←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1036 points deryilz | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44545060[source]▶
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.
replies(26): >>44545103 #>>44545185 #>>44545382 #>>44545931 #>>44545951 #>>44546164 #>>44546522 #>>44546599 #>>44546664 #>>44546763 #>>44547531 #>>44548200 #>>44548246 #>>44548399 #>>44548418 #>>44548820 #>>44549698 #>>44550098 #>>44550599 #>>44551061 #>>44551130 #>>44551663 #>>44553615 #>>44554220 #>>44556476 #>>44571602 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[12 Jul 25 23:37 UTC] No.44546164[source]▶
This wasn't really the point of the article, which in fact says the workaround was patched in Chrome 118.
replies(1): >>44546417 #
irrational ◴[13 Jul 25 00:28 UTC] No.44546417[source]▶
Because the author reported it. Personally I would have told the ublock origin developers instead of google.
replies(1): >>44546423 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[13 Jul 25 00:29 UTC] No.44546423[source]▶
To what end? So Google can see how it works and still patch it?
replies(2): >>44546483 #>>44547648 #
scotty79 ◴[13 Jul 25 04:56 UTC] No.44547648[source]▶
At least it would make them work for it.
replies(1): >>44552479 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[13 Jul 25 18:41 UTC] No.44552479[source]▶
It would be creating more work for the Ublock Origin developer[1]; as far as I can tell it wouldn't be creating any extra work for Google, which has to patch the issue anyway.

1: Assuming he even elected to do it; I know I wouldn't.

replies(1): >>44558149 #
1. account42 ◴[14 Jul 25 09:49 UTC] No.44558149[source]▶
According to the article it would have been two additional lines for the extension developers.