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

891–900 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#891

Post by account42 »

internet2000 wrote: post #737
al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

Don't put this on the users. The blame is 50% on web developers, 25% on Mozilla for screwing the pooch, 25% on Google themselves for advertising it so strongly across their properties.

I think we should also assign some blame to the market regulators that have failed to do their job and to the voters that let them get away with that.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#892

Post by account42 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #810
scotty79 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to the article it would have been two additional lines for the extension developers.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#893

Post by GoblinSlayer »

JimDabell wrote: post #872
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One touted security feature is that app store gatekeeps malware. It's praised as a killer feature of apple echosystem.

That wasn’t a response to anything I said.

When you remove a killer security feature, it kinda destroys everything, so it's blocked (on security grounds).

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#894

Post by JimDabell »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #890
JimDabell wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?

Web Bluetooth, which would allow hardware to be setup through a website instead you're forced to ship an app to iOS if you're a hardware maker.

Why are you avoiding my point?

This is what Mozilla has to say about Web Bluetooth:

> This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Again: Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#895

Post by JimDabell »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #893
JimDabell wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn’t a response to anything I said.

When you remove a killer security feature, it kinda destroys everything, so it's blocked (on security grounds).

Why are you avoiding my point?

> What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#896

Post by RS-232 »

McAlpine5892 wrote: post #867
throw123xz wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've had similarly good experiences with AdGuard and Wipr and prefer the latter for the UX.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#897

Post by znpy »

slig wrote: post #368
znpy wrote: post #181

Somebody should probably fork chromium. I remember when Firefox was getting traction, it had a killer feature: speed. A chromium fork could come with a simple killer feature: bringing back the possibility of blocking requests. I’m pretty sure it would quickly gain traction.

That's Brave, a fork with native AdBlock.

Ah nice, I’m installing that then

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#898

Post by orwin »

echelon wrote: post #784
orwin wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anti-trust is crucial to make the capitalist economy work prperly No it isn't. If you want your capitalism to be liberal, you need antitrust, true. If you only want capitalism, and don't really care about the 'liberty' part, you can check the mercantile capitalism of old. It worked quite well for people with power.

Capitalism is a great model that results in evolutionary pressures for the efficient development of goods and services. One failure mode of unchecked and unregulated capitalism is the establishment of monopolies that can starve oxygen from the rest of the ecosystem. In order to have maximally efficient and broadly beneficial capitalism, you need strong anti-trust mechanisms to reoxygenate the environment for new comp…

Mercantile capitalism was regulated and under the power of colonizer states though. The East India Company had to follow the British Crown orders, as were the different transatlantic companies. The competition was mostly between nation-state rather than between companies. Actually, China started consolidating its industry and "Capitalism with chineese characteristic" look a lot like modern mercantile capitalism.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#899

Post by bowsamic »

perching_aix wrote: post #815
bowsamic wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say "Just install Linux bro, it's better than pussy bro. What, u still got dat spyin machine goin on?? [links a 30 minute Mutahar video with him faffing about with some technologically trivial bollocks he visibly barely understands]"?

What you did say and I did quote verbatim there is of course this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44544526 -> "u still got dat spyin machine goin on??" Note the intentionally worse spelling to ridicule your original "question". The rest just matches your archetype and is not a quote, as per my second remark. By all means, feel free to claim how it totally doesn't apply to you.

That wasn't me, that was another user. You are stupid

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#900

Post by matheusmoreira »

jwitthuhn wrote: post #257
matheusmoreira wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users. I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more acc…

An extension I trust is by definition trusted code. What is trusted is for the user to decide, not the broswer developer.

The user should of course be able to add their own extensions that do whatever they want.

I'm just saying that I think this is good interface design. Virtualization, sandboxing and gating access to data and computing resources are good things.

Post reply on HN