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

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#561

Post by mystifyingpoi »

bboygravity wrote: post #544
ezst wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's so much less true nowadays, Web has become the default platform, where most people run most of their app/spend most of their time. Even Microsoft has had no choice but to embrace it, and Outlook (as in, the one from Microsoft office) is now a web first app (normal outlook is rebranded "classic" and we all know where this is heading, for better or worse). In a way, that makes switching OS much easier. If you ad…

I was going to post a rant on drivers in Linux, but on my newest Lenovo laptop Linux Mint/Ubuntu off the shelve driver support is actually complete and Windows 10 (unsupported by Lenovo) extremely lacking (no wifi driver, no lid driver, no proper standby). And there's no way I'm going to start using Windows 11. So yeah, maybe this is the year of Linux. After decades on this planet :p

Thinkpad E14, same experience. Windows 11 installer doesn't even see the wifi card, under Ubuntu everything works ootb.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#562

Post by whilenot-dev »

snowram wrote: post #426
fooker wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, except firefox is pretty bad nowadays. Not their fault of course, with people not testing websites on non chrome derived browsers.

I browse the web daily, and the number of website that ever gave me trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand. The website compatibility issue is vastly overblown.

> trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand

*over the course of a few years, seriously.

In particular, it's sad to encounter such a rare issue only to then discover its true origin - Firefox implemented a necessary functionality according to spec, whereas Chrome decided to do its own thing. Case in point video streaming with Motion JPEG, Firefox dispatches events on every frame and uses a lot of resources, but Chrome decided not to do that, against the spec.

I set my default choice to pro-privacy (Firefox) and occasionally give it up to some Chromium variant if I depend on a functionality and a website justifiable needs it. The disruption to my workflow here is such a minor thing compared to what I gain usability wise, especially in the long run. I would never treat a software program like some religion, and it saddens me that even computer-savvy people do just that.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#564

Post by yard2010 »

janalsncm wrote: post #228
al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome” I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.

"This site requires Internet Explorer 6 to work"

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#565

Post by steine65 »

baobun wrote: post #555
Takennickname wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that that's the majority of users. The majority of users either use only web applications, or web applications and Microsoft Office. The true majority of users are on mobile. Windows is only unreplaceable for gamers. Which is fine, because Windows is a toy anyway.

> Microsoft Office Doesn't even exist anymore. She's "365 Copilot" and web-first now. https://www.office.com/

Web version sucks compared to desktop version, unless you use the apps minimally. That said, the Winapps repo is a good linux solution, running a windows VM and accessing the office apps via RDP so they feel like a native app. As soon as it gets wayland support, I'm making the full switch. Winapps in Xwayland has some issues.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#567

Post by Lio »

matthewaveryusa wrote: post #341
al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.

Really? Which ones are broken? Every banking website I use works in Firefox.

I can’t imagine voluntarily using a browser without working ad blocking.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#568

Post by wongarsu »

StrLght wrote: post #41
throwaway73945 wrote: post #28

So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Google is fully responsible for MV3 and its' restrictions. There's no reason to shift blame away from them. Let's do a thought experiment: if OP hasn't reported it, what do you think would happen then? Even if different ad blockers would find it later and use it, Google would have still removed this. Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.

Google isn't any less responsible just because somebody else also did something bad. Blame is not a zero-sum game

If we think your line of argument to the logical extreme, then being upset at at somebody who ratted out a Jewish hideout to Nazis would shift blame away from Hitler. That's obviously absurd. Both are bad people, and one being bad doesn't make the other less bad. And if one enables the other being more bad then that makes both of them worse, it doesn't magically shift blame from one to the other

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#569

Post by yard2010 »

krackers wrote: post #4

>They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. So they admit that MV3 isn't actually any more secure than MV2?

This comment reads as if those villains have to provide explanations. Bitch they are Google they ask the questions. If they want they can pirate everything then sell it to make some cash, the stupid laws that we have to follow don't apply to them.

IMO those organizations should pay the taxes for all the people in the country they're being used at. This will create the best incentive for them to succeed.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#570

Post by tonyedgecombe »

al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

Also if you don’t like advertising then hit the back button on advertising heavy sites.
Post reply on HN