←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
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 #
WarOnPrivacy ◴[13 Jul 25 03:54 UTC] No.44547343[source]▶
> except firefox is pretty bad nowadays.

Pretty bad as in that isn't true?

Firefox is the option that doesn't intentionally leave users vulnerable to hostile adtech. Firefox is the option with containers. Past that it is performant and reliable under a wide variety of user loads and platforms.

or Pretty bad as in Firefox+forks are better than the alternatives?

It is true that some unfortunate default options were recently added to Firefox configs.

Those options are unfortunate because they are variants of anti-user options baked into Chromium - options created to keep Chromium users susceptible to big-tech's worst intentions.

replies(1): >>44547427 #
ndriscoll ◴[13 Jul 25 04:12 UTC] No.44547427[source]▶
Those "default options" are precisely "intentionally leav[ing] users vulnerable to hostile ad tech" (e.g. PPA). It's built into the browser and on by default. Mozilla have very explicitly stated they believe ads are critical for the web. It is still better the chrome though (and a patch set like librewolf is better still).
replies(2): >>44547468 #>>44547519 #
1. ulrikrasmussen ◴[13 Jul 25 04:30 UTC] No.44547519[source]▶
Mozilla can have this position (and probably have it due to most of their funding coming from an ad company), but can still hold the position that the user must remain in control and be able to remove ads if they wish, even if it goes against the beliefs of Mozilla. Meanwhile, Google is actively working to make it harder to block ads in Chrome and in general work on technology which take away users freedom to control how their own computers should behave.