Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by cpeterso » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:20 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #84

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #9

Acquire, Embrace, Extinguish I think we're at Stage 3.

That's not the correct quip (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish); and even if it were, it doesn't make any more sense in this context than your version does. Even in the most skeptical reading of the situation, Google never "embraced" adblockers, they allowed them. You'll note there's no extensions on Chrome for Android for example.

Embrace: Google shipped its own ad blocker in Chrome last year. It blocks all ads on sites that violate ad standards set forth by the Coalition for Better Ads. If Chrome's basic ad blocker can encourage the publishers to clean up their most annoying ads, then Chrome users might be less likely to install a full-featured ad blocker like uBlock Origin.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17011266/google-chrome-ad...

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

#312

Post by abrowne » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

dsego wrote: post #278

Memosyne wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Chromium on linux because Firefox doesn't have touch-screen support and smooth-scrolling feels a little rough. I wont hesitate to switch over if these changes are made though.

Add 'export MOZ_USE_XINPUT2=1' to ~/.xsessionrc and disable “Use smooth scrolling” to get the real smooth scrolling.

+100 This is the first setting I change on a new Linux laptop install.

You can also disable smooth scrolling only for the touchpad in about:config to keep the animation for scrolling with the keyboard. Search for "smooth"; I think it's the mouseWheel one, but I'm not at home to verify.

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

#313

Post by zcid » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:22 AM UTC

ojosilva wrote: post #263

antoineMoPa wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox also has password/history/bookmarks sync between devices.

I've always wondered how Chrome and Firefox password storage fare in safety. Are they both equality trustworthy? Are the encryption technologies comparable?

You can read about Firefox Sync here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/. It is also possible for you to run your own sync and account servers: https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.

I assume that Chrome has a similar design, but I'm not familiar with it.

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

#314

Post by maverick2007 » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #298

jaxn wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.

Network level ad-blocking doesn't work very well. Privoxy (and Proxomitron before it) were doing it 20 years ago, but never caught on because they're a PITA to setup and can't handle inline adverts. Pi-hole is new, but it's even more work to setup, and suffers the same limitations. And as ad-blocking has become more popular the problems only gotten worse. It's unusual that I see any ads any more, but when I do it's a…

Why doesn't it? (Not a leading question, I just don't understand why it doesn't) Isn't the way uBlock and the like work is that they see network requests from a blacklist and not load those resources? Isn't network level blocking just moving that from the local device up a level?

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

#315

Post by kirion25 » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #97

abtinf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current title ("Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin") is more reflective of linked comment. The essential quote from the linked comment is this: "If this ...[change to chromium is implemented]... [it] essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist." "can no longer exist" is much closer to "disable" t…

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…

It's still very suspicious though that such changes happen right after Google implemented their own native adblocker. If tomorrow 3rd party adblockers stop working, Google can now point out that people can rely on their own solution.

Paranoid? Probably. But Google's revenues are from ads, so this kind of attitude is very much warranted in this case.

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

#316

Post by Proven » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

Just looked at Chromium for Windows the other day, for general reasons (which can be summarized as stay the hell away from Google).

Turns out those suckers don't even release it as such. They only build nightlys (useless for actual use and impractical too). If the community forks that sucker that would be great.

Firefox is just as bad (and as some noted, uglier too). Thankfully there are community versions without he Mozilla Foundation junk.

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

#317

Post by edwintorok » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

metalliqaz wrote: post #183

dragonwriter wrote: post #114

The design doc — the part quoted in the note linked here even — explicitly notes that it will probably be required to retain some degree of the existing functionality slated for eventually removal until the new API and other replacements cover all use cases; the response linked here appears to (not improperly, in the context of making a case for why much of the functionality is needed) ignoring that and treating the…

But the design document only mentions retaining the old API for features that aren't possible with the new API, such as onAuthRequired. So it would still cripple uBlock

What if someone would create a pull request to implement unlock origin natively inside chromium, instead of an extension. If such a PR met all technical criteria, would Chromium project accept it?

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

#318

Post by leesalminen » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:25 AM UTC

sridca wrote: post #279

braythwayt wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've got nothing to hide. I'm sure you believe that's true, but I suggest that your belief is based on a certain confidence that the people pouring through your data are fundamentally acting in good, or at worse neutral faith. However, if this data ever gets into the hands of someone acting in bad faith, even the most innocent behaviour can be weaponized against you. Let's say, for example, that you are wrongly sus…

That's not an unreasonable point, but with that alarmist logic why are you then not living off the grid?

This seems like a fallacious argument in that you’re attempting to conflate “alarmist” with “extremist”.

Someone could be alarmed about the state of privacy in society and not want to take an extreme action.

It seems entirely reasonable to want to remain a part of civilization and advocate for change on a topic you are passionate about.

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

#319

Post by kabes » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #291

Quote from the linked design doc: The current webRequest API allows extensions to intercept network requests in order to modify, redirect, or block them. It is frequently used by content blockers. Currently, with the webRequest permission, an extension can delay a request for an arbitrary amount of time, since Chrome needs to wait for the result from the extension in order to continue processing the request. The basi…

You know what else takes up massive amounts of CPU and slows down a typical chrome instance? Sites filled with ads.

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

#320

Post by floatingatoll » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

cheez wrote: post #195

If uBlock stops working... I stop using Chrome. Simple as that.

Using uBlock in Chrome is like asking a bank robber to guard an open vault. Sure, they’re smart enough not to steal anything, but they’ll case the joint the entire time and you’ll never sleep well again.

EDIT: The bank robber is Chrome.