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

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 614 posts

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

#581

Post by Garbage »

tgv wrote: post #283
diimdeep wrote: post #88

Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...

Why Nightly? It's not guaranteed to be rock solid.

I have been using it for a few "years" now. It has exceeded my expectation for stability from a "nightly" product. I don't even remember having problems with it in last few years, and it's my primary browser.

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

#582

Post by JetSpiegel »

zaroth wrote: post #558
Judgmentality wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers Chrome has 2/3 of the browser market and growing. At what point does it become a monopoly? Also don't forget the vast majority of Firefox's revenue is a royalty from Google. https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/

It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted. Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants. Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to c…

> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes

Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

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

#583

Post by JetSpiegel »

Nextgrid wrote: post #523
fanf2 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 22 of the GDPR provides protection to individuals against purely automated decision making https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

It's not like Google really cares about the GDPR though. Pretty much none of their stuff complies with it.

They can afford to just pay the millionaire fines.

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

#584

Post by lightedman »

Pxtl wrote: post #546
lightedman wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm a BGA repair tech that has had to deal with the bad RAM chips on that model of phone, among others. The RAM will appear to pass hardware checking in our testers, but you hit it hard and suddenly the frequency becomes unstable, often dropping down to DDR1 speeds. Plenty of room for error, there.

Ugh, I'd suspected something like that because it behaves very badly sometimes, but it's intermittent. Is there any recommended test for this? Or is it too ephemeral to test for?

You need a dedicated BGA removal/reflow tool (like a Metcal) a compatible RAM board to mount the removed BGA upon for insertion into a RAM tester, then you need a hardware RAM tester like RAMCHECK LX.

That's an expensive set of kit.

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

#585

Post by prirun »

Here's what freaks me out:

"Important Note Repeated or egregious violations of the policies may result in your developer account being banned from the store. This may also result in the suspension of related Google services associated with your Google account."

Google is into all these different services and wants them all managed from one Google ID. But if you have a problem with one of their services, it can screw you on all of their services.

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

#586

Post by rovr138 »

echelon wrote: post #379
dessant wrote: post #104

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the…

Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities. The same should happen to Apple. Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.

I hear this and I’m just curious, what would prevent CompanyA from bundling and requiring CompanyB’s product on the build?

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

#587

Post by vatueil »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #570
vatueil wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app…

> Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Blocking it on Spotify is fine. If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Youtube's TOS should not get special treatment in unrelated products.

What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service.

They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...

Spotify has also threatened to ban users caught using these third-party apps: https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-emails-warning-to-pirates-u...

At least YouTube doesn't go that far.

> If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem.

Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.

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

#588

Post by taurath »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #577
taurath wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it’s been 5 years. I’ve reported it many times with lots of logs.

There have apparently been considerable improvements in this area in the latest Nightly/Developer editions, not in stable yet.

I have tried once a year. This is always the promise. It’s still not been fixed.

I get downvoted every time by people who don’t want to hear negativity about Firefox - I keep trying because I want it to be usable for me.

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

#589

Post by BrendanEich »

catalogia wrote: post #362
_-o-_ wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything that uBO blocks that isn't covered by Brave's integrated adblocker?

Yes, uBO is a wide-spectrum blocker, not merely an adblocker. It has powerful context-sensitive blocking that's surpassed only by uMatrix (also from gorhill), as well as cosmetic filters that I find invaluable for cleaning up the dumpster fire being passed off as "the web" these days. Floating header bar that follows you down the page of an article you're trying to read, wasting your vertical screen space? Remove it…

We don't have uBO's cosmetic filters. That's about it.

In other words, Brave is "wide-spectrum" too. We block tracking, fingerprinting, and other bad scripts -- not ads _per se_. This has the effect of blocking 3rd party ads and most 1st party (since 1st party ads still rely on tracking "pixels" AKA scripts for confirmation).

We don't block 1st party ads by default where they work without tracking cookies and scripts. A prime example are the search ads you find on Google and other search engine result pages. These are about as clean as you can get, and yet some of our users want to block them on principle, for aesthetic reasons, etc. So we are adding options to do so.

Cosmetic filters have a high performance cost that we have not been willing to take by default, but we're working on them.

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

#590

Post by BrendanEich »

rvnx wrote: post #452
mthoms wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there's no benefit Brave doesn't have all the Chrome telemetry (etc) as I understand it.

Yes they have their own telemetry (like Firefox). They were using Mixpanel before, but they got complain from users, so eventually they added a proxy in front of Mixpanel (but that doesn't change anything since Mixpanel generates an UID, so what's the point of hiding the IP ?). https://github.com/brave/metric-proxy It's used for tracking user performance when distributing BAT (otherwise you would have no referral pro…

That was for the website, not for browser telemetry -- we switched to self-hosted Piwik (now Matomo) instance.

For in-browser telemetry, please see https://brave.com/privacy-preserving-product-analytics-p3a/. Low-dimensionality data (a few bits of answer) given to randomly timed unlinkable survey questions; anything hi-D is in the future and will use PROCHLO.

Post reply on HN