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

771–780 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#771

Post by brookst »

pyrale wrote: post #643
brookst wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers never really pick products for ideological reasons, no matter how galling that is to ideologues

Oh no, instead consumers pick products because of advertising. What an improvement.

Being prescriptive about human nature will always be frustrating. You and I can argue about what consumers “should” do but the reality is they will always pick the highest perceived benefit at the lowest perceived cost, even if deeper technical knowledge or improved ideological perspective would change those choices.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#772

Post by JimDabell »

nsomaru wrote: post #767
JimDabell wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don’t need a different engine for that; Orion can install extensions without going through the App Store today.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#773

Post by shitonU2 »

Being neither an expert nor illiterate I've been blocked, very recently, from websites vital to me. Whether caused by Microsoft (most likely) or Google (less so) I've never had problems like this before. Usually, a little patience and they resolve the issue in short order. I hope this is the case now. Long ago I used IE, then Firefox and finally settled on Chrome. These current issues, if they persist, will be enough to make me move.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#774

Post by nozzlegear »

judge2020 wrote: post #678
pjmlp wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, they are the last one standing fighting Google takeover of the Web as ChromeOS development platform. Without Safari we are done, just close shop on the Web standards group.

This is a lesson in capitalism. It’s so much more profitable to ignore small users bases when you can just tell them to “try switching to Chrome”. I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.

> I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.

It sounds like capitalism has so far saved us from a Chrome monopoly, then.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#775

Post by weberer »

djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #392
thaumasiotes wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube recently started showing ads through uBO in Firefox.

On what platform? I've been using Firefox and uBO on Linux and Android for over a decade and never seen a YouTube ad.

Do you have other extensions? For example, I can see that uMatrix is also blocking all requests to doubleclick.net

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#776

Post by pyrale »

brookst wrote: post #771
pyrale wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, instead consumers pick products because of advertising. What an improvement.

Being prescriptive about human nature will always be frustrating. You and I can argue about what consumers “should” do but the reality is they will always pick the highest perceived benefit at the lowest perceived cost, even if deeper technical knowledge or improved ideological perspective would change those choices.

I don't really mind about what people should do. Cats should probably not kill birds when they aren't hungry. But my opinion has no bearing on cats.

My lament is more about the current situation and our apparent inability to escape it.

In this case, I may also be annoyed a bit about your rant on ideologues. Just because people don't make decisions based on their ideology doesn't mean they don't make decisions based on ideology.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#777

Post by crazygringo »

stavros wrote: post #188
tredre3 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. " This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it. Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3, it means that ad blockers function properly in MV3? Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?

> Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?

Of course it doesn't, if MV2 provided a bunch of edge case stuff that doesn't matter for normal adblocking.

> So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3

That's a silly thing to say. No, it's that if it's blocking 99.9+% of ads it should definitely be considered to be functioning properly. Which uBOL definitely is.

Quibbling over whether it blocks 99.999% or 99.99999% is not relevant to whether it functions "properly". It clearly does.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#778

Post by Forgeties79 »

aziaziazi wrote: post #606
breve wrote: post #159

The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…

It seems to me that adblocking adoption increases the more companies actively fight it/ramp up their advertising and drown us in it. I mean you have Microsoft injecting ads straight into their OS last I heard (correct me if I’m wrong) and they even charge for windows.

People clearly will live with ads but there is a point where it becomes way too much and some people simply won’t tolerate it at that point.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#779

Post by bornfreddy »

qoez wrote: post #700
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.

I just tried firefox because of this update but I had to switch back because it's so slow. Sacrificing competitive advantage stings too much to much just for this.

Yeah, it's not Firefox that is slow, it is Google properties that are slow on Firefox. Otherwise FF is fast, or at least Chrome is just as slow or slower (judging by seeing others use it).

I mostly avoid Google websites, but when I can't, I always use Brave/Edge/Chromium on those. E.g. Google Earth is especially useless outside of Chrome-land.

Firefox (with uBO) also probably wins any realistic speed comparison simply because it still supports MV2. I really don't care how fast the ads are loaded, I prefer blocking them. Especially the most privacy invading ones (i.e. by Google).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#780

Post by mopenstein »

nozzlegear wrote: post #774
judge2020 wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lesson in capitalism. It’s so much more profitable to ignore small users bases when you can just tell them to “try switching to Chrome”. I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS.

> I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS. It sounds like capitalism has so far saved us from a Chrome monopoly, then.

Capitalism doesn't exist. The fact that trademark, copyright, and patents exist nullify capitalism.

There can be no free market if your government intervenes in every transaction.

Post reply on HN