←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 3 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ujkhsjkdhf234 ◴[12 Jul 25 20:26 UTC] No.44544870[source]▶
No judgement but I would love to hear from Google employees who worked on this. Do they believe they are improving the internet in any way?
replies(4): >>44544890 #>>44545314 #>>44546462 #>>44547405 #
lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 00:36 UTC] No.44546462[source]▶
There is also an argument to be made that adblocking is immoral. I think the idea is pervasive enough to fill a team of willing people, especially if you pay them 100k/year to at least go along with it for the time being

I haven't made up my own mind about it yet, just that this might be a factor in why one would move the facilitating technology backwards in this way (and forwards in other ways, apparently: some people in the thread are reporting that uBlock Lite is faster. Not that I can tell the difference between a clean Firefox without add-ons (I regularly use that for work reasons) and a Firefox with uBlock Origin (my daily driver) except if the page is bogged down from all the ads)

replies(2): >>44546657 #>>44548439 #
1. yard2010 ◴[13 Jul 25 08:02 UTC] No.44548439[source]▶
Lol. Treating cancer is immoral. Miss me with this shit!
replies(1): >>44553919 #
2. paulryanrogers ◴[13 Jul 25 21:31 UTC] No.44553919[source]▶
Advertising is cancer?
replies(1): >>44565419 #
3. asadotzler ◴[14 Jul 25 21:16 UTC] No.44565419[source]▶
Yes. Advertising is inherently manipulative, a cancer not of the brain, but of the mind. Advertising is also a exploitation vector. Removing a security threat that's damaging my mind is like removing a physical health threat that's damaging an organ.