Live data from Hacker News

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

771–779 of 779 posts

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

#771
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly suggest looking into Opera. It is also based on Chromium and therefore backwards compatible with extensions, bookmarks, etc. I switched around 6 months ago and haven't looked back since! They have built in VPN, adblocker, Turbo, screenshot, news, and more! Been really happy with it so far.

If it's based on Chromium, this will effect it.

The base is from a forked off version.

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

#772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome------------------64.15% Internet Explorer--------10.83% Firefox-------------------9.89% Edge---------------------4.30% Safari--------------------3.80% Opera--------------------1.58% Safari will survive since Apple is their patron. Obviously Internet Explorer is only a lumbering undead husk at this point, and it's pretty shameful that it's still outgunning Firefox by a small amount. Even more sad that it's got…

These numbers do not appear to include mobile browsers. Mobile browsers are just as important as desktop browsers these days, because a lot of people use them as much or more than they use desktop browsers. If you include mobile browsers, Safari's market share is closer to 17%, which makes it the #2 most popular: https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?options...

Ah, I was getting my data from the same site but I forgot to toggle mobile browsers. Wonder why that's not the default option? That's silly.

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

#773
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly suggest looking into Opera. It is also based on Chromium and therefore backwards compatible with extensions, bookmarks, etc. I switched around 6 months ago and haven't looked back since! They have built in VPN, adblocker, Turbo, screenshot, news, and more! Been really happy with it so far.

Opera is now owned by a Chinese consortium and quite possibly embeds spyware. Check out Brave, instead, which is founded by the inventor of Javascript and extremely privacy-focused.

Saying something quite possibly embeds spyware can be true for almost any company or software. Is there anything specific about the companies that purchased Opera that leaves you with doubts?

I feel like "open source" has become a cheap way to earn trust. Very few people are able to understand code, even fewer actually comb through all the code and fewer still are able to find and decrypt obfuscated code, especially on large repositories. If someone really wants to hide something, publishing under open source isn't going to make a difference. Essentially, whatever you use, there's going to be some degree of trust you must instill to the company and its developers that they will protect and respect your data.

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

#774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you won’t ever convert, they should simply stop wasting time serving you anything? YouTube isn’t a charity.

How could YouTube know you won't ever convert beforehand, and at scale? If they started blocking users for suspicion of not buying anything from ads they would have to block a sizeable portion of their traffic and that would have a negative impact on their company.

YouTube doesn't care if you buy what the ad is selling. They are selling the fact that you viewed the ad.

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

#775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like the point the uBlock maintainer's make: "Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a user agent , and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render."

Extensions should act on behalf of users but, like websites, some don't. A questionable or poorly-maintained extension can do more damage than any single website, and browsers can support user agency by replacing APIs with better ones: an effective declarative API for content blocking would majorly speed up extensions like uBlock Origin and make it harder for other extensions to follow users around the web. That said…

I would gladly live in the universe which is a smoking bomb crater of questionable and poorly-maintained browser extensions, than be a wealthy rock star in any universe of amazingly performant extensions, but which are using a browser API which has denied my right to self-determination on my own computer, effectively taking away my ability to say "no" to actions which are then forced upon me. This is like a kind of information rape. And here the suggested "alternative" of static, declarative, JSON-only filters means no programmatic ability to veto requests before they happen. It is effectively forcing users to leap before they look. And this completely arbitrary limit on the number of filters -- and it is completely arbitrary -- is the same kind of neutering mechanism, forcing me to "prioritize" a small number of request vetoes. In other words, it's forcing me choose the manner in which the rape happens.

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

#776
post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Chrome used to be very lightweight, fast and basically unseated IE as the top browser. It got that love because at the time Firefox was bloated and IE had a stranglehold. Chrome was also safer with a process per tab. Chrome made web browsing/dev pleasant like Firefox/Firebug did and it really took off being based on Webkit l…

This is bad history. Firefox was top dog when chrome came out - it had unseated IE already for many users fed up with XP-era crapware. Firefox was not simply 'bloated', but designed for classic HTML rendering at a time when javascript (aka 'web 2.0 ajax') dev was taking off and memory was not as abundant as it is now - though slow, it was more that the core architecture was out of date than it was 'bloated'. Indeed f…

> Firefox was top dog when chrome came out - it had unseated IE already for many users fed up with XP-era crapware.

Maybe in mindshare for devs but Chrome officially unseated IE browser saturation in 2012. Firefox didn't pass IE until 2015 [1].

Firefox was amazing on its resurgence in mid-2000s but did get into memory/bloat stages that opened it up for minimal/performant Chrome that was also more secure at the time primarily due to the process per tab. This possibly did lead to more js bloat later, initially it was lightning fast and also had a debug console and was based on Webkit which was better than Firefox rendering.

Firefox definitely saw Web 2.0 come in from 2006 on and was revolutionary in web development/debugging with Firebug and eventually that was part of the browser and is now industry standard to have a console/debugger on the browser.

Most developers were using Firefox by 2005-2006 and then Chrome a couple/few years later and it has been top for almost a decade now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m...

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

#777
post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, I used Firefox' reader mode, but some news sites now don't even properly support that. I may have to remind myself not to go on those sites anymore as well.

> Firefox' reader mode, but some news sites now don't even properly support that All sites which are on Google Amp. Google, whenever it can, "helpfully" gives me the amp site and then I have to find and click the link to the actual site to get to the "readable" version.

Excuse me, but I believe using a google website to get to content negates the whole discussion over how to prevent webscale surveillance by advertising companies.

In other words, if your "solution" to the problem as outlined in the OP involves google, you already lost.

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

#778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it perhaps time to return to using external tools such as Privoxy, Pi-Hole and the like? Privoxy appears to still be around, and (I think) was originally at the forefront of user-managed web controls. Once the browser reaches its natural Borg-self, transparent user-level tools will be all that provide a semblance of control. Well that, and Firefox.

AFAIK Privoxy isn't actively maintained.

I think you are correct, and that may be an opportunity.

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

#779
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave browser may be what you are looking for.

Isn't it also based on Chromium?

Sure, but this change might cause a hard fork. VC investment in browsers has been a long time coming.
Post reply on HN