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

761–770 of 779 posts

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

#761

Post by tyingq »

deepstream wrote: post #759
tyingq wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 matt…

An alternative explanation is just that people assume if ad blockers move there, Google will deprecate that API for the same stated reasons.

I did find it, it's called setRequestInterception(). It's marked as experimental, and has a note that it disables caching, but there's some debate as to whether it actually does.

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

#762

Post by sridca »

altfredd wrote: post #751
rkangel wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exhaus…

This is such a patronizing point of view.

You are essentially deciding for me that what I choose to do with my technological choices is "a form of self-harm" (when in fact I only experience total pleasure).

Is it really that hard to comprehend that, when one does not share the alarmist feelings of the crowd, they will make intelligent choices based on personal preferences?

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

#763

Post by feikname »

mrbrowning wrote: post #169
sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

I feel the same. I keep Chrome around, though, because it seems to be the new IE in the sense that I frequently encounter sites that simply don't work properly in either WebKit- or Gecko-based browsers. It's also the new IE in the sense that I get incessant reminders about how I should be using Chrome when I access Google-administrated services, which feels like a surprisingly blatant if still implicit admission on t…

Latest breakage I noticed is spacebar not pausing YouTube videos on Firefox but works fine on Chrome.

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

#764

Post by csharp »

magicalist wrote: post #677
tyingq wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also spells out that the new API can consist solely of static, known ahead-of-time rules[1]. The rules are json, so that kills any logic beyond pattern matching. We already know that approach severely limits the effectiveness and usability of an ad blocker. It's pretty much the same as ad blocking with a hosts file, other than being able to also statically provide path info. Imagine a list of "bad sites" and/or "b…

> It also spells out that the new API can consist solely of static, known ahead-of-time rules If it ends up as effective as Safari/iOS's content blocking, I don't see the problem. > The fact that the plan ends with extensions still able to see all web requests, record all web requests, forward a log of all web requests to any arbitrary endpoint, etc...means the "privacy" angle is pure bullshit. Yes, if you grant perm…

Apples rules are a huge pain. Exception handling gets extremely complex (block all urls matching regex R, on domain B and C but not on subdomain D.B). I have not seen anyone yet able to handle the full breathe of the EasyList format.

To get around the 50k limit added by Apple, you must use multiple lists, however domain exceptions must be included in the same subset as the parent rules, since rules do not combine once compiled.

Also, dynamically whitelisting a domain is annoying since you must remove all of the lists form the webview before loading the page. HTTPS-Everywhere is even worse to get operational using Apple's content blocking lists.

(edited grammar mistakes)

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

#765

Post by [deleted] »

londons_explore wrote: post #579
feanaro wrote: post #560

Why would Google be given any benefit of a doubt in the case of ad/resource blocking? They are a behemoth ad-based corporation that is becoming a monopoly in many areas of computing. In yet more areas, they are becoming an effective monopoly through size: they may not be the only company offering a type of service, but they are the only one able to offer it at scale and/or with a certain level of sophistication, give…

I think you overestimate the level of strategy here. This is simply an engineer spotting a performance bottleneck in Chrome and posting a design to resolve it. There is zero chance that Google's top brass told the engineer to deliberately cripple ublock.

[deleted]

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

#766

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #761
deepstream wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 matt…

An alternative explanation is just that people assume if ad blockers move there, Google will deprecate that API for the same stated reasons. I did find it, it's called setRequestInterception(). It's marked as experimental, and has a note that it disables caching, but there's some debate as to whether it actually does.

[deleted]

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

#767

Post by ivl »

steedsofwar wrote: post #464
sekasi wrote: post #460

I'm surprised at the lack of support (hacker news) for Safari. It's a fantastic browser, made by people who have a track record of not being evil with data. I know that might seem like a big statement, but in the face of Google I will happily trust Apple.

I love safari, but of late unBlock Origin has stopped working, which means i constantly switch to firefox when the ad's get nauseating.

Amusingly, Safari made the same change as the Chrominum devs are discussing here. Limiting how well extensions can parse and block requests.

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

#768

Post by esalman »

binaryblitz wrote: post #728
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #727

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…

I find the attitude of "I go wherever Google maps tell me to go" problematic. We should be asking more questions. When we don't, we are basically complying to what the government/corporations are asking us to do. That's not freedom.

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

#769

Post by jgtrosh »

mbrumlow wrote: post #738
jgtrosh wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: I just installed the tab-less extension, edited my userChrome.css, and I'm really happy with the results. I'm going to give Firefox a go from now on!

Can you please share a screenshot, and information on what you edited in userChrome.css ?

Sorry I hadn't seen this earlier.

I don't have a screenshot right now, but it's just as you might expect, the whole tab line is removed (the nav bar line with menus comes to the top instead). [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/736cji/how_to_hide...) talks about doing the same thing in the context of tree-style tabs. Good luck!

Post reply on HN