Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update • Hacker News Board

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#801

Post by ufmace » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

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.

It's the most real example anyone's provided so far.

I tested it on both regular Chrome with UBO Lite and Firefix with stock full UBO, and both show ads on Twitch. I haven't looked into how to actually block them, but I'll take your word that that's the only way to do it in both cases.

It seems to me, both cases require some extra action to block ads. Full requires you to dig up a userscript and how to load it into UBO, while Lite requires you to find and install a whole extra extensions. Doesn't seem like that huge of a difference to me. I suppose some may disagree, but it's not at all hitting my bar for declarations others have made like that Lite is inadequate or Google is terrible for disabling Manifest V2.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#802

Post by nemomarx » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:28 PM UTC

Cyclone_ wrote: post #795

This seems to make a good case for the brave browser

I do hope they continue to support it, but any chromium fork is going to struggle if Google changes the base engine more on them. I think a different engine is ultimately safer.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#803

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:29 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #585

An adblocker is a firewall for your brain. Google should have no say over what I consume and when and with for instance youtube being pretty much unavoidable their monopoly position is abused by forcing you to pay for it. Doubly so because of the bait-and-switch, I'm fine with platforms that start off being ad supported, I'm not fine with platforms that become huge on piracy that are free to use by everybody and not…

Switching costs for consumers are pretty low. Though I'd agree that for producers, it is hard to compete anywhere else.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#804

Post by throw123xz » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:31 PM UTC

RS-232 wrote: post #721

I really wish Apple revived Safari for Windows. In my opinion, it's the only browser that nicely balances performance, privacy, and security.

Safari isn't the solution in this case as they were actually the first ones to heavily restrict adblocking. Manifest v3 is inspired by what they did.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#805

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:31 PM UTC

esskay wrote: post #732

barryvan wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Firefox, which isn't just a reskinned Chrome...

If you think Braves just 'reskinned chrome' you've clearly not used it.

I've tried Brave a few times. Doesn't seem significantly different from Chrome. Chromium will likely still dominate future choices for web standards and Google will still control what implementations work on the biggest properties.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#806

Post by flkenosad » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #714

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.

Other browser engines can exist. JIT has to be the system’s. Others can use Apple’s JavascriptCore to gain access to it and do whatever they want on top.

JIT only has to belong to the system because of capitalism. If users could install whatever software they want, Apple couldn't exist.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#807

Post by flkenosad » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:35 PM UTC

meindnoch wrote: post #657

gus_tpm wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in portugal/spain se have to worry about this. Safari mobile users are a minority here but they usually spend or have more money to spend

Those stupid rich people don't know what's good for them and keep buying iPhones. I wonder why?

They have no friends who like them enough to help them troubleshoot their androids.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#808

Post by flkenosad » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:38 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #641

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…

They are at the edge of transforming the Web into ChromeOS Platform, with the complacency of everyone that helped it become a reality.

At least chromeos is open source. We can fork it anytime. You'd rather everyone run ios or windows?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#809

Post by ufmace » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #757

ufmace wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the people posting that link seem to believe it's a clear and direct response to the question of why uBO Lite is insufficient when I or others say it works fine for us. > Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? I suppose not, but I never noticed whether it was or was not being blocked. I'm not really sure why that's so important. It certainly doesn't seem to justify the "oh no google is tot…

Right, I see what you mean. Just to not ghost the conversation, I can only say that I don't have such an example because I don't use Google Chrome or uBlock Lite You may be in a better position to do this comparison than me, if you stumble upon a broken site (they're likely infrequent indeed) and could quickly check whether it works with full uBlock (ideally in the same browser engine, since some sites are nowadays o…

Okay, that's fair.

I currently do most of my browsing with Chrome and UBO Lite, and have yet to find a site that it doesn't work with. I do keep a copy of Firefox with full UBO and NoScript open on my desktop computer, just on general principles I guess.

Well, except for the other thread here where somebody pointed out Twitch, which doesn't block ads on either in stock form, which I did just check myself. Though I had already stopped using Twitch anyways, more because all of the other dark patterns it has are rather annoying.

By all means, browse with whatever setup you please. I just wish people would take it easy a little on the assertions that UBO Lite is inadequate.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#810

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #476

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what end? So Google can see how it works and still patch it?

At least it would make them work for it.

It would be creating more work for the Ublock Origin developer[1]; as far as I can tell it wouldn't be creating any extra work for Google, which has to patch the issue anyway.

1: Assuming he even elected to do it; I know I wouldn't.