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

AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#361

Post by jefftk »

mastazi wrote: post #360
jefftk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. ... Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave and Vivaldi have always been built on Chromium, because that was the easiest way for them to get started as new browsers. There wasn't some pre-Chromium version of either that was killed.*

> There wasn't some pre-Chromium version of either that was killed.* Not true. Brave was initially based on Gecko https://brave.com/the-road-to-brave-one-dot-zero/

The Gecko-based version was a prototype that didn't even make it to a public preview release. It was a very early attempt that didn't work out.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#362

Post by TheSeeker11 »

ameshkov wrote: post #189
mekster wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't used adblocker extension for a while. I just have AdGuard Home on a VPS to be used with every device on the network and do DNS level blocking and all is clean including stopping trackers from non browser apps.

DNS-based solutions can't block everything since they're limited to blocking domains. But wait until we bring a content filtering proxy to AdGuard Home, this will be the day when you'll finally get clean pages and you won't need any extension at all for that.

As a Linux user, thoroughly looking forward to this. Not having an AG desktop application like Windows is a drag.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#363

Post by d4rti »

ameshkov wrote: post #157
d4rti wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hard to search bugzilla, so to save anyone else time, this is what I ended up finding (9 bugs) https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...

Let's be fair to Safari devs, you should probably search for all statuses and not just the bugs and feature requests that are still open: https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...

Unintentional omission - bugzilla is kinda hard to use well.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#364

Post by jacooper »

maskros wrote: post #351
jacooper wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only a part of a browser engine. Security? Website isolation? Performance? And many other things are just simply better in chromium. https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht... Yes Google is abusing its influence on chromium, but one must admit, its simply the best engine out there.

Chrome has crap image rendering. Chrome has sub-par SVG support. Chrome has a host of issues and bugs with media selectors and imagesets not updating dynamically when changing zoom levels. So no, one must not admit it is "simply the best engine out there". Not by a long shot.

This is only a section of what a browser does.

The features, the speed, the security, are all better on chromium.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#365

Post by TrickyRick »

ameshkov wrote: post #168
TrickyRick wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad Guard works great in Safari, I have yet to see ads it doesn't block

We did our best with Safari, but believe me, it actually works worse than AdGuard in Chrome and Firefox. Safari with all its limitations is no better than Chrome with MV3.

I'm sure, it's also slightly worse then uBlock Origin for Chrome. But it works well enough and the fact that Safari isn't run by Google by far outweighs any other drawbacks it might have.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#368

Post by zzo38computer »

pkulak wrote: post #220
userbinator wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope filtering proxies like Proxomitron become popular again. They'll work on all browsers, and as long as locked-down corporate environments with their own needs for filtering content and the requirement to go through a proxy exist, it's not something they can easily kill off (despite trying their hardest to do so with all the "security" propaganda.) Stop being at the whims of the Google-controlled browser monopol…

Man, I used Privoxy back in the day and it was amazing. Now, however, you need to set up custom certs so that you can MITM yourself, plus those things can only look at the initial HTML without running any JS. I don't know how less effective that would make filtering, but it can't help. I'd love to be proven wrong though! Right now I run DNS-based filtering because, no, it's not perfect, but I really like having netwo…

Still, that you will need to MITM yourself is rather inefficient; it would be better for the proxy setting to include a "non-tunneling" option that you can set, instead.

Not being able to look at scripts is another issue, although at least for some purposes you may be able to inject scripts which change the JavaScript objects in order to disable or change some features.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#369

Post by philippclassen »

Terretta wrote: post #146
tgv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they can do this. They don't want to do it. How else would they push ads through their ad blocker?

Unlike some ad blockers, AdGuard’s business model, while for profit, doesn’t include taking money to let ads through, contrary to, say, AdBlock Plus or Ghostery. AdGuard does have an option for users to allow inline search results ads and sites’ “self promotion” ads. More here: https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/search-ads-and-self-promot...

Ghostery doesn't take money to unblock ads like AdBlock Plus. The decision what to block on a site depends on the community lists (e.g. EasyList, FanBoy). If you want to get unblocked in Ghostery, you need to convince the maintainers of the community lists.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#370

Post by mpmd »

tssva wrote: post #355
BrendanEich wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't take fees to unblock ads, so you must mean the "acceptable ads" extensions and not Brave.

No, I meant you. As I understood it your software blocked ads at websites, presented your own ads and then you told website owners they could recoup some of their lost revenue by participating in your whole BAT scheme. That sounds pretty close to a protection racket.

wrong. the user decides whether they want to block ads or not; no browser forces you to block anything. their ads are also opt-in, which means the user is the one ultimately choosing whether they want to block ads and/or opt-in to brave ads. also, turn off that adblocker youre using hypocrite.
Post reply on HN