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

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#591

Post by rocqua »

zwaps wrote: post #566
SquareWheel wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest V3 still supports ad blocking. I don't know why so many in this thread think it doesn't.

It does not allow blocking Google\any tracking and Google ads, essentially, and gives the Ad industry (and malware) a way to circumvent the blocker with modern tech, because it is a non smart ad blocker but a dumb filter list from 2002. This is fully intended to give Google the ability to use sophisticated scripts to serve ads and track you despite blocking. Everything else Google says about this is bull! They probab…

> It does not allow blocking Google\any tracking and Google ads

As per the article, you can still use a rule set to block. Whilst undoubtably less powerful, I would expect that could still be used to block Google stuff.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#592

Post by tombh »

JoshuaRLi wrote: post #568
ravenstine wrote: post #269

Slightly off topic, I'm finding it very disingenuous that people in this thread(and any other threads that come up about Firefox) have actually had significant performance issues with Firefox. No bugs that are noteworthy, sans that fiasco with the expired certificate that disabled addons briefly. I've been using Firefox since "quantum" on both my MacBooks(one of which is old AF) and on Linux. I've yet to have problem…

I have never had any performance or memory related issues with firefox, on a modest xps 13 9343 with 4gb ram. In fact, with regular usage, firefox rarely exceeds 2gb usage, and cpu usage is never an issue. Though I have tweaked my firefox quite a bit, I don't think the core issue is with the browser technology. The technology is fantastic and computers are fast. Rather, I see it is a combination of two things: poor w…

What are your tweaks?

2Gb seems to totally reasonable for my habits, but I can't keep to it, there are just always leaks. Eg; Slack or Gmail just need reloading every few hours to reclaim RAM.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#593

Post by butterpeanut »

dotancohen wrote: post #546
user17843 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market. The fact that Eyeo has >150 employees tells us something about the amount of money to be made from ad blocking. Although they have only…

There is an additional danger here. Currently, we can go use Firefox or Joe's homemade browser to to back the features that Chrome removes, such as the ability for an ad-blocker to access and remove content. But we've already seen just last month [1] that Google actively prevents Firefox from using some features of Google products (need to find the HN link). Thus Google as a content provider can easily steep people i…

This thing about Google preventing Firefox from using some features (Edge as well I believe) - I'm assuming this is all done using the user agent header? or are they detecting Chrome through another means. I guess I'm wondering how effective spoofing the user agent header would be in resolving that.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#594

Post by [deleted] »

whatshisface wrote: post #435
cortesoft wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can absolutely work with the absence of data, because you are still doing other things around the web that generates data. They will see you doing other interactions but not ad requests, and they can figure things out from that.

That's why uBlock Origin also blocks trackers, third party embeds, and of course, ads.

[deleted]

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#595

Post by Flavius »

jakeogh wrote: post #575
notatoad wrote: post #260

Not only is this enough to get me switching back to firefox, it's enough that my next laptop purchase won't be another chromebook the internet without an adblocker is simply not usable for me.

Serious suggestion: Disable JS. I find the net practically unusable with it enabled. It's like getting stuck using Windows for something. Checkout surf (webkit): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20023287

Disabling JS in your browser is like cutting off your leg because one of your toes hurts. It might solve the toe problem, but it's not an ideal solution.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#597

Post by jupp0r »

blinkingled wrote: post #249

This is malice. Plain and simple. I will remove the last remaining installation of Chrome from my workstation. It's still good that I can run Firefox on Android but we have to make Chrome the new IE fast.

> we have to make Chrome the new IE fast.

Microsoft has literally done that already: https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#598

Post by Duckton »

mmgutz wrote: post #524
starik36 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience exactly. The dev tools have caught up to chrome and in some ways surpassed it.

The only thing I miss is the ease which you can create and use different profiles in Chrome. Facilitates testing web apps. Firefox's support of multiple profiles is kludgy.

Have you tried navigating to `about:profiles`? That’s how I switch between profiles. Works just fine IMO.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#599

Post by bubblewrap »

nerdponx wrote: post #581
ljm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it’s so unfortunate and frustrating that people are depending so much on Chromium/Blink. Electron, various browsers that are just skins over the embedded framework... We were still dealing with legacy IE6 (and IE 7/8 by that point also) in 2013! Almost a decade since we got Firefox and the first version of Chrome. The web has empirically suffered through homogeneity and the lack of strong competitors in t…

Why do people act like this is all some great big accident, the result of eternal human fallibility? It's not. This was planned. It was the objective all along. Why else do you think Google Maps is free? Gmail? Why did they drive around 1,000s of cities with cameras on a car taking photos for Street View? Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the…

"because sucking you into the ecosystem is just that profitable."

Nevertheless, they offer good products. I'm not sure the negativity is really warranted.

I've yet to hear about a case of anybody being hurt by Google collecting data to them and serving ads?

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#600

Post by sakisv »

nerdponx wrote: post #581
ljm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it’s so unfortunate and frustrating that people are depending so much on Chromium/Blink. Electron, various browsers that are just skins over the embedded framework... We were still dealing with legacy IE6 (and IE 7/8 by that point also) in 2013! Almost a decade since we got Firefox and the first version of Chrome. The web has empirically suffered through homogeneity and the lack of strong competitors in t…

Why do people act like this is all some great big accident, the result of eternal human fallibility? It's not. This was planned. It was the objective all along. Why else do you think Google Maps is free? Gmail? Why did they drive around 1,000s of cities with cameras on a car taking photos for Street View? Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the…

> Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so.

>Chrome is the same thing. Why would a for-profit company develop a web browser more or less unprompted and give it away for free? To draw people into the system and get them comfortable with staying there.

I think you're giving them too much credit, bordering on a conspiracy theory. There's no way they knew all of this would happen and that they would now be in the position to dictate the plug-ins we use.

I'm not saying they didn't want that and they are not happy to be in this position.

What I'm saying is that their initial plan with Gmail/maps/chrome was to gather more data and give themselves the competitive advantage in the ad selling business. If you remember, when most of these products started they looked nothing like each other, quite telling that there was no central plan to create an ecosystem.

The ecosystem idea started much later, with the failed attempts to make social network and with the not-so-failed Google Now which is when they finally started bringing all the data they had together.

Surely they took advantage of their position eventually and managed both to create an ecosystem and to successfully lock people in, but that doesn't mean that they planned it since 2003.

Post reply on HN