←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1036 points deryilz | 6 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 1.356s | source | bottom
Show context
zulban ◴[13 Jul 25 02:07 UTC] No.44546901[source]▶
I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypasses" are just temporary bandaids?
replies(25): >>44546992 #>>44547048 #>>44547056 #>>44547069 #>>44547113 #>>44547116 #>>44547135 #>>44547149 #>>44547168 #>>44547299 #>>44547355 #>>44547435 #>>44547619 #>>44547764 #>>44547831 #>>44547854 #>>44547934 #>>44547979 #>>44547987 #>>44547998 #>>44548000 #>>44548065 #>>44548153 #>>44551102 #>>44552201 #
fooker ◴[13 Jul 25 03:42 UTC] No.44547299[source]▶
Great, except firefox is pretty bad nowadays.

Not their fault of course, with people not testing websites on non chrome derived browsers.

replies(8): >>44547343 #>>44547387 #>>44547407 #>>44547493 #>>44547496 #>>44547641 #>>44547931 #>>44548031 #
1. snowram ◴[13 Jul 25 04:03 UTC] No.44547387[source]▶
I browse the web daily, and the number of website that ever gave me trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand. The website compatibility issue is vastly overblown.
replies(2): >>44547510 #>>44548320 #
2. WarOnPrivacy ◴[13 Jul 25 04:28 UTC] No.44547510[source]▶
> the number of website that ever gave me trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand

Also important is that they tend to be Google assets like Gmail.

replies(1): >>44547768 #
3. awaaz ◴[13 Jul 25 05:29 UTC] No.44547768[source]▶
> Also important is that they tend to be Google assets like Gmail.

Long time user of FF on Linux. Primary email is on Gmail and I've never had any trouble. Is there some particular feature that doesn't work?

replies(2): >>44547818 #>>44548039 #
4. matsemann ◴[13 Jul 25 05:47 UTC] No.44547818{3}[source]▶
It loads much slower, sometimes I even get a progress bar for a small blip.

I don't blame that on Fx, though, more Google doing something wonky just to show me a list of emails.

5. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Jul 25 06:42 UTC] No.44548039{3}[source]▶
Yeah, it's merely performance issues. If you used FF you don't notice it, but it's extremely apparent if you switched over from Chrome like me.

Nothing dealbreaking, and I get that this is all on Google. But it's one of the clearest examples of where FF falls short of Chrome.

6. whilenot-dev ◴[13 Jul 25 07:40 UTC] No.44548320[source]▶
> trouble on Firefox can be counted on a single hand

*over the course of a few years, seriously.

In particular, it's sad to encounter such a rare issue only to then discover its true origin - Firefox implemented a necessary functionality according to spec, whereas Chrome decided to do its own thing. Case in point video streaming with Motion JPEG, Firefox dispatches events on every frame and uses a lot of resources, but Chrome decided not to do that, against the spec.

I set my default choice to pro-privacy (Firefox) and occasionally give it up to some Chromium variant if I depend on a functionality and a website justifiable needs it. The disruption to my workflow here is such a minor thing compared to what I gain usability wise, especially in the long run. I would never treat a software program like some religion, and it saddens me that even computer-savvy people do just that.