Live data from Hacker News

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

721–730 of 779 posts

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

#721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This was a terrible mistake by Mozilla, but a test pilot for a limited number of users doesn't seem permanently worse than what Google does in regards to privacy.

Moreover, this presumably didn't affect users who installed via a package manager, while with Chrome the installation method doesn't matter.

However I wish Mozilla was publicly funded, so that they don't have to constantly search for alternative revenue sources.

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

#722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. How can you be so sure about that?

You can't. But Google is an ad company and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource, the data. So it's more about the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

> and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource

Correct. They sell it for money. How exactly is that better at keeping your private data private? Google's power doesn't reside in the fact that it keeps your data private but in the fact that they have a constant flow of up to date data. When you hand over data to a company whose revenue (also) officially comes from monetizing it your privacy is forfeited.

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

#723
post #710
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I'm all the more disappointed that Mozilla is unable to resist the siren's call either, what with the Looking Glass decision and their tendency to deprecate UX functionality with no replacement (like custom keyboard shortcuts).

... Their totally transparent study system, and turning off hotkeys. You bring that up in a discussion about google crippling ad blockers. Why does this always happen? Why is it when google commits murder, someone mentions that firefox was caught jaywalking?

"Randomly installing unauthorized addons with creepy messages because marketing told you" is the same kind of error, just different degree.

They also disabled user-provided unsigned addons, even when you authorize them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8

Super Metroid in 1992 had customizable keys. Mozilla gets $500 million a year and can't even keep a feature it had 3 years ago. I shouldn't be disappointed about failure to get basic things right, when they're suppose to be the great bulwark against those who wish to control your machine?

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

#724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Irrelevant whataboutism. It doesn’t matter what Firefox does, the article is about Google Chrome/Chromium.

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

#725
post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Google takes the approach you want, they are vilified for "letting third parties access your data" - as in the Gmail "scandal" a few months ago. If you let users do whatever they want, they will often shoot themselves in the foot. It's a tough balance.

Gmail users let third parties access their data, i.e., their e-mails. We should not blame Google if Gmail users can decide whether a third party can access their e-mails.

Well too bad, because there were news articles shared all over the place and crazy outrage. People were calling for fines or for Google to be broken up.

Or look at flashlight apps that steal your text messages. People shout and scream that Android shouldn't permit this or that Google shouldn't have them on the Play store. But pull a lever to make these things harder and suddenly it is about freedom and how Fdroid is the only good store.

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

#726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could, except that would effectively show Google that it can dictate what other browsers implement, alter its products on rapid basis to regularly break them etc. and at that point there's almost no point to an alternative, since we'd we're fully back in the IE era again, which is why I don't think it's a good idea. If one cannot avoid it, I think it's a better idea to create Chrome desktop shortcuts for Gmail/Y…

Firefox doesn't have the market share to push back on Google. The best way for Firefox to grow is to make the best browser from the user's perspective.

I get that, but this seems like controlled opposition.

Moreover, once you give in on this, what's Google going to do next? Use APIs only in Chrome that Mozilla needs to implement only after they're made public in Chrome by literally looking at the source code? There's always going to be a lag if that's the dynamic, so there's always going to be the perception that Firefox is behind.

Moreover if Firefox adopts it, it makes it more likely to be adopted by Apple too, since Google's now not the only kid on the block to support it and now you turned it into a de-facto standard.

Mozilla already partially caved to Google in pursuit of the "best browser" as perceived by the average user. That was on DRM. Now I say partially because at least they made it opt-in, but so they caved and next Google came up with this thing.

If you going to keep paying ransom, you're going to have a lot of hostages.

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

#727
post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I-have-nothing-to-hide Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark. I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.

I'm not necessarily of this opinion, but his view is that knowing what you had for breakfast and your address is the same as your bank account # or house keys; it's just that people haven't realized this yet.

Their argument is that the reason why people say house keys, or bank act # is different is because they are protecting something of value. His argument is what you do on a daily basis is just as valuable you just don't know it yet.

The other argument against is "yes my privacy/ daily activity may have 'value', but unlike my bank account or house keys people can't take something from me from knowing it. " That's more up to opinion, but the argument is knowing you so well, someone can take your independence. A bit dystopian, but imagine n years from now, ML is good enough to predict your responses and behaviors to 80+% of things. Companies now use it to effectively get you to make decisions they want. Combinations of timing, placement, location, repetition, persuasion, counter-argument all to produce a desired result, but unlike present day extremely effective and possibly without your awareness. If there is a way to get our wet ware to do it, ML will figure it out.

Advertising/Marketing/Sales become a game of Go, where you're the Go board. Best ML wins.

We like to think we're fully in control of our decision making facilities, but study after study shows that's mostly an illusion. Our sub-conscience mostly decides for us, and then our brains rationalize this away after the fact.

The fear is that by giving away your emotions, your responses, your ocean 5 factor model, your preferences, your habits, and a playground to test all of this in you are potentially giving up your independence at a future time.

It's all dystopian, it's not guaranteed, but it pans out as all likely directions and very probable tech.

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

#728
post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I-have-nothing-to-hide Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark. I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.

I'm not necessarily of this opinion, but his view is that knowing what you had for breakfast and your address is the same as your bank account # or house keys; it's just that people haven't realized this yet. Their argument is that the reason why people say house keys, or bank act # is different is because they are protecting something of value. His argument is what you do on a daily basis is just as valuable you jus…

At a certain point, is that necessarily a bad thing?

If the AI knows me so well, it's probably something I would buy/want anyway. If my house starts cooking bacon and eggs in the morning based on it's analysis of me, and there's a 90% chance that's what I want, awesome.

A lot of people already do it with driving. On my commute to work every day, I go the way google maps tells me to. Google is effectively controlling traffic patterns, but it's made driving to work faster.

I realize it could possibly be used for evil, but by the time we get there, most if not all, of the people reading this will be dead by that point, so we'll never know.

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

#729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for pi-hole, but Diversion on Asuswrt-Merlin works fantastic for me. No ads ever except for YouTube ads lately due to google’s changes to how they serve ads from the same servers they provide services on.

> No ads ever except for YouTube ads lately due to google’s changes to how they serve ads from the same servers they provide services on. Thats what I meant by network level blocking doesn't work very well. Using uBlock Origin, I don't see YouTube ads.

There's a huge difference between "doesn't work very well" and "works perfectly except for one really sneaky ad company, sometimes". How does ublock origin cover scripts and ads for my entire network? Did you even look at what I'm talking about before making such general statements? My router blocks hundreds of thousands of incidents per week, and there are only two people in my household. One can't use a browser plugin on android tv, Apple TV, smart tv, and a million other devices. By your own logic, ublock origin doesn't work very well. See what I mean?

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

#730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I value the extension very highly, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

> and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX Maybe I'm not as critical about the UI, but I have both browsers open at the same time so I took a second to compare them. Both browsers have a row of tabs. Below that is a second row. The left most set of buttons is navigation (back, forward, refresh, etc), then the address bar, then on the very right of the row is a set of buttons for extensions, settings, etc. The remaining porti…

> I also just compared how both browsers displayed HN main page. Slight differences in color of orange and font weight, but only noticeable if comparing both directly (and besides devs, who does that?).

So on the color thing, one of our designers noticed and I looked into it. Turned out to be an open bug report for Chrome(ium? I forget) where it's using the wrong color profile for css, and resulted in images not matching borders and backgrounds.

Post reply on HN