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

751–760 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#751

Post by charcircuit »

pjmlp wrote: post #522
duped wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense. I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.

The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Or actually learn how we use to ship software on the glory days of 8, 16 and 32 bit home platforms. Now I do agree there are no alternatives for people that only care about shipping ChromeOS all over the place.

You can't trust the system browser to be up to date and secure or for it to render things how you want. You can not guarantee a good user experience unless you ship the browser engine with your app.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#752

Post by badgersnake »

azangru wrote: post #330
pjmlp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.

> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application I am confused. - The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article. - The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps i…

> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them.

Easy when they make Chrome do whatever they want and call it a living standard (whatever that is). There is no such thing as web standards now.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#753

Post by lucb1e »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #560
lucb1e wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather send money to the people I want to support than fund a middleman > which a majority of the developed world uses ... the USA? It's not a majority in any other country that I'm aware of I've got a Eurocentric view though, I have e.g. no idea if Singapore or China has a majority of Apple users or where you draw the line on 'developed' (critique on the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factfulne…

https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/... Basically any rich country has a majority of iPhones. And let's not even talk about tablets.

Without loading the image up in an editor and comparing color values, I can't tell which countries have a majority there. Looking it up myself, the third hit for "iphone market share" (the top two did not have a breakdown per country) is https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-ma... which shows how flawed this notion is: from a quick look, honduras, dominican republic, and albania are listed as over 50% but rich countries like the netherlands, germany, and new zealand are not

Anyway, it's also the user's own choice if they want a closed ecosystem. I find it relatively irrelevant if someone chooses a jail and then complains that the jailer is too strict and they can't run the ad blocker software they want: that's the deal they picked and they're free to choose an open platform any day of the week. I don't even mean open source, just the zeroth, most fundamental freedom ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#755

Post by boredhedgehog »

ufmace wrote: post #178
rpdillon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2. > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO ca…

I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit. I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot…

This might not qualify according to one's perspective, but: Twitch.

Twitch takes a userscript to block ads. UBO Full can run userscripts, uBO Lite can't, so now you need an additional extension to run the script.

Of course, if you run Tampermonkey anyway, it makes no difference.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#756

Post by lucb1e »

eviks wrote: post #466
lucb1e wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The smoke on the water! More seriously, I'm a Firefox user since ~2006 but I'm about equally surprised by the statement that Firefox should blow Chrome/ium out of the water as that Firefox supposedly sucks. They're both browsers. I think Chromium is a bit faster in page rendering, whereas Firefox is more open, privacy-friendly, and customizable. Similar to how I wish consumers would not choose an anti-consumer organi…

> Firefox is more open, privacy-friendly, and customizable. How do you customize the default keyboard shortcuts?

Sadly they dropped XUL some years ago. I stuck to that version for all the customizations it allowed, but became untenable and it was clear I couldn't run a browser from 2017 for the next 50 years so I bit the bullet. I'm now also on webextensions instead of real add-ons

Yet it's still more customizable for users than Chrome/ium is. That there is a particular customization they got rid of is a shame and what you mention in the sibling comment (only works in some contexts) bothers me every day when I try to use mouse gestures on a settings page or mozilla domain and it refuses to work, but those new limitations don't make the statement untrue as a whole

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#757

Post by lucb1e »

ufmace wrote: post #669
lucb1e wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? It's a feature I use, a user-facing setting, not an under-the-hood technicality. (Budding web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance and being interested in the actual text on the webpage was not their job description) I'…

Well the people posting that link seem to believe it's a clear and direct response to the question of why uBO Lite is insufficient when I or others say it works fine for us. > Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? I suppose not, but I never noticed whether it was or was not being blocked. I'm not really sure why that's so important. It certainly doesn't seem to justify the "oh no google is tot…

Right, I see what you mean. Just to not ghost the conversation, I can only say that I don't have such an example because I don't use Google Chrome or uBlock Lite

You may be in a better position to do this comparison than me, if you stumble upon a broken site (they're likely infrequent indeed) and could quickly check whether it works with full uBlock (ideally in the same browser engine, since some sites are nowadays only tested on Chromium's implementation of the web standards, but Firefox is probably a good second option when Chromium simply can't do it anymore)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#758

Post by wejick »

raydenvm wrote: post #537

I suppose that switching to Brave will be one of the best solutions after all. They have already comment this in June: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3

For just another chromium skin, I prefer vivaldi as it has more traditional offerings than brave. While having more customizable ui.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#759

Post by vachina »

esskay wrote: post #734
vachina wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is not a Chromium fork

And that makes it better why? Come on, this is pretty low hanging fruit.

Because it is an independent codebase free from any design decisions from Google. Chromium derivatives cannot stray far from Google’s interests.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#760

Post by yonatan8070 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #671
Aperocky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never realized anything was happening as I was on Firefox, until I saw ads as my wife was browsing youtube despite installing ublock for her years ago.

My wife was pissed when I installed an adblocker for her - turns out she likes the ads.

I recently saw my GF's inbox, it's full of marketing emails, and when I told her she can unsubscribe or block them, she said she likes them as well.
Post reply on HN