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

881–890 of 909 posts

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

#881

Post by arpa »

zwaps wrote: post #552
arpa wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well maybe we don't really need DRM? I mean, there are other sources of entertainment which do not threaten the FOSS

Sure, people gonna use a browser where the only entertainment is a 240p stream of Stallmann chewing his toes. These responses... Dont support amazon or netflix, twitch? Even FOSS needs to be realistic and see what is a solution and what is not. A FOSS product needs to support the things people want to do. Otherwise it will not succeed. We should have learned this in the last twenty years. Without Firefox and its comp…

Yes, support direct torrent video streaming. Screw the fat cats. Long live Stallman, death to late stage capitalism computing!

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

#882

Post by csdreamer7 »

nh2 wrote: post #774
csdreamer7 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your work in helping profile FF's issues. The first issue was really enjoyable to read. A high quality bug report and the devs giving feedback. Why did you reference that last issue? I haven't had that CPU usage issue since Quantum was released.

> Why did you reference that last issue? Because it's still happening, also on Quantum. I still see the 5-15% CPU usage on idle. If you strace Firefox, you'll see the syscall spam, even when the browser is apparently fully idle. This consumes a lot of battery power because it prevents the CPU going to sleep, even when you're looking at a still screen in Firefox (compare to gnome-terminal as mentioned in the bug repor…

I can confirm the strace messages and FF's 15% erratic usage on a dual core i3 Skylake laptop.

I guess I never noticed it compared to how FF used to chug after long use and Google Chrome's same usage of around 30-40% of my cores.

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

#883

Post by kretor »

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)?

The rule limit will be increased:

"We are planning to raise these values but we won't have updated numbers until we can run performance tests to find a good upper bound that will work across all supported devices."

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!msg/chrom...

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

#884

Post by bscphil »

jchw wrote: post #263
King-Aaron wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the only reason I keep falling back to Chrome, the dev tools are just so much more refined.

The one thing I always liked about Chrome dev tools was the ability to introspect WebSocket frames. Last I checked this couldn’t be done in Firefox :( Otherwise, I have found Firefox dev tools to be fairly competitive. I liked the CSS Grid stuff they had around the launch of Quantum; it made it easier for me to jump into Grid.

Ugh. Is this really still broken? I'm not a web dev but I remember having to switch to Chromium 6-8 months ago when I needed to debug a websockets issue.

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

#885

Post by bscphil »

voldacar wrote: post #204
marktangotango wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on what this is and why you think it’s so great?

Ungoogled Chromium is Chromium with all google domains and google-specific code removed. It keeps the nice things about Chrome/Chromium like the dev tools and is compatible with Chrome extentions, though you do have to download and install them manually. Unlike Chrome, it is also 100% open source.

I was under the impression that Chromium had some Google integrations but was pretty harmless from a privacy standpoint unless you sign in to Google. Is that wrong? Do I need to use Ungoogled Chromium instead?

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

#886

Post by afiori »

JoshMnem wrote: post #770
brlewis wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate motivation: People stay engaged on the web more when pages are faster. One thing that makes pages faster is a faster browser. When people stay engaged on the web more, Google makes more money. Chrome's initial big selling point was being faster. Disclaimer: ex-googler.

The core motivation wasn't speed -- it was ads. Chrome was designed to send people to Google Search instead of websites. The address bar auto-completion in Firefox would always suggest actual URLs, but Chrome's would send people to Google Search to click on ads on the way to their desired destinations. The ads started to become camouflaged so that most users couldn't tell them from organic results, and Google continu…

> The core motivation wasn't speed -- it was ads

Or also, faster ads. The explanation that faster web better compete with native apps and make for better revenue.

(I agree that it is likely not the only factor, but it a reasonable one)

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

#887

Post by rofrol »

ubercow13 wrote: post #574
esturk wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with Firefox is essentially one bug where they refuse to fix. In private mode, previously closed tabs are, for some reasons, restorable. This doesn't happen for Safari or Chrome.

That's a feature. Chrome will refuse to remember history so that you can reopen the tab, however it will remember all other data from the closed tab such as cookies. If you log into a website in an incognito window, close all tabs of that website and then open a new tab and navigate to the site again, you'll still be logged in. It tricks you into thinking that session state is kept only per-tab by disabling a useful…

I don't think that is true. I am using incognito all the time for web dev to test without cookies.

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

#888

Post by nicoburns »

roca wrote: post #471
pedrocx486 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they backfill it... I can see Microsoft going all out with Edge Chromium and Brave also trying their best. Both have manpower to try overcome Google's decisions on Chromium with their forks.

Sure, but carrying patches against Chromium trunk is an ongoing cost. It's especially problematic if it means there are diverging extension APIs. If this is the last decision Google ever makes that their downstreams disagree with, then sure it's probably manageable.

Apple manages just fine...

> If this is the last decision Google ever makes that their downstreams disagree with, then sure it's probably manageable.

And if it's not, then it justifies the cost of forking.

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

#889

Post by iggldiggl »

Myrmornis wrote: post #842
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> Yes, that use case sounds very much like what Profiles are for.

I'm not quite sure how profiles work in Chrome, but from a Firefox point-of-view this is only true if you also want to keep your history/bookmarks/settings/add-ons completely separate, too.

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

#890

Post by BlueTemplar »

bhauer wrote: post #829
dmix wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the point when even free market people will no longer defend your monopoly, Google. The number of egregious examples of their centralization backfiring against the freedoms within the day-to-day life of internet users keeps growing bigger at a seemingly exponential rate. The barrier for competition may be high but history is littered with examples of giants withering under their own decision making. Nor wi…

I am as free market as they come. I don't consider Google a monopoly. I figure many "free market people" define a monopoly pretty strictly. They're not forcing me to use their browser, search engine, maps, email, or many other services. However, they do have a disturbingly high level of market dominance. So seeing as I am a part of the free market (after all, the "economy is us"), I have opted to minimize my use of G…

What we call "monopoly", is "being big enough to put a thumb on market scales" in legal theory these days (note that this doesn't even require a company to have even 50% of market share...)
Post reply on HN