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

Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 400 posts

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#341

Post by buzer »

ldom66 wrote: post #319
buzer wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox leaks memory. When I have it open for long time the memory usage will increase and even if I were to close all tabs & do memory minimization it will still use multiple gigabytes of memory. While I cannot be sure, I assume that is the cause of the general slowdown I experience as well. Restarting Firefox will fix free up the memory & fix the slowness. I do still use it as my primary browser despite these issue…

Is that on Windows? I use Linux and Mac and haven't had memory leaks. In fact, Chrome is more a problem for me on the Mac since my wife likes to keep Chrome windows open on her profile indefinitely, and Chrome keeps downloading updates on the background and takes a large chunk of my hard drive keeping every version that ever existed in the .App file.

Windows so maybe that is related.

Do note that I regularly have multiple browser windows open (and these are usually on private mode) with 50+ tabs so my usage pattern is not very standard.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#343

Post by tsoukase »

I and I hope many others globally will not care. Since the last months I reverted my browsers from 6-0 in favour of Chrome to 1-5 for Firefox and the one Chrome accesses local adfree sites at work. We are gonna see a revival of Firefox, hopefully like its 2006.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#344

Post by SwamyM »

water-data-dude wrote: post #141
polairscience wrote: post #40

And I won't even notice. Firefox is probably the most divisive topic on this website. Mozilla gets ripped to shreds any time they're discussed, but they keep the open internet alive. I don't see how any self-respecting Hacker could choose anything else. I'm a big fan of critique, critiquing the scaffolding of our lives is the best thing we can do. That said...... we have nearly lost the browser wars and if we do it w…

I'm a big fan of WaterFox! I switched when Firefox decided to add a ton of AI crap without providing a "turn this crap off" button (you could force it, but I don't want to fight my tools). Really good experience, been recommending it to all my friends. Librewolf is also good, and I use that on one of my other machines. I like Waterfox a bit more, but that's probably just personal taste. Both are solid and both cut th…

If you don't mind me asking, do Waterfox and Librewolf add significant benefits that you wouldn't get by customizing base Firefox?

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#345

Post by gorgonian »

nickthegreek wrote: post #253
gorgonian wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer ungoogled-chromium: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

that doesnt get your ublock orign after this.

If that’s true it may be what finally pushes me back to Firefox.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#346

Post by gorgonian »

nicce wrote: post #119
gorgonian wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer ungoogled-chromium: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

How does it helps with this issue? It becomes a much bigger fork if they keep the manifest support.

It was less related to the manifest issue specifically and more that I don’t think Mozilla is some great bastion of internet freedom, and chromium works better on many sites because developers design for it because it’s the most popular browser.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#347

Post by matltc »

My approach is ubolite/no script/privacy badger for when I really want chrome.

Otherwise I just run Brave. Always brave on mobile since chrome native doesn't support extensions. Seems fine for me. Oh and I set my DNS server to adguard

Probably some pixels or whatever get through but I don't have to see ads shrug

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#348

Post by tzs »

dfabulich wrote: post #115
9dev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I primarily use Safari, and only switch to Chrome if a site misbehaves; every time I do so, I'm aghast by the ads and popups I suddenly get everywhere - despite having uBlock installed. I refuse to take that as an acceptable state of browsing the internet.

Safari has never supported MV2 uBlock Origin. Chrome with uBlock Lite is exactly the same as Safari with uBlock Lite.

Doesn't Chrome limit ad blockers to something like 30k rule each, and limit the number across all installed ad blockers to 330k, whereas Safari allows 150k rules per ad blocked and 900k across all installed ad blockers?

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#349

Post by timbit42 »

joquarky wrote: post #336

I don't have an ad blocker. I have two bookmarklets: - remove all IFrames - remove all display:fixed elements Both also use a mutation observer to catch new instances. This takes care of 90% of the annoying ads and cookie popups. To push for more leads into excess complexity for marginal gain.

That doesn't block tracking.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#350

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

basch wrote: post #258
throwaway27448 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that brave was caught injecting affiliate links. That alone makes it worse than anything mozilla has done. Edit: https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/1ebbeas/why_...

ill be in the strong minority here, and it should be opt-in, but if theres no affiliate link, i would be ok with my tiny marketshare browser capturing the extra. less ethical for them to be replacing other peoples affiliate links, but they are also blocking ads ... so, not exactly the most purely ethical product in the world anyway.

What I don't understand is how inserting affiliate links doesn't violate affiliate ToS.
Post reply on HN