←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 5 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[12 Jul 25 20:49 UTC] No.44545043[source]▶
> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that.

Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true.

Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's faster because now all the filtering is being done in C++ rather than JavaScript. Works on YouTube and everything.

I know there are some limits in place now with the max number of rules, but the limits seem to be plenty so far.

replies(4): >>44545065 #>>44546649 #>>44546946 #>>44550708 #
zwaps ◴[12 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44545065[source]▶
It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?
replies(2): >>44545076 #>>44545231 #
crazygringo ◴[12 Jul 25 20:53 UTC] No.44545076[source]▶
> It is true though. Like, literally.

Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me?

> Why do you think it is called Lite?

Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

replies(3): >>44545145 #>>44545158 #>>44545289 #
rpdillon ◴[12 Jul 25 21:21 UTC] No.44545289[source]▶
One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2.

> About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO can be converted to MV3 DNR rules, some websites may not be filtered as with uBO. A specific example in following tweet.

You can read about the specific differences in the FAQ:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

My personal take is if you're a pretty unsophisticated user and you mostly don't actually interact with the add-ons at all, Manifest V3 will probably be fine.

If you understand how ads and tracking work and you are using advanced features of the extension to manage that, then Manifest V2 will be much, much better. Dynamic filters alone are a huge win.

replies(2): >>44545604 #>>44547345 #
ufmace ◴[12 Jul 25 22:07 UTC] No.44545604[source]▶
I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit.

I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot of those things. Or vague assertions that it's not doing something which is allegedly important, where it's never actually explained what that thing it's not doing is and why it's important.

I have yet to see anybody show a specific example of a website where Lite doesn't actually work well enough. Or of any other specific thing it's not doing. I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing. If it can't be explained simply and clearly what it's not doing that's so important, maybe it's not actually missing anything important at all.

I suppose I am a unsophisticated user of web browsers. I never got around to understanding or interacting with all the details of what "proper" uBO can do. Yet I still seem to browse the web just fine, and even build webapps sometimes, and I don't see any ads. So what's this great thing that I'm missing?

replies(2): >>44546374 #>>44551478 #
1. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 00:17 UTC] No.44546374[source]▶
> super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details

Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? It's a feature I use, a user-facing setting, not an under-the-hood technicality. (Budding web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance and being interested in the actual text on the webpage was not their job description)

I'm less familiar with the other things. Clicking one experimentally, it mentions:

>> The primary purpose of dynamic URL filtering [is] to fix web page breakage

Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently. I'm not a blocklist developer so I can't say how useful this particular function is, but I'm also not going to assume that, just because I don't know the technical details, that it's just handwavey technical details nobody needs to care about and everything will be the same regardless of what the most qualified person on the topic is saying

> I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing

Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing. Sometimes that means that finding out information requires reading source code, or in this case, it's probably data files that contain these dynamic thingies so you could see the list of what mitigations will stop being possible and on what kinds of sites those are. If you (or someone else) do a writeup that fills the information gap you are looking for, I'm sure a lot of other people also appreciate that existing

replies(2): >>44547838 #>>44549995 #
2. pests ◴[13 Jul 25 05:53 UTC] No.44547838[source]▶
> web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance

Mac's have this font thing where it basically makes font's have a heavier weight. This is the result of that.

3. ufmace ◴[13 Jul 25 12:40 UTC] No.44549995[source]▶
Well the people posting that link seem to believe it's a clear and direct response to the question of why uBO Lite is insufficient when I or others say it works fine for us.

> Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality?

I suppose not, but I never noticed whether it was or was not being blocked. I'm not really sure why that's so important. It certainly doesn't seem to justify the "oh no google is totally super evil for killing manifest v2" vibe that goes on.

> Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently...

Maybe, I guess. But exactly which websites are broken on uBO Lite that were not on "full"? Can anybody give me even a single example? I've been using Lite for I think like a year or something and haven't noticed any.

I can see being a little mad if, say, https://mytotallyimportantwebsite.com was really broken on Lite and that was your favorite website. I just can't get all hot and bothered though at the idea that maybe some website that I've never seen and nobody can name is broken on Lite.

> Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing.

I get that I'm not entitled to somebody's work to create a simple and clear explanation. But the argument I'm making is that uBO Lite is perfectly fine actually, which I don't think requires any evidence. It's the other side of the argument - that uBO Lite is insufficient - that needs to provide evidence to convince me. You're more than welcome to make that argument if you care to.

I'm telling you and others that posting links of technical details is not going to convince me that Lite is not good enough, that I need to be super mad at Google and switch browsers etc. If you try to tell me to do work to "educate myself", I'll say no thanks and keep on browsing just fine with uBO Lite. In my opinion, it's somebody who cares enough to make the case that I should change who should gather sufficient evidence to convince me. It's sure funny that they're all indignant and demanding as long as it's someone else they think should do work to change, but they suddenly get all quiet when asked to actually gather and present evidence to make a case to an audience that's skeptical instead of fawning.

Or more simply, if somebody wants to be a smug link-dropper, how about a link to even one single website that's broken on Lite, which I have yet to see anybody anywhere provide.

replies(1): >>44551556 #
4. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 16:30 UTC] No.44551556[source]▶
Right, I see what you mean. Just to not ghost the conversation, I can only say that I don't have such an example because I don't use Google Chrome or uBlock Lite

You may be in a better position to do this comparison than me, if you stumble upon a broken site (they're likely infrequent indeed) and could quickly check whether it works with full uBlock (ideally in the same browser engine, since some sites are nowadays only tested on Chromium's implementation of the web standards, but Firefox is probably a good second option when Chromium simply can't do it anymore)

replies(1): >>44552476 #
5. ufmace ◴[13 Jul 25 18:41 UTC] No.44552476{3}[source]▶
Okay, that's fair.

I currently do most of my browsing with Chrome and UBO Lite, and have yet to find a site that it doesn't work with. I do keep a copy of Firefox with full UBO and NoScript open on my desktop computer, just on general principles I guess.

Well, except for the other thread here where somebody pointed out Twitch, which doesn't block ads on either in stock form, which I did just check myself. Though I had already stopped using Twitch anyways, more because all of the other dark patterns it has are rather annoying.

By all means, browse with whatever setup you please. I just wish people would take it easy a little on the assertions that UBO Lite is inadequate.