Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#31

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

chr1 wrote: post #29

takeda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's why this announcement should make people switch to alternatives with different engine like FF. Saying we need multiple browsers, then using chrome or its clone actually makes the situation worse. Also chrome is no longer snappy as it was initially.

Playing devils advocate here, why a different engine is needed? Chrome clone can add webrequest feature too, and it would be much easier to maintain.

The problem with forks is having to chase upstream. The dominant browser can keep making changes with reckless abandon. And the fork has to keep up with those, even if it breaks their own features, lest they become incompatible with the "standard" version.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#32

Post by happybuy » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:11 AM UTC

Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides).

From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme.

Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages that users browse; a potentially huge privacy hole.

At least with the proposed scheme, adblocker extensions wouldn't have had access to a user's browsing history. This is the same approach that Safari uses with its content blocker API.

Yes, the Safari approach has more limitations, but it is also significantly better from a privacy perspective.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#33

Post by rajeshmr » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:27 AM UTC

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#34

Post by saagarjha » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:34 AM UTC

rajeshmr wrote: post #33

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move

I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#35

Post by pishpash » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:37 AM UTC

takeda wrote: post #27

mosselman wrote: post #2

Things like this is why it is so important for the web to have multiple browsers available to choose from.

And that's why this announcement should make people switch to alternatives with different engine like FF. Saying we need multiple browsers, then using chrome or its clone actually makes the situation worse. Also chrome is no longer snappy as it was initially.

Chrome may or may not be the best browser. But Google properties tying into Chrome as a platform (think sync, extensions, auth, captchas) and making it really difficult to switch away creates a situation where it's not all about choosing the best browser any more. This harkens back to the same anti-competitive monopolistic behavior that Microsoft got sued for in the late 90's.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#36

Post by skybrian » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:38 AM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #26

As people said in the thread about the actual study, this isn't a real backtrack, they're still locking down the rules, just being a bit more accommodating to the current gen of adblock, but the second ads adapt around current tech, adblockers will be stuck in the mud.

Well, maybe. Google could add features to the api.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#37

Post by sametmax » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:44 AM UTC

happybuy wrote: post #32

Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides). From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme. Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages t…

At some point, new ads the system can't block will surface. The adblocker will become less and less useful, and Google will have no incentive to improve it.

There is already a big difference between even existing adblockers. E.G: some show youtube ads.

And I'm much more worry about the privacy concern from many random ads poping unexpectedly, than from one extension that the entire community get to vet.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#38

Post by ubercow13 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:49 AM UTC

happybuy wrote: post #32

Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides). From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme. Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages t…

As per the quotes in other comments on this article, it sounds like the 'observational' functionality of the API is staying, so this doesn't seem like a win from a privacy perspective at all.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#39

Post by the8472 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #36

vxNsr wrote: post #26

As people said in the thread about the actual study, this isn't a real backtrack, they're still locking down the rules, just being a bit more accommodating to the current gen of adblock, but the second ads adapt around current tech, adblockers will be stuck in the mud.

Well, maybe. Google could add features to the api.

Then google will be the only one who can innovate in the area in adblocking abilities.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#40

Post by the8472 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:00 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #34

rajeshmr wrote: post #33

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.

That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.