Live data from Hacker News

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

751–760 of 779 posts

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

#751
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ask yourself if you’d be ok with [your browsing history, email, location and search queries] ever being exposed publicly. I already did, and the answer was "Yes, I'd be okay" (although the likelihood of that happening is extremely rare). > Ever googled something embarrassing? Use incognito mode. > Perhaps a medical condition or symptom? I have only one medical condition, which I'm not embarassed to talk about publi…

It is a shame that you are being downvoted. I (like a lot of people here) disagree with you, but you have a point of view shared by a lot of people. It's an important point of view to consider and engage with because my impression is that it's the majority view from the population - based on their actions, they don't care about their data privacy if it gets them gmail for free. For a lot of people they possibly hold…

> It is a shame that you are being downvoted. I (like a lot of people here) disagree with you, but you have a point of view shared by a lot of people.

People are notoriously bad at acting in their own best interest. I recall reading a forum, where a guy asked for medical advice, because he was diagnosed with fibrosis (his lungs basically got scarred all over). His work required him to continuously inhale toxic exhaust, and he wanted a way to avoid further health complications (but keep a work!) because "the pay was good".

Fibrosis causes you to cough non-stop and significantly increases probability of dying from lung infection. Compared to that, using Google's products does not result in any visible long-term effects on health. Therefore, it is natural to conclude, that using Google's sites and services is safe, healthy and should be widely encouraged. It does not matter, that Google uses anti-competitive practices to monopolize market, restrict user freedom and lead us to future, when we won't be able to refuse shoehorned "services", shoved in our face, right?

Please stop with those creepy "understanding" antics. Encouraging self-harm is bad, and wishing to view advertisements is definitely a form of self-harm.

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

#752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To add to what @neuralRiot, the mistake in your thinking is that you're imagining AI as your assistant. But it won't necessarily be your assistant, since you don't actually own it and especially if you're not paying money, you're not the customer.

To give an example, imagine if Google Maps took you on an alternative route, not because you'd arrive faster, but because on that route there are ads you need to watch, or because GMaps wants to free the road for some high profile travelers and you're just getting in the way.

Waze is already serving commercials while you're driving. And given the weird routes it has taken me on, I now have no idea if Waze's algorithm chooses certain routes because it would be faster, or because it wants me to watch ads, or because it wants to take me off the main road to clear it for others.

Companies are already doing evil shit with real consequences. Facebook for example did experiments on manipulating people's feelings. Target figured out a girl is pregnant before her father. Plenty of other examples. It's just that people aren't paying attention.

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

#753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jqt, any chance you work for Google? Because, not to be rude, but this is something someone from Google would say to try to, oh idk, demonize Mozilla so everyone will forget that Google has marketing profiles for ALL OF US. So if you do work for Google, you should probably give a disclaimer, or just not comment at all.

I think you misunderstood my post. I am arguing that I would prefer Firefox to Chrome.

Nope, I intended it in response to the comment you were responding to, but it went dead before I could submit it. So I just addressed it to that poster, and used your comment as a surrogate. Sorry for the confusion!

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

#754
post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Google is going to help me have more privacy by preventing me from letting extensions I want to run from having access to data I want that extension to have, so it can do a job I want it to do. Meanwhile, Google's software will of course have full access to everything I do online, and most of my data will live on Google servers. And the extension that I want to have access is also downloaded from Google servers. A…

This change isn't about one open source extension. It's about all extensions and protecting users who blindly click through permission prompts.

While we're at it, we should require every $20 bill a person has to be attached to their belt with a long rubber band. That way they can pull the rubber band and get their $20 back, since apparently it's necessary to protect people from randomly handing out their $20 bills.

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

#755

"Hi folks! Can we please move this discussion to somewhere it's not as noticeable? K thx bye!" doesn't address anything Sounds like Google devs to me!

Or perhaps it's because people are spamming their bug tracker from sites like Hacker News, preventing the necessary technical discussion from taking place.

So unexpected traffic is "spam?" Seems like everyone posting has a stake and is pretty engaged with the topic.

Negative != Disrespectful

Unexpected != Illegitimate

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

#757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps it's because people are spamming their bug tracker from sites like Hacker News, preventing the necessary technical discussion from taking place.

So unexpected traffic is "spam?" Seems like everyone posting has a stake and is pretty engaged with the topic. Negative != Disrespectful Unexpected != Illegitimate

This isn't just traffic. This is interrupting someone else's conversation to complain after reading an editorialized headline.

Having dozens of people post "I'm moving to Firefox!!" doesn't contribute anything. It detracts from discussion. For exactly those reasons the thread has now been locked.

We screwed it up, like we always do.

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

#759
post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blockin…

I'm interested in this. What's the CRDB equivalent of onBeforeRequest()?

I don't know, you should have a look yourself. I know that you can intercept requests, and block, provide other payloads etc.

I'm interested in that even tho this is factually correct, it's ignored / downvoted because it goes against the prevailing narrative. Discourse here can be pretty 1 dimensional, it's more like a confirmation bias machine / echo chamber, than a discussion. Just like the rest of the net, no matter how 'smart' the people here are. The same behavior pattern occurs here as everywhere else.

It would be interesting if this can be solved in discussion forums of the future.

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

#760
Just use Firefox, disable all content blocking addons and enable resistFingerprinting and container tabs. There you go you are virtually impossible to track, and as thus will only generate useless traffic for advertisers/trackers and actually cost them money in a legal way.

It would actually go hand in hand with "hide but load element"

Post reply on HN