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

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#41

Post by weirdentropy »

fsaintjacques wrote: post #21
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?

Sure.

I use Firefox and install the following: - Disconnect

- Ublock Origen (choose 3rd-Party block lists to suit.)

- Privacy Badger (no set up, just install, it learns as you go)

In Firefox, use about:config to change the following: - Toggle dom.storage.enabled to False

- Toggle layout.css.visited_links_enabled to False

- Toggle media.peerconnection.enabled to False

- Toggle network.prefetch-next to False

- Toggle network.http.sendReferrerHeader to 0 (zero)

- Toggle network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer to False

These settings have worked for me with no issues. I bank, do all manner of things online with no issues. I do, however, see no ads, no tracking, faster page loads, clean experience all around.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#42

Post by zeroDivisible »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

I'm using UBlock as well and will never look back, but in relation to:

> And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads.

Unless things changed, UBlock relies on some of the blocking lists coming from AdBlock so the sentence above might not be 100% true.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#43

Post by anc84 »

theg2 wrote: post #33
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy.

I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections of bytes. They all exist without a single ad. They exist because someone wants them to exist.

This comment was written and shared for free on the web without restrictions because I felt the urge to write it.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#44

Post by weirdentropy »

zeroDivisible wrote: post #42
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

I'm using UBlock as well and will never look back, but in relation to: > And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. Unless things changed, UBlock relies on some of the blocking lists coming from AdBlock so the sentence above might not be 100% true.

In order for this to be true for Adblock Origin, there would have to be a toggle to allow acceptable ads. There is none. Even if their lists whitelisted sites, other lists would negate this.

I'm aggressive with regard to ad blocking and use I use the majority of UBO's adblock lists except for the foreign lists.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#45

Post by coldpie »

theg2 wrote: post #33
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

I host a half-dozen websites out of my own pocket with no ads. I pay for an Ars Technica subscription and don't view ads. Hacker News doesn't have ads, yet here we are. Wikipedia doesn't have ads.

I guess the world we live in is pretty magical!

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#46

Post by takeda »

jessaustin wrote: post #37
jug wrote: post #10

"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal." Maybe he could try that?

Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.

Well, you are guaranteed they won't respond if you don't send a email to them.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#47

Post by caoilte »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #31
cven714 wrote: post #2

Will this affect those of us who already have it installed?

In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version. In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers. And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not g…

Can you not install extensions directly any more?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#48

Post by davidgerard »

theg2 wrote: post #33
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

about: Newsroom developer

Ads from newspapers are one of the biggest vectors for malwared ads, because they have so many viewers. You're a very efficacious channel for the malicious. Because newspapers have proven incompetent at not endangering their readers.

If you have an exciting new method of not malwaring your readers, that hasn't occurred to every newspaper that's malwared their readers so far, we'd love to see it in action! Until then, you really can't expect readers to just assume your competence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Possibly you need to explore business models that don't risk malwaring your readers.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#49

Post by bcg1 »

neoeldex wrote: post #39
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Just switched over, but I'm wondering what you mean by blocking DOM? are you using lynx? CSS visited links are not able to be checked using javascript, so why are you blocking this?

Are you sure?

Could someone add some invisible 'before: content()' (or however that works in CSS) inside of an a:visited rule, and then check the DOM via Javascript to see if that content is there?

I haven't tried this, but it seems like it should work unless there is something specifically blocking that

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#50

Post by [deleted] »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN