[HN Gopher] Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blocker...
___________________________________________________________________
Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
Author : talonx
Score : 218 points
Date : 2023-11-23 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.malwarebytes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.malwarebytes.com)
| lagniappe wrote:
| "You do this, and I will do that.. forever" - Rickson Gracie
| amelius wrote:
| Except Google has the money/power to put anti-adblocker
| technology inside chips.
|
| Needless to say, I'm not applauding any steps in this
| direction.
| layer8 wrote:
| What, a browser chip?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Don't see why it couldn't happen. Offload data
| communications to it's own chip, one that connects to a
| StarNet. Locked down running a Java Virtual Machine
| presenting an optical browser to your eye retina's;
| surveillance controlled as it's hooked to your brains
| cortex via Elon's animal killing NutellaLink.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Are you aware of how much "ewaste" is still viable and will
| 'lose support' for these Big Brother chip designs, but still
| be plenty serviceable by a normal person?
|
| Windows 11 requiring a TPM has already locked some people out
| of their zeitgeist. There is more old circuitry that can get
| the job done well enough, they'd be competing with prior
| freedoms.
| Gabrys1 wrote:
| Could be some DRM tech that will become mandatory to view the
| web
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers.
|
| I suspect this will be good for Firefox.
| djaychela wrote:
| Occasionally I use a computer that's not my own (I've been
| using Firefox and UBO for years, and have PiHole here). I can't
| believe how AWFUL it is. It's just not worth bothering with any
| more for the most part... it's like I live in this quiet
| backwater town where everyone walks everywhere, and then I get
| teleported to the middle of rush-hour Tokyo.
| christophilus wrote:
| Rush-hour Tokyo is not too bad by big city standards. Rush
| hour in Atlanta, now... that's hell.
| Gabrys1 wrote:
| This is an interesting point. If this is good for Firefox, then
| I... support this...?
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| War makes life worst. People like a good life so they should
| fight for peace. I guess war is good for life.
| colordrops wrote:
| And possibly great for Brave. Brave has the same feel as
| chromium.
| fbdab103 wrote:
| It is truly unbelievable how bad it has become. Even
| informational articles might only have a paragraph of text
| between ads. Plus, the frequent animations/pop-unders/whatever.
|
| Everyone can decry the loss of the "small web" as much as they
| want, but the cram-ads-into-every-pixel dystopia means why
| should anyone bother? Even big brands are not immune to this
| behavior. At least if someone stays on the
| Instagram/Reddit/Tiktok experience, the ads are a consistent
| frequency and intrusiveness.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| > Even informational articles might only have a paragraph of
| text between ads.
|
| The thing that made me realize how bad it's gotten was
| ironically an inability to use ad blockers. At one job, we
| weren't allowed to install any adblockers to the browser
| (there was a lot of bureaucracy so I never figured out why).
| Ended up writing my own JS bookmarklets to remove ad elements
| from sites I commonly visited. Also started browsing the web
| more in the terminal with Lynx because there are no images,
| it's just text. No distractions.
|
| Taking your typical "How do you frob a xyzzy in the foo
| framework?" Medium article, the entire thing would usually
| fit on my screen in the terminal. The GUI browser had one or
| two lines followed by an image of ad.
| prox wrote:
| Wasn't there a protocol (?) with just text, Gemini or
| something like it?
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > At one job, we weren't allowed to install any adblockers
| to the browser (there was a lot of bureaucracy so I never
| figured out why).
|
| It could have been the IT department fielding too many
| "this web-based app" isn't working requests due to ad-
| blockers. A lot of time can be spent trying to troubleshoot
| an issue before figuring out the cause is the ad-blocker.
|
| Edit: It could also have been a policy to disincentivize
| people to use their work computer for non-work-related
| tasks. Ads typically don't pop up on work-related web
| applications.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Even the text on the web has gotten more and more drawn out.
|
| So much more text to make it look like they have more content
| where 1 paragraph would've sufficed.
|
| It's like my English teacher took over the web '3,000 words
| minimum'... except that doesn't count if you just don't have
| more to say.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| IE being very advertising friendly and user hostile was the
| original reason for Firefox to emerge and Chrome to be created.
| Both blocked popups and provided more user control. Both had
| extensions. And ad blocking quickly became a popular
| application of extensions. I've not used a browser without an
| ad blocker for probably close to seventeen years or so. Why
| would I opt in to ads?
|
| IE did not survive the competition. And Google did well with
| chrome. But technically it's weird that they continue to
| convince people that use operating systems that come with a
| different browser to install Chrome. Firefox has the same
| challenge.
|
| It seems that Google has gotten a bit too used to that being a
| thing that users are eager to do. The more ads that slip
| through the defenses, the more market share they'll loose to
| other browsers. This is a classic throwing the baby out with
| the bathwater. Their ad revenue (i.e. most of their revenue) is
| largely dependent on Chrome being something users want to use.
| More ads means less users. And as MS has demonstrated with IE,
| having a leading position is no guarantee whatsoever of keeping
| that. Even their position as the dominant fork of Chromium is
| not guaranteed. If people get annoyed enough, they might just
| fork and cut loose. Happened before when Google forked Apple's
| webkit. Which in turn was a fork of khtml. Not saying that's
| likely to happen soon but it's always an option.
|
| Anyway, I'm happy using Firefox. No ads for me. Also not on
| Youtube.
| pier25 wrote:
| I like using Chrome and even went back to it after trying FF and
| Brave 2-3 years ago. But this would really make me look for
| alternatives, even if those are inferior.
|
| It's not even about Youtube. I pay for Youtube Premium. But not
| being able to block third party cookies would be a deal breaker.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers
| around) prefer Chrome over Firefox for minor problems out of
| convenience, I don't see how Firefox is supposed to really
| notably gain any market share even if Google completely locks
| out ad blockers.
| chias wrote:
| > If even tech people (who could easily have multiple
| browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox
|
| very many of us don't.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Sometimes it's not "out of convenience" but "we only have the
| resources to test on one browser and most people use chrome"
| - so we must cater to that even if chrome is far down the
| road to enshittification.
| vivzkestrel wrote:
| majority of the people will still use Chrome even if Google
| literally delists all blockers from the planet. One major
| reason being "browser migration". The guys on HN crying foul on
| most of these articles are a vocal minority. This s Google's
| version of "corner the market and raise the prices". They ll
| lost 2-5% market share at max
| nottheengineer wrote:
| Don't forget that google also has mozilla by the balls and
| can turn firefox into a community project at any time.
| loeg wrote:
| I've been using Firefox some lately because my work has a
| heavyhanded managed system-wide Chrome profile and one other
| problem is that Firefox is just buggy and slow in some
| noticeable ways that Chrome is not.
| DandyDev wrote:
| I often read these kinds of comments on HN and I don't
| understand them. I'm using FF on MacOS and it feels like
| exactly the same experience I used to have on Chrome.
| Except that I like multi account containers better than
| Chrome profiles.
|
| I would love for HN commenters to share a recording in
| which they show this "buggyness"
| loeg wrote:
| I'm on Linux. Attempting to drag a tab to a new window
| doesn't work and permanently breaks the "x" button to
| close tabs (until a restart).
| beebeepka wrote:
| Too bad your lies have been upvoted. I am also on Linux -
| had to boot it up just to make sure I am not spreading bs
| - and what do you know, dragging tabs between windows
| works just fine, like it always has.
| loeg wrote:
| I am happy you have a better experience, but it doesn't
| do me any good.
| flir wrote:
| There's an evangelist effect - Apple benefited from it a lot
| way back when (less so now). Where techies lead, others tend
| to follow. That 2-5% might be the first few pebbles in the
| avalanche.
| linza wrote:
| You still need a tangible reason for switching. Maybe we
| can push, but Firefox would need to sustain the momentum
| and I don't see them doing it.
|
| My pet peeves: sync and app mode. I don't want to switch at
| the moment, tried many times, but it doesn't stick for me.
| If i ask my my aunt to do that, and she dislikes it, she
| won't do it again and won't trust me anymore on top of
| that.
| paulcole wrote:
| The "techie" "evangelist" network effect is a thing of the
| past.
|
| Today it's all about mobile.
|
| Nearly everybody uses their phone for everything and they
| aren't making choices about which software to install on
| their personal laptop.
| theonemind wrote:
| If browser migration stopped the majority from changing,
| Internet Explorer would still dominate. But Firefox got the
| majority, and then Chrome.
|
| It's a bit more fluid than the OS market. A company can't get
| away with just anything forever in the browser space. At
| least not so far. 2-5% loss is significant for one change,
| and denotes a chink in the armor of dominance that other
| players can begin to exploit; whatever dissatisfaction caused
| people to migrate, other players can be very good at it,
| which can get more people trying the other product, which if
| it does well in other ways, can spread. So 2-5% loss has a
| small chance of turning into a long, slow landslide of market
| share loss.=
|
| Definitely dangerous to start throwing customer experience
| under the bus for short to mid-term gains without paying
| attention to the long term picture.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > But not being able to block third party cookies would be a
| deal breaker.
|
| Chrome has a proper setting for that you don't need an addon
| for it?
| neilv wrote:
| > _But this would really make me look for alternatives,_
|
| A stronger response would be -- a year or more ago -- techies
| switching to Firefox as a symbolic movement.
|
| And when we have more techies using Firefox, that means various
| kinds of network effects that end up improving its adoption.
| nmilo wrote:
| So switch then instead of just talking about it. It's not a big
| deal, it takes like 1 minute, and no one can seriously tell me
| you have a significantly different browser experience on Chrome
| vs FF.
| linza wrote:
| It's very subjective, but I won't try switching again before
| certain things I value in Chrome are available or work
| similar well on Firefox. You can switch based on ideology
| alone but I want convenience more than that.
| nmilo wrote:
| Ok so if you're not going to switch then don't talk about
| it. Google will continue to make Chrome shittier and more
| user-hostile much like every product they've ever released
| since they were founded and people like you will continue
| to go "yeah but what about app mode or whatever." It's not
| ideology, it's history.
| SuperCuber wrote:
| What things are you talking about? I haven't used chrome
| outside of work for years, so forgive my ignorance
| malermeister wrote:
| Can we all finally make a concerted effort to switch back to
| Firefox? I get it, it was slow and bloated when Chrome initially
| came out and everyone switched.
|
| Well, it's not slow or bloated anymore and Chrome is now
| officially evil. It's time. Don't just switch your own browser.
| Switch the browsers of all the non-technical folks that come to
| you for questions.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Even better, can we all finally make a concerted effort and
| make a new browser better than Chrome and Firefox?
|
| We only let the net get jizzed on because we allow it to be.
|
| If Serenity can do it, imagine if all those who push repos to
| github collaborating together and actually making an open
| source project for all and everyone.
|
| Both browsers are old and have been abused.
| malermeister wrote:
| I mean sure, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good
| here. Firefox is good enough and exists right now. Let's not
| delay this until some perfect future browser arrives.
| jlmorton wrote:
| It takes a special kind of hubris to think you're going to
| develop a browser better than Chrome and Firefox as an open
| source project.
|
| Both Chromium and Firefox are already open source projects.
|
| What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort
| suddenly produce a perfect browser?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort
| suddenly produce a perfect browser?
|
| Another Facebook of course. /s
| zlg_codes wrote:
| A lack of desire to implement technologies that are harmful
| to the Web; specifically technologies designed to usurp
| control from the user and/or its agent.
|
| Remove Javascript and 90% of your challenges go away.
| Shish2k wrote:
| Remove HTML/CSS rendering and the other 10% of the
| challenges go away too. Skip the whole "browser" thing
| and just use `curl`. Zero harmful technologies, maximum
| user control - I'm sure all of the users will be flocking
| to this new approach in no time :D
| mrastro wrote:
| Agree. Plus OP may be severely underestimating the
| complexity and expense related to developing a new fully
| featured browser. JavaScript engine, CSS rendering engine,
| supports for dozens of additional add-ons like WebGL,
| sandboxing, WASM etc. Microsoft is a case study on this
| given their attempt and eventually ended up forking off
| Chromium.
|
| Pouring more resources into existing projects seem more
| realistic.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > Plus OP may be severely underestimating the complexity
| and expense related to developing a new fully featured
| browser.
|
| Not at all. I'm just done with the drama and shite that
| keeps occurring over the piss battle of Chrome and
| Firefox. The internet is just a waste land and all those
| technologies you posted I have not seen one decent
| product come from them. Please feel to prove me wrong.
|
| All of those technologies could be implemented in a
| better application away from the browser instead of
| throwing them in a "all-in-one" solution which ends up
| falling behind because some other new tech comes a long.
| It's your attitude which causes the internet to lack in
| the first place.
| layer8 wrote:
| > If Serenity can do it
|
| Microsoft, on the other hand, gave up on it.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Microsoft, who were paid to give up on it. But they won't
| tell you that.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Been using Firefox on Android for a while now and it's great.
| Chrome's forced tab groups thing is what pushed me to switch,
| and it's been mostly great since. Firefox on Android even has
| proper scroll/fling physics now (they used to have an awful
| implementation on Android).
|
| Only complaint is text input on some sites is very sluggish and
| drops letters, notably many of the wikis used by games. But
| those sites are not exactly optimized either so no idea how
| much of that is Firefox vs. the site.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I don't know if I can trust you. I've heard how great Firefox
| is now so many times and I download it and it is hot bloated
| garbage. If Chrome implements this, I'll just use Brave, but I
| will give Firefox a try then also, based on your comment.
| paradox460 wrote:
| And acting like Mozilla is some bastion of anti-advertising
| freedom ranges from ignorant to aggressively disingenuous
|
| Mozilla has shipped ads directly in the browser at least
| three times: pocket, the automatic installation of a Mr robot
| extension, and the full screen new tab ad for turning red.
| They've given absolutely no indication they won't do it again
| flummoxed_pear wrote:
| You die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the
| villain.
| amelius wrote:
| They were a bunch of creepy voyeurs all along.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| *Technically inclined users don't need Chrome
|
| The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to
| Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in
| Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it
| your default browser, so they do.
|
| The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't
| even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-
| competitive nature of Google. To them, a browser is just the
| thing their OS exists to run for them.
| grayhatter wrote:
| > Technically inclined users don't need Chrome
|
| You're right, but you're forgetting, Chrome needs technically
| inclined users. Yes there's always people without enough
| awareness to be satisfied with the walled garden, but Firefox
| used to be popular because it was user, and importantly power
| user friendly.
|
| Something will usurp that thrown, the power users will switch
| and then so will everybody else
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| They don't have to lose 50% of market share to lose this war.
|
| Even a 5% dip will end it.
|
| And technically inclined users are the ones being asked to
| configure computers for their families etc.
| jnrk wrote:
| Agreed. I look around in my office and no one else than me is
| running any kind of adblocker. Most people don't care or
| don't even know adblockers exist.
| snailmailman wrote:
| This is sadly true
|
| My grandmother uses the Google app to browse the web on her
| phone. Not Chrome. Not safari. the Google _Search_ app.
|
| Because every single time she does a search, google tells her
| to install the app.
|
| And I have a few friends that either uninstalled Adblock. Or
| stopped watching YouTube on PC in response to this new
| Adblock crackdown. All of them use chrome.
| johnny22 wrote:
| We used to see "Designed for Internet Explorer" or other
| recommendations. Firefox still took off anyways.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| This is why Technically inclined users need to engage in
| advocacy for other users.
|
| Bit by bit, maybe Google will get the message.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| I've used Chrome for a decade and there's no way I pick it up if
| they actually commit to this.
|
| That said, they already announced plans to do this once and then
| backed down for a year due to pushback around MV3.
|
| Guess we'll see what happens.
| herbst wrote:
| Same here. My whole approach about internet is how I can
| effectively block ads. If it isn't chrome, it will be something
| else. No value in using it then
| lapcat wrote:
| How many of these stories do we need on HN? This is like dupe #
| 100.
| derefr wrote:
| Two questions I haven't seen addressed by any coverage of this
| change:
|
| 1. Will the ultimate removal of Manifest V2 support affect other
| Chromium-based browsers, or only Chrome itself?
|
| If the support for Manifest V2 _isn 't_ removed upstream in
| Chromium, but only disabled in Chrome, then I would expect that
| we will end up in a world where other browsers (e.g. Edge, Brave,
| Opera) continue to allow the installation of Manifest V2
| extensions, esp. from their own first-party verified-extension
| hosting platforms. So even if the Chrome Web Store also ceases to
| host Manifest V2 extensions, users of these other Chromium-based
| browsers could still get uBlock Origin from "Edge Add-ons" or
| "Opera Addons" etc.
|
| 2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a PR
| to _the upstream Chromium project_ , to introduce one or more
| _Manifest V3_ capabilities (new strings for the manifest.json
| "permissions" key) that, when added, would allow the extension to
| do all the stuff that Manifest V2 let extensions do by default,
| that uBO and others depend on: increased request-filter list
| size, async periodic network data-file updates, etc? Would such a
| PR have any chance of being accepted?
|
| My own guess is that such a PR _wouldn 't_ be accepted, because I
| get the impression that the _nominal_ goal of Manifest V3 is to
| allow V3 extensions to run under a streamlined extension
| "runtime" that has fewer hook-points into the browser runtime,
| and so fewer places where the browser runtime must call back to
| the extension runtime; where adding such capabilities would
| require adding all these additional hook-points and callbacks
| back in, which would defeat the purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong!
|
| I would also guess that even if such a PR _were_ accepted, Chrome
| would still disable the use of those capabilities downstream, and
| also reject any extension that used them from the Chrome Web
| Store. So at best, such a change would just mean that uBO and
| friends wouldn 't be stuck as "legacy" Manifest V2 extensions,
| but could instead just be "modern" Manifest V3 extensions with a
| few capabilities that Chrome and only Chrome forcibly rejects.
| layer8 wrote:
| One reason Google wants to remove V2 support is to make
| implementation changes that V2 currently prevents. This means
| that a Chromium fork that preserves V2 support will likely have
| to diverge further and further from Chromium over time (or
| rather, Chromium will diverge).
| Justsignedup wrote:
| which hopefully means Brave and friends will switch to being
| based on Firefox instead. Could lead to some positives.
|
| Alternatively it could be that all alt browser companies will
| maintain one chromium fork that preserves manifest v2. Or V3
| but with a lot more rules.
| jacooper wrote:
| Brave isn't affected by this anyway, brave shields don't
| depend on the extension API.
|
| Also Gecko is just a factually worse engine, that's why
| they didn't use it.
| bonzini wrote:
| Gecko is not worse, though it used to be worse before
| Electrolysis landed. It's just that Mozilla Corp is
| mostly kept alive by Google so might as well remove the
| indirection and go straight to the browser that Google
| maintains
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| I did some searching but I couldn't find information about
| this. Can you share where you read it?
| grayhatter wrote:
| [citation needed]
|
| I've heard this said a few times but no one has ever supplied
| any reputable source other than fanciful speculation. It's
| become such a meme at this point that I'm pretty sure it's
| just harmful disinformation.
| layer8 wrote:
| Maybe I succumbed to that meme, I honestly don't remember.
| I'm not in favor of what Google is doing. But I'm sure the
| implementation divergence will happen if V2 support is
| dropped. It pretty much always does once a public API is
| removed.
| sharps1 wrote:
| Edge is following chromes lead.
|
| Vivaldi and Brave are going to maintain the code so at least
| uBlock Origin can work. Nobody knows how this will play out as
| the forks won't want to stray faraway from the chromium code as
| that would add a lot of overhead.
|
| I tried a bunch of the forks, didn't like Vivaldi, don't like
| some of Braves crap, and won't use the Chinese browser Opera.
|
| Ended up moving our family back to Firefox.
|
| I miss chromium's better profile management and the app as a
| window. Rest of the family don't miss any of those. Other than
| that happy with Firefox.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| You should check https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
| and Firefox Container Manager extension :)
| sharps1 wrote:
| Thanks! Looks interesting.
| emayljames wrote:
| Thanks, this is something I believe Mozilla made a bad
| decision to not implement.
| type0 wrote:
| > 2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a
| PR to the upstream Chromium project, to introduce one or more
| Manifest V3 capabilities
|
| I don't see why Google would ever allow it, unless some new
| regulation from EU or other gov. bodies mandate it.
| derefr wrote:
| Does Google have veto power over what goes into Chromium?
|
| I had always _assumed_ the relationship between Chromium and
| Google was akin to the relationship between Webkit and Apple,
| or between any ASF-donated project and its corporate
| originator: a community-owned (and several-major-corporate-
| stakeholders sponsored) open-source project upstream, with a
| corporate closed-source "living patchset" project sitting
| downstream of it; where the corporate devs try to push as
| much as possible upstream, to keep the patchset they must
| maintain downstream as thin as possible; but where it isn't
| up to the corporate devs whether the upstream "steering
| committee" _accepts_ the corporate work upstream.
|
| But I guess this isn't true; per Wikipedia:
|
| > However, in terms of governance, the Chromium projects are
| not independent entities; Google retains firm control of
| them.
|
| Which is just bizarre to me, given the following sentence on
| that page:
|
| > The Chromium browser codebase is widely used, so others
| have made important contributions, most notably Microsoft,
| Igalia, Yandex, Intel, Samsung, LG, Opera, Vivaldi
| Technologies, and Brave. Some employees of these companies
| also have @chromium.org email addresses.
|
| _You 'd think_ these other companies wouldn't stand for
| Google having unilateral control over a project they're so
| dependent on! But I guess, as large corporations, they can
| always express their true concerns through more... corporate
| politick-y means.
| kibwen wrote:
| As far as Microsoft is concerned, they're large enough to
| fork Chromium if they wanted to, just like how Google
| forked Webkit into Blink. Every other organization that
| ships a Chromium-based browser is fully at Google's mercy;
| Google holds the keys to the kingdom:
| https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Microsoft maintained their own browser engine for
| decades, they had good reasons to drop them - I'm not
| even sure if there would be enough staff left there to
| actually be able to keep up with Chromium in a fork.
| antonok wrote:
| I work on adblocking at Brave.
|
| 1. Brave, Vivaldi, and Opera have all announced they'd maintain
| support for Mv2 past Google's deprecation date [1].
|
| 2. Your guess is correct - one of Google's stated motivations
| is to make the extension review process easier and less error-
| prone; having a way to opt-out would be counterproductive in
| that regard. I strongly doubt they'd accept the PR upstream;
| there is a chance other players could maintain patches to
| modify Mv3 but the effort of designing and implementing a new
| spec _around_ the Mv3 spec and convincing extensions to
| maintain yet another platform means this is unlikely to happen
| in practice. Keeping Mv2 around is a more reasonable approach
| (and one that is compatible with Firefox, as well).
|
| [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-
| ignore-...
| Vinnl wrote:
| Will you be working together with Vivaldi and Opera to
| maintain the fork of MV2's request interception, or will we
| have multiple independent implementations?
| antonok wrote:
| Nothing coordinated so far, but keep in mind Mv2 code will
| still exist behind a policy flag in Chromium until at least
| June 2025; there's still quite some time.
| wslh wrote:
| In a few years:
|
| LLM: Hi!
|
| Me: Please develop a browser that is full HTML, etc, etc
| compliant
|
| LLM: No problem... download the source here.
|
| Me: Thank you, but could you please optimize it for speed?
|
| LLM: No problem, done.
|
| Me: I have only 5 more minutes, could you please write a version
| in Rust, and two more in Go and C++? Ah, and support Linux,
| MacOS, Windows, Android and iOS. Don't forget to use the native
| WebView in iOS.
|
| LLM: done.
|
| Me: Could you please do me a favor? Remove all ads.
|
| LLM: done.
| whycome wrote:
| But also
|
| LLM: Unfortunately, as a subsidiary of MSFT, I cannot allow you
| to create a competitor to Edge. Would you like to try Edge now
| instead?
| morkalork wrote:
| Bard: Sorry, your request infringes on the rights of content
| platforms to serve ads. If you make this request again your
| Google account will be terminated.
| Gabrys1 wrote:
| But this was the last wish of my dying grandma, can you
| help then?
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2023/10/sob-s...
| wslh wrote:
| Hopefully soon, we would be able to run this models
| locally/on-premise. Don't you think so?
| candiddevmike wrote:
| If it's that sophisticated, why even have it develop a browser,
| just use it as your user agent and have it filter ads for you.
| wslh wrote:
| That is good for general queries and content reading but I
| don't imagine using an spreadsheet via an agent but
| interacting with the UI directly. I agree that a vast amount
| of browsing could go to a chat session.
| nmilo wrote:
| This would only work if the chromium source was included in the
| training set.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go
| even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs
| can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire
| digital life in the hands of a company.
|
| I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that
| time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives
| that don't compromise between the user and business models.
| luckman212 wrote:
| Bookmarking this comment. See you in 10 years. Hope I'm still
| alive and I hope you're right!
| zlg_codes wrote:
| I hope I'm right, too! Choice is the most important part of
| technology imo, and we don't have enough of it.
| mrastro wrote:
| "Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have
| larger market share than Firefox.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Safari's share is capped to a specific hardware. Firefox can
| grow by converting people without needing to wait for them to
| buy new devices.
|
| That said, I'm not really holding my breath for FF to grow
| again.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| WebKit is portable and is used by a lot of browsers,
| including on Linux
| signaru wrote:
| It took me a bit of searching, but it's nice to know that
| there are desktop browsers that are not based on Chromium
| or Gecko, i.e. WebKit [1]. I would like to try Otter
| Browser [2], next time I use my Windows machine.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/nkzrj0/com
| ment/gz...
|
| [2] https://otter-browser.org/
| otikik wrote:
| Firefox works very well on iPhone, by the way. It's my daily
| browser there.
| P-Nuts wrote:
| It doesn't support extensions though. I think only Orion
| supports extensions on iPhone.
| augustulus wrote:
| Safari itself supports extensions
| P-Nuts wrote:
| Not Firefox and Chrome extensions though, only a much
| more limited selection
| foundry27 wrote:
| My understanding was that until next year when EU+UK
| legislation regulating digital marketplaces comes further
| into force, all of these iOS apps for browsers like Chrome,
| Firefox, etc. MUST be wrappers around the exact same Webkit
| rendering engine that Safari uses. I think it's cool that
| everyone can enjoy the better UIs today (myself included),
| but everything other than the UI is placebo.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| It's a reskinned safari if you are not aware. The hope is
| once Apple allowed sideloading, we can start to use the
| actual firefox with extensions.
| otikik wrote:
| Well I did not know that. Perhaps that's why it works so
| seamlessly. Well one of the upsides then is that
| switching to Firefox in IOS is very painless then.
| RedShift1 wrote:
| But it uses the Safari engine
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Email still working for you without a FAANG host?
| christophilus wrote:
| Fastmail and Protonmail are fine.
| belltaco wrote:
| Outlook.com isn't FAANG.
| Forbo wrote:
| But it is GAFAM, which seems to be more relevant when
| you're looking at things from an overall size perspective.
| The focus on FAANG never made much sense to me.
| crtified wrote:
| [cynic speaks: ] Sometimes it seems that a catchy acronym
| lends an association a degree of tacit validity, and/or
| experiences an almost viral spread, simply by virtue of
| its easy uptake by the casual reader.
| nvy wrote:
| Which phone do you use?
| underseacables wrote:
| Discussed previously
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
| stainablesteel wrote:
| in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block
| adblockers, i can understand this move.
|
| imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between
| people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them,
| which i see nothing wrong with.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific
| malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a
| security issue.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| This is my sticking point. I understand that building and
| running websites isn't free, and if ads were 468x60 PNGs I'd
| be willing to live with them. I'm not willing to live with
| you selling the ability to run arbitrary untrusted javascript
| on my computer to the highest bidder.
| hoherd wrote:
| Even the FBI recommends blocking ads for security reasons.
| https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-
| using-...
| Karellen wrote:
| > now that ads have become a prolific malware vector,
|
| What do you mean "now"? They've been prolific malware vectors
| for over 20 years!
| otikik wrote:
| No, it's not "people" on both sides. Google isn't "people".
| It's one of the biggest corporations in the world. I'm not a
| big fan of the EU, mostly because their rulings tend to be a
| bit ...clueless. The specific decision of getting in the way of
| big corp here is totally ok. They'll probably do it badly and
| in an ineffective way, sure, but the problem is the
| implementation, not the idea.
| belltaco wrote:
| > EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers
|
| When did that happen? Link?
| okdood64 wrote:
| It didn't.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| i'm looking now, based on what i've seen the past couple
| days, and i guess there hasn't been an official ruling so i
| must been duped
|
| but there is a discussion going on about this, a few news
| articles and one hn post. basically they want to determine
| whether its ok for youtube to check your computer's memory to
| see if you're somehow blocking their ads.
| blueridge wrote:
| I like Firefox a lot (with Privacy Badger and uBlock) but
| sometimes the browser slows to a crawl. New tabs are slow to
| open, takes way too long to select and activate a text input
| field, and so on. A restart fixes this, but it's still annoying.
|
| I think I might go back to Safari. I like the way it looks and it
| feels snappier all the way around.
| thexa4 wrote:
| I've reported a similar issue on mac where it gets slower over
| time [1]. I hope it gets fixed at some point.
|
| [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1799681
| sharps1 wrote:
| Try installing the auto tab discard addon (It is a recommended
| addon so it gets checked by Firefox). I've noticed certain tabs
| may slow FF down if they aren't unloaded in the background.
|
| I had FF slow to a crawl and when I checked it was using 7gb's
| of ram. Turns out a site I had turned off uBO in had opened up
| a sub frame that was blasting ads. So it is interesting to try
| to see what is going on with about:processes.
| blueridge wrote:
| Oh thank you! Didn't know this was a thing, super helpful.
| smarkov wrote:
| Safari is at a disadvantage - it's behind a walled garden and
| people outside of that garden don't develop or test for it.
| Sure, that's a trivial issue for a company but not for small
| team or single person projects.
|
| Not to mention that it feels like Safari is only fast because
| it does its own thing and doesn't strictly follow the spec.
| I've often run into CSS specific issues with it when making
| slightly more complicated animations.
| prox wrote:
| Do you use tabs as bookmarks? Use bookmarks instead, tag em for
| extra convenience in one go. Together with ctrl+h (history) you
| can go back to any site you recently visited.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Orion is an interesting browser that I've started using. Based
| off Safari, but works with most/many extensions in the Chrome
| Store.
| virtuous_sloth wrote:
| The war against general-purpose computing is but one front in the
| class war.
|
| Daily reminder that economics is a political theory, not a
| science, that capitalism is the most incidious form of oligarchy,
| and that the US is no longer a democracy (if it ever was).
| pvg wrote:
| Much discussed last few days
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502
| belltaco wrote:
| The second and third links are dupes themselves, ironically :)
| crorella wrote:
| Good thing there are better browsers out there. As long as they
| don't mess with the transport we should be good
| derefr wrote:
| I'd like clarification on something. I've spent an hour or two
| trying to figure this out to no avail, so I suspect many other
| people might be wondering the same thing I am.
|
| Examining the Manifest V3 changes more closely (https://developer
| .chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...), and
| comparing/contrasting to what uBlock Origin themselves say about
| it (https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-
| us/articles/11749958544275-...), I can understand the cause of
| _one_ of uBO 's problems with V3... but not the other.
|
| The cause of "Allow List Limits" is clear: uBO Lite will be
| forced to use declarativeNetRequest; and declarativeNetRequest
| imposes limits on the size of the ruleset you can "declare".
|
| But I'm confused about uBO's point on "Ad Blocking Quality". It
| seems that Manifest V3 only restricts 1. the use of eval(), and
| 2. the loading of remote-origin scripts into the DOM and/or as
| service-worker modules. It doesn't restrict the use of remote-
| origin-loaded data files generally; which I would presume means
| that uBO would still be able to use its service-worker to
| periodically fetch and update its filter lists.
|
| Is there some part of the way uBO uses these filter lists, that
| requires arbitrary remote code execution (and for which the only
| true substitute is burning in the lists locally?) If so: why,
| exactly? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm not doubting that they
| _do_ need it. I just can 't figure out where the need comes from,
| and I'd like to know!)
|
| It might _seem_ at first blush that the literal answer is this
| feature: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-
| syntax#... ... but it actually isn't, as you don't write actual
| JS to be eval()ed in these rules, but rather just name a function
| that's already burned into the extension locally as part of its
| "scriptlet resource library".
|
| Is it instead, just the way that these rules get "baked down"
| into in-page logic? Does uBO compile the lists into a bunch of
| Javascript source-code, and then have the page evalScript() that
| code?
|
| And if that _is_ the blocking issue -- and I 'm still not clear
| that it is -- then wouldn't there be other workarounds for this?
|
| For example, sticking the generated JS code into a data: URL and
| then dropping it into the page as a <script> tag. Or even, at
| worst, swapping out feeding the page "JS source code", for
| feeding the page a (static!) _interpreter_ , and then having that
| _interpreter_ receive instructions as regular ol ' data from the
| uBO service-worker? (Maybe that'd violate uBO's performance
| goals, I suppose? But it wouldn't have to do it on every page;
| only on pages that it knows from the ruleset can't be blocked
| entirely declaratively.)
| wzdd wrote:
| AIUI it's because declarativeNetRequest only allows a small
| number of dynamic rules (5000). See
| https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
| . Most of the popular filter lists are much larger than that.
| For example, EasyList is about 70k rules. So even if you
| offered an option to download a list, you wouldn't be able to
| add most lists dynamically.
|
| Also note that the site you linked is for UBlock, which is a
| different extension from UBlock Origin. If you're interested in
| what the UBO developer thinks the differences are, the UBlock
| Origin Lite (UBlock Origin for MV3) page has a write-up:
| https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
| eigenvalue wrote:
| I thought Brave made very little sense when it was first
| launched. Who would want an ersatz Chrome browser? Now it's
| starting to look very smart. Sure, it's open source so anyone can
| fork Chromium. But it does take a lot of sophistication to do it
| properly and add back the usability bits in a nice way. And if
| you could basically have Chrome but without losing the ad
| blocking, that starts to sound pretty compelling.
| joelthelion wrote:
| If it started gaining traction I wouldn't be surprised to see
| Google going closed source with chromium.
| asmor wrote:
| Despite being made by _that_ homophobe I will never financially
| support, you seem to be right. Unfortunately.
|
| Brave funnily enough is also the only Chromium-based browser
| that lets you set policies to turn off their optional features,
| none of which I want.
|
| Vivaldi has some downsides (no gesture navigation is a
| dealbreaker) and installs its bookmarks every time you sync a
| new browser. It also feels crowded no matter what settings you
| use.
|
| Edge just does absolute asinine stuff. Yesterday it disabled my
| new tab page without asking (and it _also_ asks every day) and
| today it asked if it could submit my Kagi search results to
| Microsoft to help them make Bing better, which I refused.
| Weirdly enough the refuse button was blue... and sure enough,
| Edge set my default search engine to Bing in that moment.
| Apparently you can switch to a non-consumer Windows SKU to turn
| down these shenanigans. An Antitrust needs to read that source
| code, badly.
|
| Unfortunately I can't use Firefox because an app I'm forced to
| use wouldn't support it.
|
| The world is ripe for a Chromium fork that just works. Maybe
| Ungoogled-Chromium can bring back some creature comforts
| eventually...
| account-5 wrote:
| I think this is a good opportunity to bypass chrome and use a
| standalone adblocker, if you're forced to use Google or Microsoft
| (ad|spy)ware as a browser.
| insanitybit wrote:
| > But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily
| abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added
| dynamically.
|
| Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How
| many dynamic rules are currently used?
|
| > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular
| expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations.
|
| Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious.
|
| > According to Firefox's Add-on Operations Manager, most
| malicious extension that manage to get through the security
| review process, are usually interested in simply observing the
| conversation between your browser and whatever websites you
| visit. The malicious activity happens elsewhere, after the data
| has already been read. So in their mind, what would really help
| security is a more thorough review process, but that's not
| something Google says it has plans for.
|
| I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using
| malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we
| need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might
| want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it
| seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact.
| Macha wrote:
| > Can someone give an example of what a good number would be?
| How many dynamic rules are currently used?
|
| uBlock's built in list has 47,000
|
| EasyList has 75,000
|
| EasyPrivacy has 31,000
|
| Fanboy's List is 78,000
|
| Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.
| insanitybit wrote:
| Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This
| doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or
| meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've
| already raised it.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _Has Google explained why the limit is so low?_
|
| I don't think we need the adtech company to make a
| statement for us to know what's going on here.
| insanitybit wrote:
| Well, I don't see how this would impact Google at all.
| Obviously as one of the biggest advertisers all of
| Google's advertising will fit within the limit and will
| be highly prioritized over others.
| THENATHE wrote:
| Yea, I would be okay with spending all 30k of those on
| just YouTube ads, and pihole for the rest. Google is the
| biggest advertiser, so logically their ads would go first
| or close to the top
| insanitybit wrote:
| If anything Google would be incentivized to increase the
| size, since that would impact competitors. So I'm just
| curious to learn more about the justifications - like I
| said, they've made a number of changes to the APIs
| already in the last two years or so.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| EasyList has become bloated with many rules being outdated
| or invalid. It's a system where rules are added at a much
| faster rate than they're removed. It's not like there's
| test suites or anything to shake loose old rules, so it
| only ever grows.
|
| Checking 150K rules once wouldn't be a problem, but if you
| have to do that for 50 network requests on every single
| page load, that adds up. So the hope, as I understand it,
| is to set a ceiling to encourage developers to keep more
| up-to-date lists by pruning old and outdated rules. This
| prevents a situation where browser performance slowly
| degrades.
|
| I'd like to see a system where users opt-in to allow ad
| blockers to collect metrics on which rules are actually
| applying, and have them occasionally trim anything under
| 0.01% usage. Which sounds like a small number, but should
| capture the majority of dead or unused rules. Of course,
| that would require a new browser API in a declarative
| system.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Coming to an extension store near you: AdBlockr (Part One)
| and AdBlockr (Part Two)! We've heard your feedback and have
| split our extension into two, more narrowly focused blockers.
| Only block what you need, without the bloat of a monolithic
| blocker! Or use both extensions for complete security with up
| to 60,000 rules!
| Vinnl wrote:
| > I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are
| using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks...
| therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get
| why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former,
| but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive
| impact.
|
| As I understand it, the APIs that are removed only remove the
| ability to _modify_ network requests; the remaining APIs will
| still allow you to inspect requests.
|
| (Disclosure: I work at Mozilla but not on extension APIs or
| even Firefox. I have written extensions myself though.)
| insanitybit wrote:
| Ah, thank you. So the idea here is that extensions will still
| have the read access to requests, which is all attackers care
| about (typically). Confirmation would be interesting - at
| minimum I thought that inspecting requests (read only) Was
| being limited, but I'm just a casual observer.
| Vinnl wrote:
| I think this is the relevant API: https://developer.chrome.
| com/docs/extensions/reference/webRe...
|
| > As of Manifest V3, the "webRequestBlocking" permission is
| no longer available for most extensions. Consider
| "declarativeNetRequest", which enables use of the
| declarativeNetRequest API. Aside from "webRequestBlocking",
| the webRequest API will be unchanged and available for
| normal use.
|
| So the other functionality, to inspect web requests, will
| still be available.
| erichurkman wrote:
| Is that 30,000 limit per extension, or global?
| Solvency wrote:
| Can anyone explain why there isn't a robust and thriving
| adblocking solution available at the router or OS level? Why are
| we all forced to grasp at the straws of the browser?
| timeagain wrote:
| There is in the sense that there are robust black lists you can
| put in your `/etc/hosts` file, but that only blocks known
| senders of advertisements. But how can your OS know that this
| `div` is an ad and that one is content? Since the browser is
| the authority on what is rendered on a web page, it makes sense
| that it is the tool that should be utilized to block/hide
| rendered elements.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| My guess is less variety on browsers than routers but no clue
| with OS's.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Also, most consumers don't know how to configure their
| router. Most _can_ figure out how to install an ad blocker.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Yeah, especially since ones like unlock origin are simple
| browser extensions that anyone can install in a few
| seconds. Hell it's so simple I hesitate to even describe it
| as "installing"
| snailmailman wrote:
| DNS-based solutions do this somewhat.
|
| But nearly all web traffic is encrypted. And without being able
| to inspect the traffic more closely ad block is quite limited.
| So DNS blocking or router firewalls have trouble. Pihole can't
| block YouTube ads. The ads still come from the same domain as
| the video.
|
| Extensions have access to the live page and can do much more
| inspection, with finer control over the page. (Manifest V3
| limits this somewhat)
|
| On iOS it can kinda happen at the "OS" level as there is only
| one web browser. But that has its own drawbacks. The only
| adblocks are those the AppStore allows.
| asylteltine wrote:
| Because most blocking is removing DOM elements and you can't do
| this outside a browser
| Manuel_D wrote:
| If the ads are hosted from the same domain or even same IP as
| the main web content, this is hard to do. Done effectively,
| it's not possible to distinguish ads from the wanted content
| without inspecting the web content.
| notatoad wrote:
| AdGuard is pretty good. but it's not free, and the browser
| extensions are.
| Dwedit wrote:
| Because you would need to Man-in-the-middle HTTPS.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sounds like anything outside the browser should still work, like
| PiHole
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Ok. Goodbye chrome. I will be switching to whatever privacy-
| focused browser allows me to keep not seeing ads.
|
| I do wonder how long it will be before we see browser browsers,
| software that takes a browser instance and sanitizes it. Maybe
| chrome will continue as a daemon allowed to run inside a sandbox
| within a browser's browser that actually displays content to a
| human.
| vlod wrote:
| Welcome to Firefox. We have cookies!
| eastbound wrote:
| And ads! Mandatory shortcuts for Nike and Amazon on the
| homepage! Then ads saying Big Browser Watches For You! Then
| ads saying we respect privacy! Then a suggestion to open a
| Mozilla account and synchronize all your history! Because we
| respect privacy!
| treyd wrote:
| Use a non-Mozilla Firefox fork, there's several.
| vlod wrote:
| Errh... I don't see them on mine.
|
| Maybe I removed them or something. If so, it was relatively
| easy.
| avtar wrote:
| Why not change your homepage to something you prefer? And
| don't create or sign into a Mozilla account; host your own
| sync server instead
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674569
| antonok wrote:
| Why not, I'll make a pitch for Brave here too. We have the only
| EasyList-compatible adblocker that isn't based on an extension
| platform.
|
| Yes, there is in-browser private advertising with user revenue
| share, but all of it can be disabled too if you prefer.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Welcome to Safari!
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Come to Safari..
| cpeterso wrote:
| > Nevertheless, Firefox said it will adopt Manifest V3 in the
| interest of cross-browser compatibility.
|
| The article makes it sound like Firefox will have the same ad
| blocker limitations as Chrome. The article fails to mention that
| Mozilla is implementing MV3 APIs in Firefox, but not removing the
| MV2 APIs like Chrome is:
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| Yeah, that is a really bad misrepresentation
| clouddrover wrote:
| The error is to use Chrome in the first place.
|
| Use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
|
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
| notatoad wrote:
| So, manifest v3 is out there, and does allow some form of
| adblocking. are there any adblockers actually implemented with
| it, so i can see for myself what the adblocking performance is
| like?
| agilob wrote:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
|
| uBO Lite (uBOL) is a _permission-less_ MV3-based content
| blocker.
| Pesthuf wrote:
| Sure, there's uBlock Origin Lite
| https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
| squarefoot wrote:
| I fear this scenario in a few years:
|
| 1- non hacker users too starting to realize corporate friendly
| browsers like Chrome and many derivatives can't be used anymore
| for painless surfing, then flocking to Firefox.
|
| 2- corporations and advertising companies pushing for a new
| closed HTTP standard that requires their browser, or an old
| browser using a closed extension that doesn't allow adblockers
| when using a given service or page.
|
| Open browsers work because they still connect to open web
| servers, and the industry already ruined the mobile environment
| by forcing users to run apps instead of navigating web pages
| (that is, installing a hundred application for a hundred services
| instead of just one that speaks a standard protocol); I have no
| doubt they'll attempt the same in the desktop world too. We have
| to fight to keep protocols open.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-23 23:02 UTC)