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

661–670 of 779 posts

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

#661

Post by 3xblah »

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…

I once read that Chrome was created by former Firefox developers. Google is infamous for its code reuse.

Many web commentators continually sound the alarm on Google's increasing leverage and control over a variety of "components" or "intrastructure" essential to the www.

But controlling the browser is, I think, the ultimate control over the web as users know it. Browsers seem to fall outside the purview of www standards. Are there RFCs that tell people what browsers must or should do? More likely, there are standards that focus on servers and seek to accomodate whatever browsers are doing at the time.

The browser can override anything. It can easily modify user intent in subtle, "hidden" ways. It can rewrite "default behaviour" overnight.

To give an example, users probably think little of something like the feature known as "Omnibox", if they even know what that is, but this sort of browser "feature" is of enormous value to a company trying to gather information on what users are looking for.

Imagine the number of DNS queries this bypasses, redirecting what is typed by the user to a default search engine, conveniently preset to point to a Google server.

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

#662

Post by jqt »

close04 wrote: post #655
jqt wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?

The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations. Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. J…

I know very well the shortcomings of Chrome (4 and 5 are not Chrome) and I still choose Chrome.

I know what Chrome has done in the past, and I also know what Firefox has done in the past, and I still choose Chrome. You show how Chrome 1) hides www and how 2) logging in, which I don't do, logs you into the browser. On the other hand look at what Firefox has done:

-> Sent user data, including all visited URLs, to a third party advertising company, without asking the user: https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whi... "Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit,"

-> Installed an addon without permission in my browser to promote a TV show: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/mozillas-mr-robot-promo-ba...

-> (Currently) shows ads in the new tab page by default (this is currently still going on): https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-tries-ads-in-firefox-again...

-> Showed ads in the new tab page, even after you disabled the option to receive ads: https://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-640-is-now-showing-a-boo...

-> Sent data to a third company about what users do with Firefox Focus, which is supposedly a privacy-focused browser: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/02/12/firefox-focus-privacy-scan...

And the list goes on...

So yes, fuck Mozilla, they can burn.

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

#663

Post by unclebucknasty »

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.

>people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome.

Which browser are you using?

I think some people who care about privacy have just been worn down to the point where they've given up and don't necessarily believe they gain much from the inconvenience of avoiding things that work for them. I'm not sure that's totally irrational.

Once upon a time, you could tweak your HOSTS file and/or install some basic software, and adopt a few behaviors to get reasonably strong privacy.

Now, between all of the data breaches, tracking at the device/ISP/carrier level, nefarious privacy policies (including IRL), business models that depend on collecting, selling, and protecting data, app glut, sophisticated malware and fraud, etc. ad nauseum: it's like a multi-front war to keep your PII. Truth be told, most of us have shockingly less knowledge than we think WRT how much of our data is "out there" and who has access to it.

Through this lens, it's understandable that some might care but think it doesn't make a tremendous difference whether they use Chrome or some other thing.

Not to say it's hopeless, but at some point certain "precautions" inconvenience us more than they provide any marked improvement in our overall privacy. I'm not even sure which browser to trust more than Chrome anymore. So, I use Chrome for its features, active maintenance, and standards compatibility.

EDIT: I'd be curious to know what others are using.

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

#665

Post by close04 »

jqt wrote: post #662
close04 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations. Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. J…

I know very well the shortcomings of Chrome (4 and 5 are not Chrome) and I still choose Chrome. I know what Chrome has done in the past, and I also know what Firefox has done in the past, and I still choose Chrome. You show how Chrome 1) hides www and how 2) logging in, which I don't do, logs you into the browser. On the other hand look at what Firefox has done: -> Sent user data, including all visited URLs, to a thi…

> 4 and 5 are not Chrome

Ok... I'd read it for you but that's not how it works. So here it is in nuggets:

> "Both Android and Chrome send data to Google even in the absence of any user interaction," the study finds. "Our experiments show that a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14 data communications per hour."

> So yes, fuck Mozilla, they can burn.

Ah, ok, I was waiting for you to change the narrative from "Mozilla bad, Google good" to "I have no argument, I just don't like Mozilla".

And don't get me wrong, you have every right to like whatever you want. Just don't pretend you have valid objective arguments.

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

#666

Post by lunchables »

nwellnhof wrote: post #646
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…

> I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser Chrome was originally based on WebKit and many other open source libraries, and some parts still are. The only major initial investment was V8.

>https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-near...

And that was 6 years ago.

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

#667

Post by notacoward »

briandear wrote: post #432
seanp2k2 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS filtering has been on the "losing side" for a few decades now. As long as more than 0.1% of people don't use it, it's not worth solving for most ad companies. Even if places like YouTube DO find ways to stuff ads into my face (likely at great technical and operational expense to them), I make it a point to NEVER EVER buy anything advertised, search for any of it, etc. Because they know so little about me (I go ou…

Maybe if you won’t ever convert, they should simply stop wasting time serving you anything? YouTube isn’t a charity.

They're not a charity, but their business model is based on ads and they rely on the network effect to support that model. People who can't see anything at all will immediately defect. No revenue at all from the moment that policy is implemented, plus significant risk that enough will leave to weaken the network effect. People who are forced to watch ads with their content will grumble, some of them might eventually defect, but for the most part they will stay and continue generating revenue. Less immediate impact to the bottom line, and hardly any risk of undermining the network effect.

The "just go away" approach is proving suicidal for online newspapers and magazines. It would be no less so for YouTube. Their content is neither compelling enough nor exclusive enough for that to work.

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

#668

Post by AlexandrB »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #652
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…

Chrome doesn't log you in automatically, it just shows your Google account in Chrome if you've already logged in to your account. There's no sync happening.

When a company tells me where it's going by increasingly "encouraging" certain behaviours as their product matures I take them at their word.

Profiles went from optional, to on-by-default but could be disabled via chrome://flags, to on-by-default but could be disabled via command line arg, to cannot be disabled, to logged in by default but not syncing. Where this progression is going and what it's trying to promote is not rocket science.

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

#669

Post by tehduder9 »

codeflo wrote: post #542
bad_user wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The uBlock maintainer specifically says that uBlock Origin and uMatrix use a different matching algorithm than the declarativeNetRequest. The title isn't at all hyperbolic. You don't deprecate such important functionality without laying out a full plan for replacement. Unless there is no such plan and in reality you want to screw uBlock Origin, which I might say is the most aggressive ad blocker available, and isn't…

Oh, the Google fanboys. “Didn’t you read the article? This is purely for privacy reasons.” Nevermind that this makes it harder to actually keep your privacy. Nevermind that this is exactly what people warned would happen in a browser monoculture controlled by an ad company. That’s just a coincidence. It must be, because Google are the good guys, am I right?

firefox isn't that good with privacy either

https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whi...

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

#670

Post by jqt »

close04 wrote: post #665
jqt wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very well the shortcomings of Chrome (4 and 5 are not Chrome) and I still choose Chrome. I know what Chrome has done in the past, and I also know what Firefox has done in the past, and I still choose Chrome. You show how Chrome 1) hides www and how 2) logging in, which I don't do, logs you into the browser. On the other hand look at what Firefox has done: -> Sent user data, including all visited URLs, to a thi…

> 4 and 5 are not Chrome Ok... I'd read it for you but that's not how it works. So here it is in nuggets: > "Both Android and Chrome send data to Google even in the absence of any user interaction," the study finds. "Our experiments show that a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14…

Sure, if you disregard the entirety of my post it looks like Mozilla is full of saints. The truth is that they've backstabbed me several times and I won't allow them to do it anymore. Take from that what you will. Maybe, if the Mozilla Corporation changes hands, I will trust them again, but as it stands now, no way.
Post reply on HN