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

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#91

Post by Nexxxeh »

caoilte wrote: post #47
Nexxxeh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version. In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers. And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not g…

Can you not install extensions directly any more?

Not in the Stable or Beta channels of Chrome. (There may be a way of re-enabling it, but frankly, Opera or something Chromium based.)

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969?hl=en-GB

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#92

Post by w8rbt »

weirdentropy wrote: post #30
ep103 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well hopefully you don't have verizon, as they've announced plans to inject customer specific identifiers into all requests seen from their customers for tracking reporting and reselling. just fyi

Yes, I saw this, but it doesn't affect HTTPS traffic.

Or Tor.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#93

Post by forgetsusername »

bad_user wrote: post #52
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

ABP's resource usage is not that dramatic. It had a huge problem on Firefox due to an unsolved bug, but Mozilla solved it and now ABP runs without issues. I use ABP precisely because it has the notion of acceptable ads. > I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me This is where we disagree. No, you don't have such a right, not on other people's expense. What you do have is the right to not use…

>a problem called "inelastic demand"

Inelastic demand means that the demand for a product is insensitive to price changes (ie a steep demand curve). No idea how that relates to what you're talking about.

>And I must say that I consider people attributing moral values or rights to their usage of ad-blockers to be hypocrites.

That's ironic.

Here's the deal: Anything that is open to me publicly through my browser is fair game. You don't get to control what I do over here as soon as that data enters my house. In the same way I watch TV, then get up and go to the bathroom, or read, or get food, when commercials come on. The cable companies don't get to tell me, "Hey, you have to WATCH the commercials."

If you are producing content and want to make money, take what you can get through ad support, or offer a subscription. If your content is worth it, people will buy it. Period. I have no sympathy for people who feel they have some sort of right to make money from website visits.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#94

Post by wutbrodo »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #26
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #6

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".

Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.

That's an enormous tinfoil hat, even by hn standards

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#95

Post by anc84 »

theg2 wrote: post #74
anc84 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy. I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections…

Not all news and content creation can be done as a side job or hobby. The people who do journalism, create content, or support that goal of quality journalism need to make a living somehow.

Absolutely. And I wholeheartedly think that enough people support high quality journalism. See the 1 million online subscribers to the NY Times.

The majority of online journalism seems to be regurgitated news agency reports and stuff that no one needs (or can get free from communities elsewhere).

lots of forums, blogs and aggregators perfected clickbait and cat picture distributions a decade ago.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#96

Post by Dylan16807 »

bad_user wrote: post #52
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

ABP's resource usage is not that dramatic. It had a huge problem on Firefox due to an unsolved bug, but Mozilla solved it and now ABP runs without issues. I use ABP precisely because it has the notion of acceptable ads. > I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me This is where we disagree. No, you don't have such a right, not on other people's expense. What you do have is the right to not use…

It's not copyright infringement to consume only part of something.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#97

Post by wutbrodo »

Karunamon wrote: post #79
theg2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them. I'm all for blocking sites that abuse their users.

They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no? What about distraction? Is time free now? And that's before we get into the malware vector problems. The few tenths of a penny you got for me seeing your ad is much less than my hourly rate for cleaning up a network infected with the latest 0day du jour. Is your (the collective your) company going to compensate me when one of…

I don't personally block ads, but I of course find all the arguments against tracking, malware, etc to be rather compelling, since they don't really fit any reasonable definition of consent, given many users' lack of awareness of tracking and the intentional failure of ad companies to be explicit about it.

> They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no? What about distraction? Is time free now?

But your comment reaches new heights of absurdity. Taking your attention is "abuse"? When you go to the store and they force you to pay for goods, is that theft and abuse? You're consuming a service for free, and the cost of that service is a modicum of attention. When we're not talking about the terms of the transaction being hidden from users, pretending that paying for services is "abuse" is frankly just pathetic. Grow up.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#98

Post by cesarb »

sotojuan wrote: post #65
weirdentropy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I use Firefox and install the following: - Disconnect - Ublock Origen (choose 3rd-Party block lists to suit.) - Privacy Badger (no set up, just install, it learns as you go) In Firefox, use about:config to change the following: - Toggle dom.storage.enabled to False - Toggle layout.css.visited_links_enabled to False - Toggle media.peerconnection.enabled to False - Toggle network.prefetch-next to False - Toggle n…

Pretty cool set up, but why no NoScript?

uBlock Origin in advanced mode can also block (and temporarily unblock) Javascript, much like NoScript.

For me, I found uBlock Origin's advanced mode easier to use than NoScript, while blocking the same amount; the only thing I sort of miss is that NoScript attempts to "fix" some pages so they work even without Javascript, while uBlock Origin does nothing more than preventing the scripts from running.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#99

Post by wutbrodo »

anc84 wrote: post #95
theg2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all news and content creation can be done as a side job or hobby. The people who do journalism, create content, or support that goal of quality journalism need to make a living somehow.

Absolutely. And I wholeheartedly think that enough people support high quality journalism. See the 1 million online subscribers to the NY Times. The majority of online journalism seems to be regurgitated news agency reports and stuff that no one needs (or can get free from communities elsewhere ). lots of forums, blogs and aggregators perfected clickbait and cat picture distributions a decade ago.

You picked a particularly terrible example, since the Times hasn't stopped struggling since introducing an online subscription, and most depressingly, is starting to experiment with the same clickbait bullshit that Buzzfeed popularized (things like increasingly questionably labeled "sponsored stories").

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#100

Post by Ch_livecodingtv »

I think Google sometimes is vague when it comes to bans and take downs. There are times they don't give clear reason which part exactly of their rules and regulation was being violated. It then becomes a puzzle to solve otherwise it's a sad story for content owners.
Post reply on HN