President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, William Barr, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he would focus attention on the “huge behemoths” in Silicon Valley at the center of a debate over antitrust enforcement. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-barr-antitrust/... We can only hope.

Beware the hidden intentions of all sides.

Google (and the Silicon Valley behemoths): Currently know a lot of personal information about the citizenry

The US Government: Wants to know this information

Neither are necessarily deserving of or entitled to this information, so we shouldn't be cheering for either side.

Antitrust is less the issue than personal information / privacy / data tracking regulation. Antitrust enforcement is treating the symptoms, not the cause.

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

#228

Post by amiga-workbench »

followbl wrote: post #46

Has anyone considered they are trying to do something good here? Publishers are dying left and right...ads support a lot of good businesses!

The ad industry has had decades to get its collective shit together and stop taking the piss out of users. I have no more sympathy or patience, I'm just blocking the lot.

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

#229

Post by dominotw »

darkpuma wrote: post #194
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a regulatory body step in? People were saying for years about how evil Google is, along with how limited and how much of a spyware Chrome is. There are alternatives that people can switch to, if they decide to keep using Chrome they should just suffer the consequences.

It's tempting to fall into the trap of feeling smug that you've made the right decision so no action should be taken against a company abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Try to resist that temptation, like I have. I too have been using Firefox this entire time, but I don't let that tempt me into apathy towards the state of the industry. You may as well question the purpose of the…

> harmful to the public.

How do you measure this? Does the public include content creators who rely on ads for their livelihood?

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

#230

Post by pohl »

arkh wrote: post #193
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.

Most young devs use a mac. And from what I understand Firefox is slow on macOS.

Chrome is notoriously power inefficient, though, relative to Safari at least. One would think developers would notice.
Post reply on HN