Live data from Hacker News

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

391–400 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blocking on your first example, YouTube, is actually one of my favorite things about Firefox Mobile. Fuck watching half a minute of ads on YouTube before the thing I actually wanted.

Have you tried out NewPipe?

Newpipe is broken isn't it? Everybody should just install kiwi, it's chromium for Android WITH extensions (YouTube background audio, uBlock, etc)

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is really dying compared to Chrome but I honestly think this is going to cause it to rebound. People aren't going to be happy without uBlock and Ad Block... Google has been REALLY dropping the ball in the last 2-5 years. What's a NEW Google product that you actually like (that they didn't acquire)? They literally CAN NOT build new products that people like. ... all their hardware products suck. New things lik…

Google Photos is fantastic.

[deleted]

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other. It's one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

Thank you for posting this, never realized such a thing existed. Makes it easy to maintain different identities. It's made by Mozilla too. Wonder why it isn't a core feature of Firefox.

It probably will be. Mozilla frequently moves extensions from Labs (which existed then got cancelled, and now has been reinstated iirc) to core Firefox.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pi-Hole is literally DNS filtering - aka HOSTs file in hardware. Relying upon a security practice from almost 25 years ago is not really a good idea IMHO.

It’s better than nothing and also works on mobile devices with poor ad-blocking support, like the iPad and iPhone.

It's actually not better than nothing. It's worse than nothing, because it gives a false sense of security.

Bypassing DNS blocking is easy. You can access my normal site, block ads by DNS, but I can just serve everything up over plain IP address without the domain name being required, now you're loaded with ads/trackers/scripts anyways and your security just got bypassed.

This trick is literally as old as HOSTs. It has been proven time and time again that DNS-based blocking only works when everything uses domain names as pointers to resources, instead of using IP addresses to do the same.

It feels like APK has suddenly arrived on HN. Not a surprise since we just had him banned off Slashdot.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#397

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other. It's one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

"Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other."

Remind me - is this different than the "Container Tab" choice in the File menu ?

I find the built-in container functionality in Firefox to be surprisingly awkward and poorly thought out ...

For instance, the very first use-case that I attempted (create a Window, not a tab and have all new tabs inherit that same container) is impossible.

It also appears to be impossible to clear the history of just a container.

These are basic use-cases that came up, immediately, in a cursory exploration of the feature - I wasn't digging deep to find these ...

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. Certainly google employees and the chrome team will be aware of this within an hour if they aren't already. You can bet it's intentional if we don't see a reversal in the next 3 days."

> I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. The extension in question only has 9,000 users.

As of January 2018, uBlock Origin has 10 million active users on Chrome. Where did you get 9,000?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#399
Employees at Google - fix this now.

I’m rather disturbed that on HN of all places not a single comment is talking about anything other than going to another browser. Google should fix this, and there should be plenty of people here who can voice it internally.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other. It's one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

Does this work on mobile?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN