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

791–800 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#791

Post by nashashmi »

TechDebtDevin wrote: post #740
madaxe_again wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There was a podcast I was listening to this week, and they were discussing the purpose of marketing emails, and they came to the conclusion that they're for women who actually open all of them lol. It was half sarcasm and pretty funny, not trying to by misogynist or something

Yes, they do open them all with so much eagerness it makes me wonder how they are able to manage so many emails. But eagerness and window shopping is their calling.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#792

Post by bornfreddy »

worldsayshi wrote: post #250
xg15 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice for you, but the monopoly is still there. In fact, you've strengthened Google's side in antitrust proceedings where they pretend they are not a monopoly because a small number of people use Firefox.

Yeah I'm surprised Google isn't imposing the same policies on Firefox. They ought to have considerable influence on Mozilla.

They do. They are just more underhanded about it, but no worries, the effect will be the same.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#793

Post by necovek »

imhoguy wrote: post #535
brookst wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But consumers pick products for convenience reasons and Chrome updates crossed PITA line. Even my "boomers" family switches to FF.

If that was really the case, it would start showing up in the stats too. Firefox is still declining last I checked (I am still using it, but more and more sites have problems in FF.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#794

Post by acdha »

djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #395
acdha wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate can be popular but that still doesn’t make it right. He knew that he was spending money hoping to take away rights from people he knew, to tell some of them that their marriages shouldn’t be allowed, and did it anyway. That’s hateful regardless of how many other people joined him.

By that definition, all politics is "hate". Passing a law will always take away the rights of a group in some way or other, and politics is the debate of whether or not that's a good or bad thing. Personally I'm 100% for letting everyone express their gender or sexual identities. But I'm not going to demonize someone for having a different opinion and making a small donation to support their political views.

Not all politics is defined by hate, so your logic is clearly incorrect unless you’re redefining that word so broadly as to render it meaningless.

In this case, there’s a simple litmus test: is it taking away rights or adding them? It’s very hard to believe your last sentence would be true if the people whose rights were being taken away included you or people you care about, and in the case of things like LGBTQ rights there really isn’t a better argument than thinking someone else shouldn’t have the same rights you have. That’s a hateful motivation no matter how much failed Christians like to claim they “love the sinner” but it’s also a relatively unusual political debate in the way that the cost or harm is entirely one-sided. Most other hot topics have at least some possibility for a principled objection based on something other than bigotry (e.g. some people oppose immigration policy changes because they’re racist but for others it’s purely economic based on downward wage pressure).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#796

Post by immibis »

internet2000 wrote: post #724
carlosjobim wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people will continue using the default Safari browser.

That’s not how it played out on desktop and it isn’t how it will play out on mobile.

I use Chrome on Android because it's the default browser and I'm lazy, not because I actually like it. When a phone forces me to choose one I'm not very likely to choose Chrome. It's going to be the same for iOS users.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#797

Post by raydev »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #755
ufmace wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're reminding me, Twitch somehow got around UBO a few years ago. Oddly it was basically the only site (that I used regularly) that UBO couldn't catch.

Are you saying that everyone using UBO had to add their own script to get around it? Why didn't UBO just do it?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#798

Post by immibis »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #717
JimDabell wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true yet, but it’s getting close. The pattern is this: - Google publishes a specification. - They raise request for feedback from the Mozilla and WebKit teams. - Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems. - Google deploys their implementation anyway. - This functionality gets listed on sites like whatpwacando.today - Web developers complain about Safari being behind and accuse Apple of holding…

> Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems This is a little disingenuous because Apple often falsely claims security when it’s to hold back tech that could loosen the App Store grasp.

PWA is an antifeature anyway; it's an operating system inside a browser. This benefits companies that have market-dominant browsers and do not have operating systems; on a technical level it's just stupid.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#799

Post by immibis »

brookst wrote: post #273
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.

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

FYI, this is not downvoted because you're wrong. It's downvoted because you called everyone with a different opinion to you an ideologue.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#800

Post by throw123xz »

gavinray wrote: post #640
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 use Edge on both Win + Android, and uBlock Origin works perfectly on both.

Last time I used Edge (early this year), it asked me if I allowed to track me (the usual cookies message) when I opened a new tab, so while they still support Mv2, I'm not sure if it's the browser to use if you want some privacy and block ads.
Post reply on HN