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

621–630 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#621

Post by breve »

aziaziazi wrote: post #606
breve wrote: post #159

The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…

Google doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not written in the stars that Google must succeed. If Google's business model doesn't meet web users expectations then it's perfectly alright for Google to fail as a business. Businesses fail all the time.

Google is not special or different. Google can adapt or die.

Remember also that as Google has grown and captured more of the available attention and advertising dollars, other businesses that rely on attention and advertising such as free-to-air TV or print media have contracted and even failed. Google has shed no tears for them and, correspondingly, there's no need to shed tears for Google.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#622

Post by throwaway77385 »

aziaziazi wrote: post #606
breve wrote: post #159

The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…

I principally agree with you. But in reality, the ad-funded model has failed. It failed a long time ago.

There were never any restrictions placed on it, so it became a self-sustaining downward spiral to the current state of things. When I see the internet without an ad-blocker it is completely unusable. Quite frankly, I would most likely stop using most of the internet altogether if I couldn't block ads.

So what is the alternative? Same as always: paid services. A service / platform can either work out a pricing model that works for people, or it shouldn't / can't exist in that form.

Some people will argue that they'd rather have ads and also content for free and that's fine. Maybe some people can tolerate them. I cannot. I find them to be as close to experiencing physical pain as possible. It's like pure mind-poison and I will bend over backwards to avoid ads.

I am waiting for the age of smart-glasses to begin so that I can filter out ads in real-life as well. I simply never, ever, under any circumstances want to see any advertising ever.

If I want a product or service, I'll go search for it. I don't need anything to be suggested to me. And this is just my battle-hardened mind. I daren't think of what ads do to un-developed, children's minds.

It should be the government's responsibility to severely restrict advertising until it nearly doesn't exist. But that's not the world we live in, so I have taken matters into my own hands.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#623

Post by TeMPOraL »

twilo wrote: post #511
aspenmayer wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you’re right, but by the time Microsoft acquired Hotmail in 1997, MSN was already two years old and had its own dialup service. Microsoft knew what they were doing.

Yes but like the post above says MS didn’t start to “monetize” their users until the 2000s and it was mainly because Google set up that beautiful business model… on top of Microsoft’s platform (Windows) which makes the whole thing really funny

The irony may be much stronger than that; I'd go as far as suggesting that Microsoft went for that business model because of the antitrust case.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#624

Post by chgs »

tonyhb wrote: post #619
chgs wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all content I consume is not funded by adverts, it’s funded by passion or subscription or donation. Adverts have no positive effects for anyone other than the advertising firm. They cost the viewer more than the provide the advertiser

if they’re not funded by adverts then you don’t need an ad blocker, right?

bbc news is full of tracking despite not showing adverts.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#625

Post by fc417fc802 »

XorNot wrote: post #267
xboxnolifes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox has multiple, user-affecting, memory leaks related to Youtube (unconfirmed if just youtube), going back at least 7 years. Tab scrollbar as no option to be disabled, so I had to write CSS to get tabs into a form close to what I would like similar to chrome. Tab mute icon has no (working) option to disable the click event, so I had to write CSS to remove it. I made some other changes, but I forget what. At leas…

The average user does not notice any of these things. Except the YouTube thing but that's because I'm not even sure what you're talking about: I leave YouTube windows open in Firefox for weeks.

I can confirm the youtube issue. No idea if it might be some edge case with my distro or hardware. Forcing a GC collection helps but input events to the entire browser still feel laggy until I restart it. It's been going on for years now.

It occurs to me that it could be a pathological edge case triggered by ublock and youtube interacting. I'm not going to disable it to find out.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#626

Post by al_borland »

gg82 wrote: post #374
worik wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes to everything except the first statement: > The answer is antitrust. Anti-trust is crucial to make the capitalist economy work prperly, I agree But another answer is "Firefox"

I would love to say another answer is "Firefox" (which is my default browser), but Mozilla have gotten fat of Googles money over the years and got distracted by other things.

I would love if some of these projects that fall backward into loads of money would stay lean, and invest that money in a way that allowed them to become truly independent. So when the money dries up, or the funding becomes dirty, they have the freedom to cut ties and continue their lean operations, self-funded by the interest from their investments.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#627

Post by wrasee »

mattigames wrote: post #457
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.

Hit then where it hurts would be political action, not individuals switching to Firefox, that does nothing.

In a democracy it’s actually the other way around, over time at least. Politicians follow votes.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#628

Post by al_borland »

amelius wrote: post #572
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.

We need webmasters to nudge people away from Chrome. E.g. show an annoying popup on opening the page or add a small delay.

We also need Google to stop showing annoying pop-ups every time someone goes to their homepage, Gmail, or any other site they own. They also need to stop promoting users on mobile to open links in Chrome, when the user doesn’t even have Chrome installed, and has chosen the “default browser” option 100 times already.

I’m so fed up with these nudges.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#629

Post by pjmlp »

lowwave wrote: post #557
quacksilver wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devs, particularly those with pressure to ship or who don't know better, unfortunately see 'it works in Chrome' as 'it works', even if it is a quirk of Chrome that causes it to work, or if they use Chrome related hacks that break compatibility with other browsers to get it to work in Chrome. - Sometimes the standards don't define some exact behavior and it is left for the browser implementer to come up with. Chrome i…

Before shipping any web site/app, make sure it works in Apple Safari Mobile is usually the one that is dragging it is foot in Web Standards.

On the contrary, they are the last one standing fighting Google takeover of the Web as ChromeOS development platform.

Without Safari we are done, just close shop on the Web standards group.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#630

Post by qilo »

bgnn wrote: post #584

Reading the comments, I see a lot of hate for Firefox. What is the explanation for this (other than people not trying Firefox and assuming it's inferior)?

Mozilla sells user data to third parties. Their statement:

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612

Post reply on HN