Not only is this enough to get me switching back to firefox, it's enough that my next laptop purchase won't be another chromebook
the internet without an adblocker is simply not usable for me.
the internet without an adblocker is simply not usable for me.
Now I'm beginning to look into alternative cell phone plans, simply because Google's insistence on advertising doesn't sit well with me.
I currently work at an advertising agency (doing IT stuff), and I'm in the process of job hunting for this exact reason. I can't justify spending my time helping people who are insistent on finding new, increasingly intrusive ways to advertise.
That said it probably wouldn't change marketing budgets, just what people pay CPC/CPM etc to offset the percentage of users doing this.
1. https://adnauseam.io/ 2. https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
Checkout surf (webkit): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20023287
Things that should be plaintext won't load without JS these times...
It seems to me people are upset because they read the title and misinterpreted it to me that adblocking as a whole is going away. But to be fair, even the article itself does a poor job of clarifying that.
>misinterpreted it to mean
> We measure how EasyList affects web browsing by applying EasyList to a sample of 10,000 websites. We find that 90.16% of the resource blocking rules in EasyList provide no benefit to users in common browsing scenarios.
[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.09160.pdf
They've also mentioned the possibility of tweaking the 30k limit.
Part of the point of an adblocker is to protect you in uncommon browsing scenarios. This is almost like saying that a malware list is bloated because some of the hashes its storing are uncommonly downloaded. Having as close to full coverage as possible is important.
It also opens up an attack vector for advertisers that they absolutely will exploit. With unlimited rules, there's no reason for ad networks not to use a few domains and serve their ads from a few sources. With a hard limit, there's a strong incentive for networks to collectively try and flood the lists with tons of different domains until we run out of room to include all of them.
> the possibility of tweaking the 30k limit.
This has been the number one complaint about the proposal from day one. If at this point the Chrome team still hasn't decided to tweak the limit, I just don't see how there's not gonna be any new argument past this point that anyone can make to convince them.
I believe in the response, they said they are running benchmarks to see the performance hit, so they are definitely still looking at tweaking the limit.
Two things to keep in mind:
A) uBlock Origin doesn't just protect me from ads, it also protects me from many trackers. I'm in the (maybe minority, I don't know) camp that says that excessive tracking and de-anonymization attempts cause people tangible harm. They're not as drastic or as harmful as installing malware on my computer, but I put these practices in the same category as a malicious attack.
B) Under the most recent stats I've checked, Malvertising has almost surpassed general unsafe sites like porn/torrents as a source of consumer malware. Even Google Ads aren't immune from some of these attacks[0]. So for less computer-literate friends that I have, I consider a gimped adblocker to be a malware risk source.
But to your point, maybe a less emotionally charged comparison could be Chrome's automatic whitelist for autoplaying videos. Nobody is going to die if a video autoplays on their tablet, but at a fundamental level the point of blocking autoplay is to actually block it, everywhere. Not to block some of it. People didn't want Google trying to guess which video sites were the most annoying, they just wanted Google to turn off autoplay.
In the same sense, if someone installs an extension that says it's going to block ads and trackers, I don't think it's unreasonable for a consumer to want it to block all of the ads (or at least as many as is possible to detect), not just some of them on the X most popular websites.
[0]: https://wp.josh.com/2019/05/06/breaking-news-google-adwords-...
Seems like a pretty major change to me.
The new way has the extension give a list of patterns to block to chrome, and from there it will block any request that matches.
The stated reason is that this is for privacy, to prevent extensions from being able to gather data about every request a browser makes. Currently, a malicious extension could send every url a user visits to some central collection server. The new way prevents that.
Is the trade off worth it? I personally think no, but I do think many people don't realize that as blockers have the capability to collect every url you visit if they wanted.
They're not lying. This was listed as one of the reasons by Google.
>The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on the user's behalf.
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReques...
This is fully intended to give Google the ability to use sophisticated scripts to serve ads and track you despite blocking. Everything else Google says about this is bull!
They probably already have the tech set up. And that real blocking still works for Enterprisr customers is the nail in thr coffin.
If you care about a usable Web, STOP USING CHROME.
Google is has become the #1 anti user and anti freedom company. They want to make money from Ads and tracking, so dont think they will allow you to block ads.
As per the article, you can still use a rule set to block. Whilst undoubtably less powerful, I would expect that could still be used to block Google stuff.
Why not? Have you read the spec for chrome.declarativeNetRequest? Please substantiate your comment.