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

Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#241

Post by spopejoy »

emayljames wrote: post #176
timetraveller26 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox and Firefox Container Manager extension :)

Thanks, this is something I believe Mozilla made a bad decision to not implement.

I've been using containers for a while, and have to say that UX wise, it needs work, it's too easy to inadvertently leave a container tab, and it's easy to get them confused.

The effect is "invisible", so there's no warning sign when you've done something wrong. My use-case is managing instagram profiles which periodically log you out, so if you forget and log in with the wrong one it's kind of game over.

In sum, it's too wonky for the general masses. Sure, Mozilla could add it just for the experts but that doesn't seem to be their approach which I can respect. After all it's not hard for an "expert" to get containers running.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#242

Post by asylteltine »

Solvency wrote: post #213
asylteltine wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most blocking is removing DOM elements and you can’t do this outside a browser

But the network still has to transfer the contents from some source into that DOM so I'm unclear why it's so hard to nix that inbound data.

Because it’s all encrypted and your router can’t decrypt it. That’s for your benefit

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#243

Post by zlg_codes »

Shish2k wrote: post #73
zlg_codes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of desire to implement technologies that are harmful to the Web; specifically technologies designed to usurp control from the user and/or its agent. Remove Javascript and 90% of your challenges go away.

Remove HTML/CSS rendering and the other 10% of the challenges go away too. Skip the whole “browser" thing and just use `curl`. Zero harmful technologies, maximum user control - I’m sure all of the users will be flocking to this new approach in no time :D

If you're going to mock me you could have a salient point to couple with it.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#244

Post by zlg_codes »

augustulus wrote: post #230
P-Nuts wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Firefox and Chrome extensions though, only a much more limited selection

right, but Firefox only supports Firefox extensions and Chrome Chrome, so what’s your point?

Both Firefox and Chrome implemented Google's EEE WebExtensions format so there's rough parity between the two.

As a result, Firefox extensions got dumber. Bye bye Vimperator, DownThemAll, etc.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#245

Post by zlg_codes »

mrastro wrote: post #47
zlg_codes wrote: post #26

Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.

"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.

Apple is not on my tech radar at all due to their approaches to product design and their developer business model.

In about 6 months, I won't consider Google either. I'll simply start targeting reasonable, good, healthy Web standards and implement them with progressive enhancement.

If they support the standards, then there won't be a problem.

The Web is fragmenting and it's gonna be ugly.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#246

Post by zlg_codes »

nvy wrote: post #83
zlg_codes wrote: post #26

Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.

Which phone do you use?

I see your gotcha and respond by saying I'm at least looking at other phones, but until the FCC mandates the opening of basebands, building a phone with trustable software is still a long way away.

Pine64 and Purism are making headways on that front, but again the situation is too thorny and regulations are hamstrung by the relevant companies bidding for spectrum. I've not heard of anyone having a smooth experience with PinePhone, Librem 5s, or the OnePlus line of phones.

Also, how many of these devices just run Android? So Google's got your ass there anyway. The ones that don't are foolishly following XDG and so are GNOME, KDE, or Enlightenment stans. The moment upstream changes, they'll be forced to go along because they don't fully own their UI experience.

We need portable libraries for accessing baseband stuff so that no vendor can lock a life feature (smartphone) behind their ecosystem.

I actually don't much like my phone. It's the most reliable way to find out where I am or what I'm doing, and who honestly deserves that information just because? I guess I wish I didn't use a phone at all. Despite its conveniences, on paper it's really just added a bill and a constant mental "on"ness that stresses me out.

So, not much of a gotcha because I've thought about this and it bugs me, but there's also no actually good alternative ready yet. When I'm able to BYOD with free hardware on a mainstream network and there aren't signal or reliability problems, I will. The whole point of a cell phone is remote availability, so it needs access to a reliable network to be of any use.

Please, if my understanding of free phones is out of date, correct me. It'd be nice to get one step closer to a completely user-controlled cellular device.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#247

Post by zlg_codes »

shadowgovt wrote: post #51
zlg_codes wrote: post #26

Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.

Email still working for you without a FAANG host?

That is a social problem, not a technical one.

Even hosts that correctly implement $CURRENT_YEAR's email security dance end up on spam lists erroneously. The problem is allowing these hosts to have that much influence to begin with. The creation and spreading of those lists is pernicious to the protocol, but in absence of new RFCs and matching client behavior, I see the need to add some light 'hazing' to setting up e-mail.

The problem is when Google tells everyone your site is spam and they listen. Tech can't solve that problem.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#248

Post by zlg_codes »

Forbo wrote: post #125
belltaco wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outlook.com isn't FAANG.

But it is GAFAM, which seems to be more relevant when you're looking at things from an overall size perspective. The focus on FAANG never made much sense to me.

tbh I'm less concerned about the order or makeup of the acronym and more concerned with the reason we discuss those acronyms and their (undue) influence over the tech world.

The structure of our markets ensures players like this will coalesce, but it's no reason to let giants of commerce dictate the terms of engagement for everyone.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#249

Post by augustulus »

zlg_codes wrote: post #244
augustulus wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, but Firefox only supports Firefox extensions and Chrome Chrome, so what’s your point?

Both Firefox and Chrome implemented Google's EEE WebExtensions format so there's rough parity between the two. As a result, Firefox extensions got dumber. Bye bye Vimperator, DownThemAll, etc.

oh really? this must have been fairly recently, right?

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#250

Post by doublerabbit »

DonHopkins wrote: post #235
doublerabbit wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft, who were paid to give up on it. But they won't tell you that.

So your best argument is a totally implausible baseless conspiracy theory without any proof or explanation or even links to batshit crazy youtube videos? As such a gigantic international organization with so many people, how has Microsoft managed to keep that a secret for so long? Microsoft must really know how to do security right, if they haven't leaked such a big story. That would be bigger than then OpenAI soap o…

> It follows from your own conspiracy theory that Microsoft must be one of the most security conscious and proficient companies on Earth, leaving Apple in the dust, to keep such a huge story from getting out for so long!

laughs in Microsoft

Post reply on HN