Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by cat199 » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 4:57 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #185

sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

> I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Chrome used to be very lightweight, fast and basically unseated IE as the top browser. It got that love because at the time Firefox was bloated and IE had a stranglehold. Chrome was also safer with a process per tab. Chrome made web browsing/dev pleasant like Firefox/Firebug did and it really took off being based on Webkit l…

This is bad history.

Firefox was top dog when chrome came out - it had unseated IE already for many users fed up with XP-era crapware.

Firefox was not simply 'bloated', but designed for classic HTML rendering at a time when javascript (aka 'web 2.0 ajax') dev was taking off and memory was not as abundant as it is now - though slow, it was more that the core architecture was out of date than it was 'bloated'. Indeed firefox was already a stripped down version of 'the mozilla suite' (see also seamonkey, thunderbird, etc - all of which predate chrome).

Chrome then came in, borrowed another project's browser engine, and decided to say 'screw memory, just fork processes' and avoided the whole multithreaded thing all together, oh yes, and open blank tabs faster with a little animation for perceptions sake.

This facilitated html5/javascript bloat, and by extension kept it in the lead as the only browser that could handle it.

of course I'm biased here (as is parent) - but chrome unseating firefox which unseated IE is born out by the facts.

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

#502

Post by tyingq » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:03 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #162

kevindqc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, there are currently events which gave you the ability to inspect, and also cancel a request if you want. This allows you to do things like cancel a request if it's trying to download a big video file. But Google wants to remove the ability to cancel a request through the events, and they want to replace that with declarativeNetRequest[1]. If you look at the link, in the Rules section, it seems…

>This is not targeted to ad blockers specifically. At superficial inspection it's not obviously targeted at ad blockers. It might still be. Most of google's revenue comes from advertising, fighting against ad blockers wouldn't be unexpected for them.

The fact that they are leaving in the functionality to view/record/forward anything you visit makes it clear to me that the target is adblockers. Removing solely the ability to cancel a preflight request is, er, pretty specific.

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

#503

Post by happybuy » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #468

LamaOfRuin wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

according to https://1blocker.com/faq/ to have full functionality it gets access to your browsing activity.

That’s actually not possible on iOS. The content blocking framework only allows a third party ad blocker to submit a JSON file to the system and the rules are processed by Safari. If you are referring to the quote below, that applies to the Mac version. The iOS version uses a share sheet extension that uses an out of process extension where you have to explicitly share the link you want to block. Safari warns me that…

Actually the quote from 1Blocker:

> Sadly, there's no technical way to request just this functionality from the system, so we have to request full access to webpage content (which may include your sensitive information)

is incorrect. They could use a share extension on the Mac as well (which we do for our adblocker app) which would give them access to the URL when the share extension is accessed but not give full access to the web page content.

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

#504

Post by rattray » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:21 AM UTC

IggleSniggle wrote: post #436

rattray wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Brave? It uses Chromium. UI/UX also isn't as nice as Chrome but it's closer.

The headline is “changes to Chromium,” on which Brave is built...

I trust the Brave team to find a way around this, eg; with a fork. Otherwise their organization will fail.

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

#505

Post by bmer » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

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 am able to access the website just fine. All the images show up for me (Firefox 64.0.2).

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

#506

Post by MarsAscendant » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:48 AM UTC

aylmao wrote: post #477

drawkbox wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Chrome used to be very lightweight, fast and basically unseated IE as the top browser. It got that love because at the time Firefox was bloated and IE had a stranglehold. Chrome was also safer with a process per tab. Chrome made web browsing/dev pleasant like Firefox/Firebug did and it really took off being based on Webkit l…

> Chrome made web browsing/dev pleasant like Firefox/Firebug did and it really took off being based on Webkit like Safari which also worked well on mobile. This is the big one for me. When I'm not developing I actually prefer to use Safari-- I like it's interface better and it feels more at home in macOS. It's "good enough" too. What I'm really a user of is the Chrome Dev Tools. Firefox's are looking quite solid late…

What I'd love is to have Firefox dev tools functionality in Chrome.

Firefox highlights the edge lines of the selected element automatically, and in all directions (if I recall correctly). I have to use an extension – VisBug – to achieve that in Chrome.

There's also the fonts window, which lets you in on what fonts are used on the page, and lets you modify the selected element's font settings – size, weight, slant/italic etc.. I pay a lot of attention to typography, so that part is important to me.

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

#507

Post by daveFNbuck » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:52 AM UTC

pohl wrote: post #230

arkh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most young devs use a mac. And from what I understand Firefox is slow on macOS.

Chrome is notoriously power inefficient, though, relative to Safari at least. One would think developers would notice.

It's hard to notice power efficiency when you always have your laptop plugged in.

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

#508

Post by privacywall » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

This was bound to happen. Google has always treated Chromium as their toy and a way to protect their advertising monopoly. That is why we released the new PrivacyWall today which includes the most advanced host level ad blocker built by Stanford engineers. It's free and we will never sell out.

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

#509

Post by MarsAscendant » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:54 AM UTC

rayvy wrote: post #267

QML wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox just doesn’t have enough advantages yet that would convince someone comfortable with Chrome to switch over. While privacy is an ever growing concern, it isn’t a strong enough feature for most people.

> While privacy is an ever growing concern, it isn’t a strong enough feature for most people. At the end of the day, this is the end-all-be-all argument to the Facebook and Google duopoly. People just don't give a goddamn (excuse the language) about their data - they simply do.not.care . I believe my generation (Y), and possibly a few after us (X, etc), will be known as the generation(s) who didn't think privacy/data…

I don't think fatalism is the philosophy to adopt here.

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

#510

Post by Kadin » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:56 AM UTC

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.

I have a Pi-hole and use uBlock; when I turn off uBlock and use the Pi-hole alone, a ton of ads still seem to come through. This is with the default blocklists (StevenBlack, MalwareDomains, sysctl.org, zeustracker.abuse.ch; about 8 total). Maybe I'm not adding enough lists, but "out of the box" it doesn't seem to cut it.