←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: 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 #
tredre3 ◴[12 Jul 25 21:15 UTC] No.44545231[source]▶
The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. "

This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it.

Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

replies(3): >>44545658 #>>44545704 #>>44545991 #
stavros ◴[12 Jul 25 22:16 UTC] No.44545658[source]▶
So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3, it means that ad blockers function properly in MV3? Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?
replies(1): >>44551976 #
crazygringo ◴[13 Jul 25 17:28 UTC] No.44551976[source]▶
> Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?

Of course it doesn't, if MV2 provided a bunch of edge case stuff that doesn't matter for normal adblocking.

> So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3

That's a silly thing to say. No, it's that if it's blocking 99.9+% of ads it should definitely be considered to be functioning properly. Which uBOL definitely is.

Quibbling over whether it blocks 99.999% or 99.99999% is not relevant to whether it functions "properly". It clearly does.

replies(1): >>44565223 #
1. asadotzler ◴[14 Jul 25 20:59 UTC] No.44565223[source]▶
You're making up numbers as bad as the person's you're responding to. My made up numbers are more like 98% for uBlock Origin and 95% for Lite, and Origin is maintaining that number while Lite is losing about a point ever couple of months. My expectation is that in a few years, Lite will be not only deficient, but entirely failing to meet expectations of the full version users. For me, it's already getting close.