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

761–770 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#761

Post by zulban »

mrcsharp wrote: post #376
zulban wrote: post #361

I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…

> No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" .... Because that's what it means to be a hacker. Yes, installing Firefox is simpler (and I'm a Firefox user) but I respect the effort to overcome Google's measures in disallowing certain addons.

"Because that's what it means to be a hacker."

Sure. But to me "hacking" this cat and mouse game is not very compelling. I feel like I've seen a thousand articles exactly like this over the years. This won't work in 4 months.

"It was patched in Chrome 118 by ..."

Or already?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#762

Post by zulban »

chii wrote: post #520
zulban wrote: post #361

I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…

> use Linux except that for a majority of users, windows is where their applications are at - such as gaming, word processing, or some other thing. Sure there are replacements (somewhat) for each of those categories, but they are not direct replacements, and require a cost of some kind (retraining, or a substitute quality). This is esp. true for gaming, and it's only recent that gaming has made some inroads via the s…

You can always tell how much someone has tried Linux based on how they talk about it.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#763

Post by JimDabell »

TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #750
JimDabell wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?

Apple actively removed PWA features to prevent feature parity with native apps.

Which PWA features did Apple and Mozilla remove on security grounds? What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#764

Post by zulban »

temporallobe wrote: post #733
zulban wrote: post #361

I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…

I get it, and mostly agree, but sometimes consumers don’t have much choice with browsers and OSs; moreover, most consumers are simply technologically ignorant or agnostic of those things. Many users don’t even know exactly what a browser or OS is, and they just want to live their lives scrolling through tiktok or getting work done.

I wasn't writing about consumers though. I was writing about "hackers" who might read this article and try this hack.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#765

Post by wavesquid »

elyobo wrote: post #343
matthewaveryusa wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.

Really? I've been FF only for years and everything works reliably, including banking sites (Australia & New Zealand).

E.g. the Qantas business rewards website was broken in Firefox, along with Qantas hotels

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#766

Post by mathgradthrow »

esskay wrote: post #731
moffkalast wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes Brave trustworthy enough for us to run our entire life through it? For me it's irreparably forever tainted by crypto grifting.

The 'crypto grifting' is something you can turn off completely, it's there as a way to make the browser sustainable without accepting payments from Google to make it the default search engine. I'd argue its far more trustworthy than modern day Firefox/Mozilla, they're not exactly the second coming these days. What makes Firefox more trustworthy?

the lack of cryptogrifting.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#767

Post by nsomaru »

JimDabell wrote: post #744
paulryanrogers wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or other engines gain a foothold and web devs have to go back to standards.

Which other engines? Why would they gain a foothold on iOS when they haven’t on desktop?

Extensions without going through the App Store is one

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#768

Post by eviks »

lucb1e wrote: post #756
eviks wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ment…

Firefox is less customizable than Chromium-based Vivaldi, so the statement is still not true

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#769

Post by ForHackernews »

al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

"yeah the free internet, sure, but have you considered Firefox Pocket and also woke?"

^ Every single time this comes up on HackerNews for the past decade

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#770

Post by bagacrap »

rs186 wrote: post #317
RockstarSprain wrote: post #293

Would love to give Firefox a chance but one thing that stops me (apart from occasional website loading bugs) is inability to install PWAs. Not sure why it’s not implemented like it has been for a long time in Chrome and all its forks. I have found a 3rd party extension that claims to facilitate this (0) but still feel uncomfortable to use this for privacy reasons. (0) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pw…

If you really care, it's ok to just Firefox for the majority of your web browsing activities but use Chrome or a fork for PWA. Although using Firefox increasingly means a worse experience, including: * infinite loop of Cloudflare verification * inferior performance compared to Chrome (page loading, large page scrolling) * subtle bugs (e.g. audio handling) * WebUSB support I have personally run into all of them. Some…

Probably wants to share state though (cookie jar, history, password manager, etc)

The bottom line is that Google invests more in Chrome than Mozilla can afford to invest in Ff, so the latter will likely never catch up in features or performance.

Post reply on HN