Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 261 posts

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#81

Post by tardedmeme »

robhlt wrote: post #66
wafflemaker wrote: post #53

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.

What metrics does the ad network use to identify the clicks as "fraudulent"?

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#83

Post by bloqs »

vehemenz wrote: post #35
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

Ok, why Brave though? There's Safari, Chromium, LibreWolf, Ladybird, and plenty of others.

1. Because it's most popular. Guaranteed support and "monkey see monkey do".

2. The adblocking is preconfigured, and non technical users trying to find the right extensions has a very bad history of unintentional malware. Ad block? Adblock plus? Ublock? Ublock origin? This is a great example of what floors a lot of technical folk who would be "why not just install ublock origin" and fail to understand the "why should I when I can just get Brave one and it works"

3. Most people don't use macs

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#84

Post by rishabhaiover »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #73

It seems to me that adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people who, for the most part, would be completely unaware it's even happening. Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

It would be a reasonable deduction for someone who doesn't have the time or interest to understand the internals.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#85

Post by [deleted] »

wafflemaker wrote: post #53

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

[deleted]

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#86

Post by coldpie »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

I want to use a browser engine that is not developed/owned by Google, so I use Firefox. I also don't want to support Brave's CEO's politics, so I would not use Brave regardless.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#87

Post by wafflemaker »

robhlt wrote: post #66
wafflemaker wrote: post #53

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.

https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnause...

You seem more knowledgeable in how browsers and js work than me. Does the below text still mean that AdNausem is downloading and running all the advertising JS?

Here's what's in the link: >AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions this is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#88

Post by bloqs »

bix6 wrote: post #34
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

+1 for Brave. Been on it for years and it’s fantastic. Strongest security settings without issue. O no they gave you BAT for visiting websites. Ahhh crypto everyone run!

I'm not familiar with this?

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#89

Post by wafflemaker »

BrenBarn wrote: post #54
wafflemaker wrote: post #53

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

How will it stop ads if it rewards them with money?

It makes them burn money with no effect. Doesn't work every time, but still sends a message.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#90

Post by rideontime »

plopz wrote: post #24
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.

Same here. I don't care how they responded to the backlash, the fact that it happened in the first place was enough for me.
Post reply on HN