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

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 779 posts

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

#611

Post by AsyncAwait »

pfranz wrote: post #556
raptorfactor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples which aren't Google sites?

Is that really relevant? I'd be happy if you could point me to a more capable tool. Zoho and Excel Online have never really made it onto my radar, but if they perform better in this situation I'd check them out. A lot of people are tied to the constraints they have. Using both for years, Chrome has just been faster and more reliable. I don't do web dev professionally, but I use multiple browsers in tandem and often t…

> Is that really relevant?

Kind of, only because Google uses the ShadowDOM API to break its product on competing browsers and playing into it will only reinforce this behavior.

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

#612

Post by gorhill »

happybuy wrote: post #327
acrispino wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you respond to the comment (#23) from the author of uBlock Origin & uMatrix describing the filtering capabilities that will be lost under the proposed declarativeNetRequest API?

Many similar concerns were raised when the Safari API changed, in this case some of the specific limitations and concerns re the declarativeNetRequest approach may be valid – if so, I'd hope that the Chromium team take them on board and improve. I think the concern re the 30,000 rule limit is misguided. Many of these adblock rule lists are extremely inefficient and should probably be pruned to have less rules. Extrem…

> Extremely good and effective adblocking across most websites can be achieved with significantly less rules

Both uBlock and uMatrix can be used without any filter lists, simply using a default-deny ruleset approach, optional in uBO[1], main feature of uMatrix.

However, this approach requires a entirely different matching algorithm than the one matching algorithm picked by the declarativeNetRequest API.

---

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...

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

#613

Post by pojzon »

pleasecalllater wrote: post #596

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the a…

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

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

#614

Post by [deleted] »

CannisterFlux wrote: post #598
metalliqaz wrote: post #4

Another reason to be glad that Firefox is still standing.

I worry that Mozilla will copy the API changes ("for compatibility!") and disable ublock on Firefox too, as Mozilla gets most of their funding from advertising companies too.

[deleted]

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

#616

Post by ginko »

pointillistic wrote: post #269
aquova wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the UI don't you like? I've heard this complaint before, but the two appear pretty similar to me, at least to the point that I never considered one more appealing than the other.

icons, text, bookmarks bar, all seem unpolished, to the point it prevents me from using it.

How can superficial details like that be more important to you than your privacy?

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

#617

Post by deepstream »

dragonwriter wrote: post #114

The design doc — the part quoted in the note linked here even — explicitly notes that it will probably be required to retain some degree of the existing functionality slated for eventually removal until the new API and other replacements cover all use cases; the response linked here appears to (not improperly, in the context of making a case for why much of the functionality is needed) ignoring that and treating the…

To interject with a potentially inconvenient fact, I think the premise that ad blocking (request blocking) is now obstructed, is incorrect. Therefore this response seems exaggerated to me.

This is because Chrome extensions can use the 'debugger' API to send remote debugging protocol commands to a page, to intercept and filter / block all requests.

There is no need to use the provided Chrome extension APIs for blocking. Google can remove all of them, I think, without effect.

This is because there are multiple ways to do the same thing. Authors/engineers complaining that now they are impeded, are in fact mistaken.

Disclosure: I know this because I have actually re-implemented the blocking from AdBlock Fast using CRDP Network domain.

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

#618

Post by pleasecalllater »

pojzon wrote: post #613
pleasecalllater wrote: post #596

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the a…

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

All the I-have-nothing-to-hide people, please publish your bank account, address, SSN, passwords and other information the bank can ask when trying to transfer the money.

Yea, I know... so they really have something to hide, right? So why not to start caring about the privacy and start thinking?

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

#619

Post by smolder »

cma wrote: post #401
mooman219 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to vouch for AdBlockPlus, sometimes extensions change for the worse. They can he hijacked too. HN readers are a small subset of Chrome users. There are many malicious pages out there that attempt to get you to install malicious extensions and the average user will blindly listen. Most people will not check the source, or even reviews.

Sometimes browsers change for the worse too.

Yep, when chrome started forcing "logins" to the browser whenever you log in to their services, I knew it was time for me to stop relying on Google's browser.

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

#620

Post by renholder »

mikro2nd wrote: post #603
dTal wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it rather odd that Googling "uBlock Origin" from Firefox does not return links to addons.mozilla.org - at all. The top result is of course the Chrome addon. The third result is the website for "uBlock" which is the unmaintained fork. Three pages in and you're getting dubious-looking repackaging sites, but no official addon. How on Earth does "Comorbidities Associated with Plaque Psoriasis | Dermatology Times"…

That's sort of weird. Searching DDG for "ublock origin" gives me: 1. Chrome web store 2. ublock.org 3. Microsoft store 4. Wikipedia 5. Mozilla addon, and finally 6. Gorhill's github for ublock origin. Can we finally say that DDG is better for some searches than Google?

>Can we finally say that DDG is better for some searches than Google?

I think we're close. For some things, it's still not the best but instead of going to , I try to modify my query to scope to what I'm looking for.

In a crude example, if I'm looking for the "LoadCrashDump" method,, which is specific to ClrMD[0], I can simply construct my query as "ClrMD: LoadCrashDump".

[0] - https://github.com/Microsoft/clrmd/blob/ac36603e37ef7c8ba05d...

Post reply on HN