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

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#841

Post by Dragory »

tyingq wrote: post #122
panarky wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially not true. Content can still be blocked with extensions, but it will be more difficult to handle large block lists. See this comment from the author of uBlock Origin and uMatrix. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...

"Content can still be blocked with extensions" Well, without live heuristics. Chrome ad blocking is basically now limited to a dumb, limited list of URI patterns. Better than nothing, but much less capable than before.

The 30,000 rule limit is a pretty big deal breaker for me, but what sort of live heuristics are you referring to here? Aren't e.g. uBlock Origin's filters entirely rule based (not unlike most other ad blocker extensions)?

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#842

Post by Myrmornis »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #802
Myrmornis wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is a misconception that is being spread around. I don't know what FF containers are useful for, but they certainly do not function to replace Chrome's profiles: Here are my notes from when I investigated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15688651 I went deeply into trying to use containers as a profile replacement, replacing Chrome with the new Firefox beta for one month, and I can report that it is not…

I don’t know about profiles, so I can’t speak to that. All I can do is say that I use containers to open multiple tabs of the same site with different users. For example, I have multiple AWS accounts. To login to two different ones at the same time, I use different containers. Way better than opening one is FF, one in Chrome, etc. When I open a link from a container in a new tab it opens in the same container.

Yes, that use case sounds very much like what Profiles are for. You'll find that Profiles are an improvement over Containers for tasks like that (logging into the same URL as different identities) for all the reasons I list above.

> Way better than opening one is FF, one in Chrome, etc

Agreed!

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#843

Post by ori_b »

dredmorbius wrote: post #533
ori_b wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTML and the menagerie of related standards has never, as far as I'm aware, become simpler. And the old versions have never been removed from a browser.

XHTML was a step too far. It was rejected in favour of HTML4 & 5, ultimately.

xhtml seems to me quite a bit simpler to implement than HTML5.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#844

Post by fofolo »

andrethegiant wrote: post #769
auiya wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only keep Firefox around as a back up for when there's a one-off website that doesn't work properly with Safari. Otherwise Safari is my default. It just performs better than anything else on OSX/iOS.

Safari is my default too. The UX for its devtools is far better than Chrome's IMO.

+1, I'm a front developper and I very like this devtools. Chrome devtools look like "old thing" but it is also powerful

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#845

Post by Myrmornis »

jdeibele wrote: post #823
Myrmornis wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I maintain that it is a widely-propagated misconception that Firefox containers can be used to replace Chrome profiles. Here are my notes from when I investigated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15688651 I went deeply into trying to use containers as a profile replacement, replacing Chrome with the new Firefox beta for one month, and I can report that it is not the right direction to go in: - New tabs do not in…

You're right about the limits of containers. When I'm browsing normally, the default is not to be logged into Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Things like my "Gmail this" bookmark fail because I set up Gmail in its own container. However, I find it very useful to have specific containers for Facebook, banking, other social networks, most of my gmail accounts, etc. So I can be doing stuff for my son's soccer club's ema…

> So I can be doing stuff for my son's soccer club's email without it affecting my own gmail.

In Chrome you could click on the profile icon in the top right and add a profile "Son's soccer club", and I believe that would also prevent it affecting your Gmail, etc.

> I think of containers as a user tool. It seems like profiles are more of a developer tool.

In Firefox, yes it seems like it. But not in Chrome. The point I'm trying to make (if by any chance there are Firefox people listening!) is that Firefox would benefit from making their hidden profile feature easily available to users, as Chrome does. But then they'd have the confusion of containers vs profiles, so it seems that they should just make containers behave like Chrome's profiles. But Firefox has Profiles! So why did they introduce Containers? IOW it honestly seems like they've made a mess there and the Firefox would be improved by fixing that mess.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#846

Post by tyingq »

Dragory wrote: post #841
tyingq wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Content can still be blocked with extensions" Well, without live heuristics. Chrome ad blocking is basically now limited to a dumb, limited list of URI patterns. Better than nothing, but much less capable than before.

The 30,000 rule limit is a pretty big deal breaker for me, but what sort of live heuristics are you referring to here? Aren't e.g. uBlock Origin's filters entirely rule based (not unlike most other ad blocker extensions)?

This article has some examples: https://www.ghacks.net/2019/01/22/chrome-extension-manifest-...

The quote from the article is here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897...

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#847

Post by Dragory »

tyingq wrote: post #846
Dragory wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 30,000 rule limit is a pretty big deal breaker for me, but what sort of live heuristics are you referring to here? Aren't e.g. uBlock Origin's filters entirely rule based (not unlike most other ad blocker extensions)?

This article has some examples: https://www.ghacks.net/2019/01/22/chrome-extension-manifest-... The quote from the article is here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897...

Thanks!

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#848

Post by bubblewrap »

nerdponx wrote: post #740
bubblewrap wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"because sucking you into the ecosystem is just that profitable." Nevertheless, they offer good products. I'm not sure the negativity is really warranted. I've yet to hear about a case of anybody being hurt by Google collecting data to them and serving ads?

You hear about it all the time, you just don't (or choose not to) recognize it as hurt.

Can you give a specific example?

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#849

Post by bubblewrap »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #719
bubblewrap wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"because sucking you into the ecosystem is just that profitable." Nevertheless, they offer good products. I'm not sure the negativity is really warranted. I've yet to hear about a case of anybody being hurt by Google collecting data to them and serving ads?

Just Google it! ... oh wait. (See the problem yet? For a significant part of the world, Google is Internet, or at least keeper of all the gates)

So you claim that there are many people who have been hurt by Google's data collection, but Google has censored their cases away?

Can't you find them with Bing?

Give an example!

It's a problem if Google bans your account, and you built everything on your services. But that is not the same thing, and any other company banning you from doing business with them would also hurt.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#850

Post by JoshuaRLi »

tombh wrote: post #592
JoshuaRLi wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never had any performance or memory related issues with firefox, on a modest xps 13 9343 with 4gb ram. In fact, with regular usage, firefox rarely exceeds 2gb usage, and cpu usage is never an issue. Though I have tweaked my firefox quite a bit, I don't think the core issue is with the browser technology. The technology is fantastic and computers are fast. Rather, I see it is a combination of two things: poor w…

What are your tweaks? 2Gb seems to totally reasonable for my habits, but I can't keep to it, there are just always leaks. Eg; Slack or Gmail just need reloading every few hours to reclaim RAM.

https://github.com/joshuarli/dotfiles/blob/master/misc/firef...

Also have a bunch of umatrix rules, but not inclined on sharing those. Regarding gmail, keep a pinned tab open on about:memory and periodically click on GC and minimize memory, that might be a better solution than reloading.

Post reply on HN