91–100 of 448 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pi-hole can't filter out ads that are embedded into the page though. I think adblockers have to be a browser extension to work conprehensively.
Pi-hole can switch from magicking the DNS to being a proxy that rewrites HTML.
A proxy that wants to do this before the browser will need to do a lot more work I think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many many people use adblockers now. The amount of users they will alienate would be very high.
Nope, mostly tech-savvy people use adblockers, it's astonishing how many people still see ads on a daily basis.
For example, it takes a lot of effort and energy for me to explain to non-technical people that comparing Apple and Google in terms of their mobile devices is non-sense. Just look at their regular financial reports, I usually say, and understand that one is an online advertisement business, while the other is a purely software + device business. One wants you to use their devices at all costs, while the other wants you to buy them. Those are very different core business models, different mentality and approaches. Etc etc. And so the choice between them comes down not even to taste or quality or price; it comes down to which business model you sell your soul to.
And then there's ad blockers and understanding how modern internet works etc. It worries me that the disconnect between those who understand the inner workings of tech and those who don't becomes bigger and bigger by the day. As the tech business itself becomes more and more sophisticated (and monopolist/authoritarian).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is already here.
Since Firefox is already dependent on Google for a great deal of their funding, I’d say the next phase in Google’s strategy will be scaling that back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari has a much larger limit for blocking list entries though.
+ the limit there is per-extension, not global
Meanwhile me laughing in Firefox. I hope no one here is surprised by this G was more and more anti ad-blocking for years now. This is only natural conclusion after u are a de-facto browser monopoly.
... and (probably?) the world's largest ad broker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is already here.
Since Firefox is already dependent on Google for a great deal of their funding, I’d say the next phase in Google’s strategy will be scaling that back.
First of all, the HN title is not the title of the article. HN mods, please change it to reflect the actual title of the article.
Second, to me this does not seem as some attempt by Google to actively block Adblocker extensions. They are proposing a change to the API (Manifest) to no longer allow manipulation of content, which I think is a good thing from a security standpoint. They also propose reducing the number of content stripping rules to 30k. Now, I'm not familiar with add-on development, but this sounds like a constraint that was implemented for performance reasons. This constraint will break add-blockers in their current form, but there is no reason for me to believe that this will make content filtering impossible.
It is also clearly stated that the V3 manifest is in early testing phase. Nothing here is set in stone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In current form, yes. The article pretty clearly states: >Instead Google wants developers to use the declarativeNetRequest API, which has the browser, not the extension, strip content or resources from a visited web sites. This API, though, has a limit of 30,000 rules that can be created. >Unfortunately, this change will break popular ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, which rely on the original functionality of the…
> we are currently planning to change the rule limit from maximum of 30k rules per extension to a global maximum of 150k rules. ( https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ... )
Meanwhile me laughing in Firefox. I hope no one here is surprised by this G was more and more anti ad-blocking for years now. This is only natural conclusion after u are a de-facto browser monopoly.
See this FAQ:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest...
Note how they say: "We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest and are working with add-on developers to gain a better understanding of how they use the APIs in question to help determine how to best support them."
"No immediate plans" is weasel-speak, as is "[we] are working with add-on developers".
If Mozilla was dead sure that they weren't going ahead with it, they would say so, unequivocally. And I remind you that Mozilla "worked with add-on developers" when they unilaterally decided to drop XUL and go ahead with web extensions, while failing to include support for APIs that developers said they needed to support functionality that their add-ons provided.
IMHO, adoption of manifest v3 is not a matter of "if" but rather "when".