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

uBlock Origin 1.53

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 293 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#61

Post by throwaway141455 »

Already__Taken wrote: post #59
codeflo wrote: post #48

From the “uBO works best in Firefox” page, I found this gem: > Firefox will wait for uBO to be ready before sending network requests from already opened tab(s) at browser launch. > In Chromium-based browsers, this is not the case. Tracker/advertisement payloads may find their way into already opened tabs before uBO is ready, while Firefox will properly filter these. That’s a hell of a “bug” in Chromium, that blocker…

[flagged]

"I want my browser to load ads as fast as possible" is an interesting take

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#62

Post by 0xedb »

PeterStuer wrote: post #43
all2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I've pretty much stopped using YouTube since the adblocker blocker shut me out. I figure it's a good time to kick a bad habit. :D

To be fair Youtube has to make a profit somehow. Ad revenue, direct and/or through profile data collection is easy and effective but the worst businessmodel for human sanity. I like that they at least offer an alternative for the ad viewing part through Youtube premium. I don't know about the US as streaming services seem to have catalogues orders of magnitude more extensive than over here in Europe, but compared to…

YouTube Premium isn't available worldwide.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#63

Post by chii »

Already__Taken wrote: post #59
codeflo wrote: post #48

From the “uBO works best in Firefox” page, I found this gem: > Firefox will wait for uBO to be ready before sending network requests from already opened tab(s) at browser launch. > In Chromium-based browsers, this is not the case. Tracker/advertisement payloads may find their way into already opened tabs before uBO is ready, while Firefox will properly filter these. That’s a hell of a “bug” in Chromium, that blocker…

[flagged]

which is why uBO has the option to delay, but also to disable this delay (which relies on firefox enabling the capability to make a choice). Why can't chrome also let the plugin (and by proxy, the end user) decide?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#64

Post by 0xedb »

Twirrim wrote: post #32

A nice little Quality Of Life improvement for me with uBlock Origin recently has been using it top block Confluence's pop ups when someone has commented on a page I'm reading. We use Confluence to do document reviews at work, and sitting there attempting to read a document while Confluence is popping up that annoying dialogue box over and over again as people comment on the doc is insanely annoying. With uBlock Origi…

I used it to block Twitter's ad bugging me to pay. Funny thing is I can't use the paid version since it's not available in my country. However, the popup kept bugging me

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#65

Post by hellotheretoday »

smartusers wrote: post #38
Liquix wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. But IMHO Google would be fine with this. They aren't in the business of giving out CPU time and bandwidth for free – your data must be catalogued and correlated and sold to keep YouTube viable. What do they gain from the 5-10% of users consuming videos but offering no salable data in return? It's a direct hit to the bottom line from a minority who would rather stop using the service than be converted to impress…

It's just going to push the smart people with self respect to other platforms. YouTube will then cater to the captive ad tolerant audience that's left and the quality of the whole platform will degrade. More people will leave, the quality will drop, the number of ads will go up, etc. This will reduce the quality of video on YouTube until what you basically have now on reddit: a hot trash fire. Sure you can milk these…

Can that progression even happen anymore? Call me cynical but I think we are long past the days of “the digg migration to Reddit”, “MySpace exodus to Facebook”, leaving vbulletin forums en masse for social media, leaving irc and Usenet for vbulletin forums, etc

How could a viable competitor to YouTube even begin to pull away YouTube’s inertia without massive vc funding? That VC would want the platform to eventually end up with the same shitty ux issues, intrusive ads, and data collection as YouTube. Guaranteed. Unless someone finds a way to store and serve tons of hi def video for free.

Not to mention even if you get past that step you’re going up against a Goliath. If you’re actually viable and potentially going to make a serious dent do you think google is just going to do nothing? They’ll leverage their gigantic market share and huge amount of resources to take you down. Whether it’s by suing you for some nonsense, replicating your service model in their own platform to recapture customers, straight up buying your platform, etc

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#66

Post by arbol »

iamalchemist wrote: post #35

How is UBO on Google Chrome different than Brave browser? Context - I've used UBO on Google Chrome in the past and now using Brave browser for the last few years. I don't see much difference how web feels with UBO and Brave.

Brave ad blocker is not as good as UBO. You need to install UBO if you use brave.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#67

Post by zx8080 »

codeflo wrote: post #48

From the “uBO works best in Firefox” page, I found this gem: > Firefox will wait for uBO to be ready before sending network requests from already opened tab(s) at browser launch. > In Chromium-based browsers, this is not the case. Tracker/advertisement payloads may find their way into already opened tabs before uBO is ready, while Firefox will properly filter these. That’s a hell of a “bug” in Chromium, that blocker…

I would expect nothing less than an immediate promotion to the next title. So cool.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#69

Post by chii »

spartanatreyu wrote: post #17
creatonez wrote: post #3

For anyone looking for up-to-date information on getting YouTube ad blocking to work: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976

In the last year, youtube anti-ad-block only ever occurred to me once and I fixed it in 2 minutes by reading the instructions on that github issue. All I had to do was manually trigger an update for uBlock Origin's filter lists then restart firefox. The filter lists update automatically, but a new youtube change got around them and the filter had a fix inside an hour (too short a time for my extension to auto-update…

This has been continuing for the past couple months. I don't see youtube giving up tbh, and i don't see how uBO can continue to maintain a manually constructed filter every time a new mechanism is added/altered in youtube.

This is different to other ads, which is a crowdsourced list of filters, and isn't on a small or single individual to keep up. There must be a better way to utilize the crowd to make it work.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.53

#70

Post by hellotheretoday »

PeterStuer wrote: post #43
all2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I've pretty much stopped using YouTube since the adblocker blocker shut me out. I figure it's a good time to kick a bad habit. :D

To be fair Youtube has to make a profit somehow. Ad revenue, direct and/or through profile data collection is easy and effective but the worst businessmodel for human sanity. I like that they at least offer an alternative for the ad viewing part through Youtube premium. I don't know about the US as streaming services seem to have catalogues orders of magnitude more extensive than over here in Europe, but compared to…

YouTube premium pricing is ridiculous. $14 a month for android and $19 a month for iOS? Get out of here

How much could they possibly make from ads in a given month off a single user. Best case scenario with a user that watches YouTube like 4 hours a day 6 days a week and clicks through once every week. $4? Probably not even that. And yet somehow YouTube premium needs to be almost $230 a year for apple users?

I bet they’d make way more with a lower premium tier that just removed ads and had no other premium features for like $20/year. Wouldn’t make as much obviously but I bet they’d do way more volume. I wonder if they have some dipshit mba arguing against something like this because it “makes them seem cheap” or “delegitimizes the platform against more traditional streaming networks” or some nonsense to justify charging Hulu prices for YouTube content

Post reply on HN