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

241–250 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#241

Post by vxNsr »

nvrspyx wrote: post #38
vxNsr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link to that? My only issue is that chrome is great bec I can have multiple profiles on the same windows user account, but that’s kinda anathema to the paradigm of how Microsoft wants us to use Edge. I use chrome profiles the same way ppl use Firefox containers, my only hope is that edge builds something similar. I’ve also been using Vivaldi, I love it but I’m worried about using duh a small project tha…

Chromium Edge allows multiple profiles just like Chrome.

This is good news.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#242

Post by andrepd »

djsumdog wrote: post #239
gbrown wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox mobile on Android with uBlock origin is currently a vastly superior experience to Chrome.

I've been using Firefox mobile for years and really love it. It's always been a vastly better experience than Chrome. I usually use DNS based adblockers on my phone though; AdAway+rooting via magisk.

Gesture tab switching (swiping on the top bar) is the killer feature for me. I use Firefox but with great sacrifice, because swiping is so ingrained in my workflow.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#243

Post by chongli »

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…

Also keep in mind that the entire problem exists because it was created by thousands of people working in the advertising industry. It's frustrating how often people have to solve problems created by other people.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#244

Post by mikhailt »

icebraining wrote: post #154
_mghw wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Think of the impact if the site is blocked by the browser's red malware warning UI (Google's safe browsing or smartscreen in IE) because a compromised file was hosted on the main domain.

It is much harder to get the site whitelisted once it has been compromised since it is on the same domain.

In my job, we had a site domain that was falsely flagged as malware-infected and it took about a few days before it was confirmed as removed (it is not automated apparently). It was never made clear why it was flagged in the first place but it scared us and we had to isolate any downloadable files (installer, ads, etc) away from the main domain as much as possible.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#245

Post by danShumway »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #132
earenndil wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no. The lists themselves are ultimately less interesting than the technology used to run them; there are other lists, and if easylist soured, a community-sourced alternative could be made relatively easily.

Doesn't that argument work for the plugin too. I mean most people using uBlock Origin probably started with Adblock (and maybe moved to ABP), or uBlock. You can achieve similar results with pihole, or hosts file managers. Back in the day I used a local proxy tool, Proximator or something. AFAIK uBo isn't doing anything particular unique technologically (which doesn't mean I'm not grateful, nor that anyone could make…

I use element filtering to strip Google News links off of the search page on the offhand chance I can't find something on DuckDuckGo and have to go back to it.

  www.google.com/search*tbm=nws^$document
  www.google.com##g-section-with-header:has(h3:has-text(Top stories))
  www.google.com##g-section-with-header:has(h3:has-text(Videos))
  www.google.com##div[role="tab"]:has(a:has-text(News))
It's a great feature that would be impossible with something like pihole. `has-text` is very powerful.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#246

Post by dnate »

gbrown wrote: post #186
jannes wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should also thank Firefox for having adblockers at the time when Chrome was released. Otherwise Google wouldn't have felt the need to add an adblocker extension API in the first place. Having adblocker extensions was one of the things that allowed Google to get Firefox users to switch at the time. Ever wonder why Mobile Chrome doesn't have extensions or adblockers? Because it didn't have to compete with Firefox to…

Firefox mobile on Android with uBlock origin is currently a vastly superior experience to Chrome.

Does it exist / work on iOS?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#247

Post by dmitriid »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #187
GrumpyNl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to watch a playlist on Youtube without a add blocker. Its insane the length and amount of commercials. A add blocker save you much more then 10 secs a day.

Fwiw, "ad" is short for "advertisement" which has one "D".

But it adds to the viewing time :)

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#248

Post by danmg »

chongli wrote: post #243
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…

Also keep in mind that the entire problem exists because it was created by thousands of people working in the advertising industry. It's frustrating how often people have to solve problems created by other people.

Just like how we have to have to spend billions cumulatively on computer security related products, because some people are trying to make a few million ransoming workstations and sending spam.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#249

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#250

Post by irq-1 »

Causality1 wrote: post #82
pmoriarty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bright side of Google's anti-ad-blocking efforts is that ad-blocking is clearly no longer just an insignificant blip on their radar. There must be enough users of ad-blockers now to start to significantly affect their bottom line. There might even be a critical mass of people who are against advertising to attempt to make some legal headway on this issue in Washington. Just as there has been legal action against…

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…

Put the ads in the browser -- not the content. Change chrome to show the ads in the client like an ad supported software, then make it speak a new dmca:// protocol.
Post reply on HN