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

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 779 posts

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

#491

Post by phs318u »

justinclift wrote: post #447
AYBABTME wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Apple, you're the customer, not the product. For one, Apple defends and doesn't sell your data.

> For one, Apple defends ... It's fairly likely that's just PR. They're a US headquartered place, so would have to comply with NSL's (etc) just like every other US company.

Yes, they have to comply with NSLs. Difference though is the level of data they harvest on you. Google's business model requires they harvest as much as possible and in a way they ensure they can read it. Further, the bigger risk to most users is not NSL's, it's having some dodgy ad-corp buy your data and sell it to even dodgier companies.

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

#492

Post by giancarlostoro »

mirimir wrote: post #489
giancarlostoro wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just waiting for the time until websites won't load at all unless you have hardware DRM turned on that will take all of your control away. I already leave websites that become unusable with adblock on, or without it on. It will just trim down on the amount of sites I go on.

Same here. If it's something I'm particularly interested in, I look for a cache, snapshot or whatever. Edit: Or just read HN comments.

Ah yes, I used Firefox' reader mode, but some news sites now don't even properly support that. I may have to remind myself not to go on those sites anymore as well.

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

#493

Post by mirimir »

Guest10928391 wrote: post #360
raptorfactor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples which aren't Google sites?

I get issues almost daily with well respected sites not working in Firefox. Today I'm browsing the Adidas website, and the images don't load for any of the products in Firefox. https://www.adidas.com/us/ultraboost-all-terrain-ltd-shoes/B... Apparently they're WEBP images and my version of Firefox (version 64) doesn't support them, but searching online I read that the upcoming Firefox version 65 is suppose to fix that…

I'm using Firefox 60 in this Debian VM, and that site is definitely serving WEBP, which I can't view (on anything).

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

#494

Post by sgentle »

DanielRibeiro wrote: post #366
metalliqaz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I really like the point the uBlock maintainer's make: "Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a user agent , and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render."

I think this is the core difference motivating this change: do extensions necessarily act on behalf of users? If that were true, there'd be no such thing as extension malware.

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

#495

Post by giornogiovanna »

kllrnohj wrote: post #349
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been. The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector. This is, directly, what has caus…

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry. Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft? Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source…

> Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website.

Chrome is the user agent. It acts purely on behalf of the user. Browsers aren't trojans built to exploit my eyeballs. This "virtual theft" talk is as silly as claiming that spam filters should be illegal - your server sent me some markup, and I'm free to preprocess it in any way I want.

> Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense.

Not really. Advertising has always been about manipulating people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do - if all ads were purely informative it'd hardly be a multibillion dollar industry.

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

#496

Post by teknologist »

profalseidol wrote: post #452
edwintorok wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you want something like that, get Brave. It's Chromium-based that has privacy and ad-blocking built-in.

Is there a chance that Google's changes here might disrupt Brave's integration into Chromium? I mean, they might be using this WebRequest API to do their built-in blocking.

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

#497

Post by cat199 »

mooman219 wrote: post #377
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Google is going to help me have more privacy by preventing me from letting extensions I want to run from having access to data I want that extension to have, so it can do a job I want it to do. Meanwhile, Google's software will of course have full access to everything I do online, and most of my data will live on Google servers. And the extension that I want to have access is also downloaded from Google servers. A…

I used to vouch for AdBlockPlus, sometimes extensions change for the worse. They can he hijacked too. HN readers are a small subset of Chrome users. There are many malicious pages out there that attempt to get you to install malicious extensions and the average user will blindly listen. Most people will not check the source, or even reviews.

    I used to like 'other thing', and one time 'other thing' changed.
    It went bad so therefore 'thing you are talking about' could  go bad too.
    Other unrelated grouping is a small part of bigger, more important grouping.
    There are many bad places that try to do many bad things and bigger, more important grouping will listen.
    Therefore, existing and functional solution that is currently being broken here is irrelevant.
Do you even hear the completely irrelevant cynicism? let's all go jump off a building.

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

#498

Post by decebalus1 »

techntoke wrote: post #374
decebalus1 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does performance on a Linux distro has anything to do with Mozilla being better/not better than Google?

Because Firefox doesn't offer any extra security controls over Chromium, in fact I would say they are way worse than vanilla Chromium on Arch. Therefore it makes sense to go with the browser that performs well, rather than one consuming a bunch of resources unnecessarily.

what security controls are you referring to? Also, I think we were talking about performance. How is performance relevant to security controls? And again, how does that imply that Mozilla is better/not better than Google?

I'm starting to believe I'm talking to a bot.

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

#499

Post by yoklov »

Arelius wrote: post #275
antoineMoPa wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

auto-fill of CC/billing information is the feature I wish FF had.

Firefox has this in nightly too (possibly only in US). It's been there a while and works well, I don't know why it hasn't moved on from nightly, to be honest...

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

#500

Post by propogandist »

jaxn wrote: post #235
cheez wrote: post #195

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

Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.

The new trend to slip through is hiding behind cloudflare. I see cloudflare urls being loaded within cloudflare URLs to obfuscate the source of ads and scripts
Post reply on HN