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

941–950 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#941

Post by Anamon »

userbinator wrote: post #920
ifwinterco wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can see extension code, there's no way you could have used this to make an adblocker without them patching it. You're inventing a moral dilemma here that simply doesn't exist

That's why you keep stuff like this quiet, instead of snitching to the enemy. But the vote patterns here clearly show who's trying to control the narrative.

You can either keep it quiet, im which case it's useless to the rest of us because no ad blocker would've been using it, or share it with developers, in which case I'm not sure the time it would've taken to write the exploit would've been worth it, for it to work the one or two days Google would've taken to notice and patch it.

No other decision here would have made much of a difference.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#942

Post by Melatonic »

pkaeding wrote: post #359
Melatonic wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orion browser using Firefox plugins I have found to work quite well on iOS

I tried to use Orion as my daily driver on Mac OS (instead of Firefox) but I couldn't get the simplelogin extension to work (it wouldn't authenticate to my account). Also, it was slower than FF (I know, everything says that it is super fast, but that wasn't my experience). After a month or so, I gave up and switched back to FF.

Yeah on macOS itself I would stick to Firefox. iOS still bans any other browser engine though so Orion is my go to

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#943

Post by lucb1e »

eviks wrote: post #864
lucb1e wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When a word has two meanings you can claim "you explicitly said it!!1" but that doesn't make me having actually meant the other thing that I didn't mean, particularly when the original sentence makes a singular meaning clear: nobody can build anything on Chrome, why'd Chromium then suddenly mean "Chromium and any code modification you can make to it" and not simply "Chromium the browser as it is"? "Chrome/ium" referred to the two Google browsers, not forks that modify the underlying code, like Vivaldi which obviously diverges and is its own thing. The comparison wasn't Firefox vs every possible browser built on Chromium. If you want to compare Firefox to Vivaldi specifically, sure, I'll trust that Vivaldi fulfills your special wish if that's what you're saying, but that's a different conversation

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#944

Post by aspenmayer »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #905
aspenmayer wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

I didn't imply foul play. I never studied the details and I actually like a bit of vertical integration in tech (but not like Apple does it), so I don't have strong views about that case - but even assuming Microsoft really was in the wrong here and were justly told to stop, what I'm much more sure of is, advertising-based business models are worse , but also this was not obvious at the time . Still isn't to many. An…

Advertising is so integrated into the American way of life, I don't know if that will ever happen. The powers-that-be won't give up their toys. This one guy single-handedly did more by running ads than anyone else until probably Google, then Facebook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

> His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist "Torches of Freedom", and his work for the United Fruit Company in the 1950s, connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954. Critics argue that his involvement in Guatemala facilitated US imperialism and contributed to decades of civil unrest and repression, raising ethical concerns about his role in undermining democratic governance.

> He worked for dozens of major American corporations, including Procter & Gamble and General Electric, and for government agencies, politicians, and nonprofit organizations. His uncle was psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

> The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays. In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04&list=PLktPdpPFKH...

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#945

Post by worldsayshi »

slenk wrote: post #254
worldsayshi wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing holding me back is lack of pwa support, since there are a few apps that i need to use that only exist as progressive web apps on Linux. And using another browser for pwa has shown to be a bit cumbersome. I know pwa is coming back to Firefox soon-ish.

Firefox on Windows has PWA support at least

Are you sure? Looks to me that you need at least need to install an add-on for it.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#946

Post by slenk »

worldsayshi wrote: post #945
slenk wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox on Windows has PWA support at least

Are you sure? Looks to me that you need at least need to install an add-on for it.

You appear to be right and I feel like I am going crazy now. I could have sworn I just did it. Might be either ViolentMonkey or ReactDevTools but I need to restart maybe

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#947

Post by j45 »

fakedang wrote: post #487
j45 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a personal choice. Once someone reaches a level of individual support that’s fine. YouTube remains a place for discovering channels and people and some people especially the majority who are not technical, can outwit a simple family fee. I use YouTube premium more than I ever used for paying Netflix for far longer. Value (and proven convenience) is in the eyes of the user.

I agree about YouTube being a platform for discovering new content, and even great content. I've even bought Premium for my parents and brother just so they wouldn't need to go through all sorts of ads on YouTube. I would have bought the argument of the commenter if they talked about buying Premium to support the platform. But buying Premium to support the content creators? That's a bunch of horse manure.

I think primary and secondary motivations are OK - I'm not sure how the premium subscriptions are distributed to content creators other than by ad revenue.

One thing is for sure - an ad-free family is much more peaceful and able to enjoy the content itself, which can bode well for connecting with the content creators and appreciating the platform for what it is, and once was.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#948

Post by projectdelphai »

healsdata wrote: post #853
godelski wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). People should do this for many reasons. Monopolies are not good for anyone, including Google[0]. For most people, that means installing Firefox or using Safari. There are others, but the space is small. Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. Truth is we like to complain. It's good to push things forward and find issues…

> Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I used Firefox exclusively for about a year and had a website not work about once a month. This included my state's unemployment portal and a small business store. When it happens, there's no indication of why. It's only because I'm technical I thought too try it in Chrome. My non-techn…

Echoing that this has not been my experience either. I and my household use Firefox exclusively at home and at work for the last decade and I rarely have a website not work on Firefox but on Chrome. At least not work to the point that I noticed it. Sure maybe some websites looked ugly but tons of websites were ugly and I didn't think it was because it was Firefox.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#949

Post by triyambakam »

burnte wrote: post #912
triyambakam wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because I prefer another tool for that. That's why I'm complaining I can't REALLY turn it off.

But then why use Brave...?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#950

Post by ajnaiz »

belter wrote: post #662
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.

It's 2025. Here is a list of great browsers committed to MV2 support. If anybody from Google tries to gaslight you with "but security..." review this: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gmail.com and ask them why do they still support connection with so many insecure tls suites ;-) Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/download/ Brave: https://brave.com/download/…

brave dont work, same message when I try to watch any video. Why none repporting that?
Post reply on HN