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

uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 339 posts

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#281

Post by permo-w »

voxl wrote: post #245
permo-w wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This might not even have racist origins, but it does reinforce racist ideals fear of the dark equally fits this profile. is that offensive? >why randomly call it a black list if you're not appealing to this culture? do you think the author asked himself: "how can I import a harmful cultural theme into my work today?" or could it be that blacklist and whitelist are the common usage terms for lists of disallowed and a…

No I think it was a cognitive bias, why are you importing blame? People who so vehemently defend calling something a blacklist instead of a blocklist are very suspicious to me. Similar energy to defending calling a woman female.

I wrote out a full reply to what you said, but I started to realise that I don't believe that you're being ingenuous. My gut feeling is this is a false flag operation to turn people [vehemently] against the very real cause of fighting racism and social injustice, or just a bad joke, or both

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#282

Post by Jistern »

LightHugger wrote: post #38
krono wrote: post #35

I've posted this before, but you can achieve the same with uBlock Origin static filters alone without having to install any additional extensions. For example: To block results from specific domains on Google or DDG: google.*##.g:has(a[href*="thetopsites.com"]) duckduckgo.*##.results > div:has(a[href*="thetopsites.com"]) And it's even possible to target an element's text content with a `:has-text(/regex/)` selector:…

Having a button to remove the offending site right from the search results saves quite a bit of time, so while i usually prefer not to have extra extensions, i see a lot of utility here.

Edit: Apparently someone is already doing something similar to what I described below. Please see... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31694164

I suppose a simple bash script triggered with a hotkey could essentially circumvent your need to install uBlacklist.

I'm imagining the steps as follows...

1. Select the text of the URL you want uBlock Origin to eliminate (such as, AWebSiteIDoNotLike.com) from the Google search results you see.

2. Press your hotkey (say, Ctrl+F5 or Alt+F9).

3. The script appends the necessary text to my-ublock-static-filters_date_goes_here.txt

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#283

Post by permo-w »

YATA2 wrote: post #236
permo-w wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignoring social justice concerns, "blocklist" is a more descriptive word

No it's not. List of filesystem blocks? List of block devices? Or use blacklist, a word that has a definition that predates modern computing and non-English speakers can quickly translate using any old translator, dictionary, etc.

if you don't know what either a blacklist or blocklist is, the word blocklist is significantly easier to glean

yes block has 1 other meaning, but that pales compared to black which doesn't have the descriptive meaning in the first place

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#284

Post by prepend »

freediver wrote: post #258
prepend wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps amortizing really high salaries. $1M/month for a chief metrics officer or something.

Kagi is completely bootstrapped. It has basically 10 developers and me doing everything else. No managers. The expense is low as humanely possible as still coming out of my own pocket.

I admire kagi a lot and will eventually pay you.

You don’t have to answer, but how do you have such a high per search price?

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#286

Post by Jistern »

wakeupcall wrote: post #63
krono wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not denying that. However, unless I'd be blocking new domains on a weekly basis, I just don't think it's worth installing an additional extension for something that's so easily achieved without.

I've started blocking results using ublock last year after it has been mentioned here, and I've got to the point where I have a script I can use to generate the relevant filters for google/bing and a few other search engines. When I spot any domain which has been squatted by SEO and useless comparison-alike websites I immediately block it. This has brought up the quality of results IMMENSELY. I'm blocking domains on…

Would you mind sharing your script? I'd be glad to use it.

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#287

Post by Jistern »

miked85 wrote: post #132
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that Google could do this easily if they wanted to, but for some reason they don't. After all, if you can do it as an end user and in a low enough amount of time that it is worth it for you then surely Google can do it, they get to amortize that time across many more users.

They actually used to offer this feature years ago but removed it.

Yes. I remember that feature. I was displeased when I noticed that it had been removed.

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#288

Post by Jistern »

guelo wrote: post #232
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that Google could do this easily if they wanted to, but for some reason they don't. After all, if you can do it as an end user and in a low enough amount of time that it is worth it for you then surely Google can do it, they get to amortize that time across many more users.

Google in general has an aversion to giving users control. Their product vision is an omniscient AI that gives you enough of what you want that you'll tolerate the ads. The removal of user control is aided in many cases by justifications around security and UX design simplicity ("users don't know what they want"). But really it's about keeping control on the AI side.

I concur.

I suppose eventually Google's search results in many countries/jurisdictions (such as the EU, USA, etc) will be regulated like a public utility.

As a result, I expect Google will be forced to allow users to ban search results from particular URLs with a single click.

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#289

Post by vorpalhex »

almog wrote: post #263
vorpalhex wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lacking the historical background I think you might be the one lacking the historical background. Blacklist comes from King Henry and his list of political enemies. > but every other commenter is intentionally toxic I find realpoliticking innocous words to be toxic and problematic.

> I think you might be the one lacking the historical background. Blacklist comes from King Henry and his list of political enemies. 1. You seem to assume that historical background is synonymous with "words first origin". By historical background I meant to refer to not being fully aware of just how much racism toward black Americans was and is still present everywhere. I say so as a non-American myself. It's not pr…

Forgive me but instead of bouncing between threads I'm just going to condense to this one.

Yes, racism is real. Racism has been a part of history. Racism still exists today.

What does the word "Blacklist" have to do with that? It's not about black people, it's not suggesting we should do anything to black people. We can all agree there are racist words - but why is "blacklist" one of them?

Is "blacklight" a racist term?

"Yellow" means caution or slow in most contexts. It's the color of safety vests and caution signs. Should Asians take offense? What about native peoples with the color "Red"?

This blacklist (and "master") nonsense is based on a fake story about the term that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and the idea that Black people may have negative feelings to this fake story. I believe the term here is "the racism of soft expectations".

You can't create a lie and then demand conformance to that lie because "you may upset someone". Atheists were persecuted for a long time in history (as were many smaller religious groups) because they were considered "offensive".

The word policing goal is simple - it's control. Language gives the means of expression and to restrict language is to restrict expression. The word banning will not stop - "blacklist", "master", "brown bag", "black belt", "assault", "war". All of those have been banned by one of these lists - and it has nothing to do with helping any race.

Re: uBlacklist – Block specific sites from appearing in Google search results

#290

Post by vorpalhex »

almog wrote: post #269
oofbey wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

At first I thought he was just misinformed and tried to politely correct them, but now I see that they really just try to provoke people and using arguments of similar structures to the ones caring so much about displaying the Confederate Flag "because it's part of their American history".

Yes, obviously because I disagree with your word banning I must be one of those confederate flag waving rednecks.

It would be impossible for me to be a lifelong liberal voter with a track record of donating to liberal causes, a certificate in LGBTQ studies and a history of activism on a variety of issues.

Sensible people can have sensible disagreements. Jumping to insulting people who disagree with you and tarring them is poor form and reflects badly on your position.

Post reply on HN