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

861–870 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#861

Post by lucb1e »

eviks wrote: post #768
lucb1e wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly they dropped XUL some years ago. I stuck to that version for all the customizations it allowed, but became untenable and it was clear I couldn't run a browser from 2017 for the next 50 years so I bit the bullet. I'm now also on webextensions instead of real add-ons Yet it's still more customizable for users than Chrome/ium is. That there is a particular customization they got rid of is a shame and what you ment…

Firefox is less customizable than Chromium-based Vivaldi, so the statement is still not true

the 'based' does the heavy lifting there. I said Firefox (the browser) not Gecko (the engine). I'm sure you can customize everything in either browser (or engine) if you download the source and recompile it with the modifications you like, or even hex edit the binary, go wild. But I'm sure you know what is meant...

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#862

Post by duped »

pjmlp wrote: post #522
duped wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense. I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.

The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Or actually learn how we use to ship software on the glory days of 8, 16 and 32 bit home platforms. Now I do agree there are no alternatives for people that only care about shipping ChromeOS all over the place.

The system browser doesn't work on iOS, MacOS, or Linux (under certain, but common, conditions).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#863

Post by phendrenad2 »

thayne wrote: post #394
phendrenad2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people seem to believe that switching to a de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough. I think that's a psyop promoted by Google themselves. Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome. Brave, custom Chromium builds, Vivaldi, etc. are all very similar to Google Chrome, they just don't have Google spy features. The argument that "Google still control…

Has any chromium based browser committed to continue supporting MV2 or building an alternative API for ad-blockers to intercept web requests in MV3 even after the code for MV2 is removed from upstream chromium? If not, then no, switching to another chromium based browser is not enough. And fwiw my experience trying Brave was that the user experience was actually more different from chrome than Firefox.

MV3 was FUD. But what's interesting is how FUD spreads. There were some people who identified that MV3 severely limits adblockers. That's true. There were some people who had an agenda who exaggerated the effects of those limits, making it seem like ad blocking would not work in MV3. Then there were people who read those articles, and believed them without question. There are a lot of them commenting on every thread about browsers.

I suggested that MV3 would be a big nothing from the beginning. And people on HN argued with me every step of the way (mostly people in the latter category who refused to do even the slightest bit of research or verify that the people who they were parroting were actually reliable reporters of anything at all).

Now that MV3 is here, we can see this. MV3 is here. MV2 is gone. And ad blocking still works.

I just installed Google Chrome, clicked on some YouTube videos, and verified that I was getting ads. Then I installed Ublock Origin Lite, and the ads disappeared. I no longer get display ads or video ads on any website.

Now, if you want to bring up some edge case or something, be my guest. But for 99% of even ad block users, strictly speaking, blocking ads is more than enough.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#864

Post by eviks »

lucb1e wrote: post #861
eviks wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is less customizable than Chromium-based Vivaldi, so the statement is still not true

the 'based' does the heavy lifting there. I said Firefox (the browser) not Gecko (the engine). I'm sure you can customize everything in either browser (or engine) if you download the source and recompile it with the modifications you like, or even hex edit the binary, go wild. But I'm sure you know what is meant...

> But I'm sure you know what is meant...

Not really, you've explicitly said this

> Yet it's still more customizable for users than Chrome/ium is

And then rejected the fitting comparison: Firefox (the browser) is not more customizable than Chromium-Vivaldi (the browser)

I also don't see how the engine used for page rendering is relevant when discussing UI

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#865

Post by SJC_Hacker »

duped wrote: post #514
pjmlp wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web features being pushed by Google via Chrome, aren't standards, unless everyone actually agrees they are worthy of becoming one. Shipping Electron junk, strengthens Google and Chrome market presence, and the reference to Web standards, why bother when it is whatever Chrome is capable of. Web devs with worthy skills of forgotten times, would rather use regular processes alongside the default system browser.

There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense. I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.

QT?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#866

Post by SilasX »

tzs wrote: post #686
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.

> I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier Maybe because a few years ago it could be very annoying? It was mostly pretty good at rendering web pages but it had many UI problems that could really get on your nerves after a while. For example somewhere around late 2020 or early 2021 after several years of using it as my main browser on my Mac I switched because a couple of tho…

Yeah, I've had some weird results from Firefox's spellchecker. It didn't recognize bachelorette or Shabbat, and it insisted on replacing "misclassifying" with "misidentifying". (Hm, doesn't seem to do the latter now.)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#867

Post by McAlpine5892 »

throw123xz wrote: post #804
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.

Safari does have heavy restrictions on extensions but I still rarely see ads with 1Blocker (Safari extension) and NextDNS. So rarely it feels like never.

It’s also opened up somewhat in recent years. While I personally stick with Safari’s Content Blocking feature for performance reasons, 1Blocker and others do have a JavaScript-based option these days.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#868

Post by zargon »

tzs wrote: post #667
0points wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except that for a majority of users, windows is where their applications are at - such as gaming, word processing, or some other thing. Until you switch to linux you won't understand how inferior your windows setup always was. It's hard for us to tell you what you are missing out on, you simply need to experience it. I mostly game in a Windows 10 VM running on my Linux desktop computer. Single keypress to switch to…

> I mostly game in a Windows 10 VM running on my Linux desktop computer. Single keypress to switch to Linux workspace. > This is not because Linux gaming is horrible broken, but rather it gives me a fully separate leisure desktop, and my main Linux desktop is work only. > It also gives me 100% compatibility, unlike wine. You would get a fully separate leisure desktop if you were running Linux in that VM so it sounds…

I'm not the person you replied to, but I'm in a situation where I want GPU passthrough to Linux guests. The problem is that the Looking Glass guest application for linux is unmaintained. This makes it impossible to have the same setup but with a linux guest instead of Windows.

If you want to have GPU accelerated video output from a guest vm to a linux host, the only way is with a Windows guest (to the best of my knowledge). If you just need compute then that is different.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#869

Post by triyambakam »

burnte wrote: post #835
triyambakam wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shields can be turned off right from the url bar as needed.

Yeah, if I want to turn it off manually for literally every site. I don't find that helpful.

Why would you want them off for every site? That's one of the main benefits to using Brave

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#870

Post by aspenmayer »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #623
twilo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but like the post above says MS didn’t start to “monetize” their users until the 2000s and it was mainly because Google set up that beautiful business model… on top of Microsoft’s platform (Windows) which makes the whole thing really funny

The irony may be much stronger than that; I'd go as far as suggesting that Microsoft went for that business model because of the antitrust case.

It seems like a modern truism:

There is no such thing as an anti-war movie, because anti-war imagery is the same imagery that pro-war films use, it’s just the interpretation and meanings are reversed.

Might it also be true, that there is no such thing as effective antitrust enforcement, because the one doing the investigating and enforcement is unwilling or unable to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, because their own employer’s budget and state apparatus directly and indirectly relies upon taxing golden eggs. Perhaps we’re all just carrying water for giants and giant-collaborators, whether or not giants even exist.

Post reply on HN