Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by rdm_blackhole | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

rdm_blackhole

Don't forget the main feature, it won't let you block those pesky ads!

View on HN

Maybe I should have added the /s at the end of my comment.

I am aware that the change to the webRequest API has not been implemented yet.

However, I just could not resist having a bit of fun when I saw this headline.

And yes, I actually did switch to FF in light of this announcement from Google.

I actually tried to switch a few times in the past but never really had the motivation to do so. Google gave me the motivation, so I guess, thanks Google!

AFAIK the new proposal allows dynamic filtering, which addresses the primary concern with adblocking tools like uBlock, I believe.

> The Declarative Net Request API now allows for the registration and removal of dynamic rules - specified at runtime rather than statically in the manifest. We’ve also added the capability to remove common tracking headers, such as Referer, Cookie, and Set-Cookie.

https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

My opinion though is that if you were going to switch over this, just switch anyway.

There is a limit of 30k rules though, which isn't enough to contain even uBO's defaults. While it looks like they are moving to a 150k global limit, even that is less than my current uBO setup of over 200k.

They can work around that by concatenating multiple checks into a single rule though, right?

But the article addresses this by saying that the vast majority of rules never get used?

No, as far as I can tell Gorhill's position on the policy hasn't changed since dynamic filtering was introduced. The primary concern isn't that rules can't be modified, it's that they're declarative -- meaning developers can only use filtering schemes that Google explicitly supports.

It's inaccurate to say that the revised v3 addresses all API concerns.

Oh, ok. I really wasn't sure.

It is not implemented, and ad blocking still works. Also they recently announced more changes to the proposal. To be fair they have some good reasons to change existing api. World is not ending yet.

Their new proposal for blocking ads is exactly the same as the idea Apple offers with Safari, and it blocks ads just fine.

There was a very big thread about this, it's nothing like Apple. The limits are much smaller on the amount of things you can put in a blocklist.

Even if they end up implementing Apple-style simple blocking, they said at the beginning that they would adjust the limits. Most recently, they said the limit would be 150k, which is three times the number Apple allows. https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

So it's actually a lot like Apple, just with different limits?

Emphasis on idea; IIRC, previous threads have pointed out that Apple hasn't put a limit on their API, or has made the limit much larger.

UBlock Origin, UMatrix, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, and HTTPS Everywhere are all not available on Safari, in part because the APIs they rely on aren't available.

I'm not sure why people make the claim that Safari is just as good at blocking ads as Firefox and Chrome. It's not. The extension options on Safari are comparatively quite limited, in no small part because of technical decisions like this.

I use UBlock on Safari. It’s there.

I'm on a Mac and just checked the Safari extension store. The only extension I see for Ublock is a fork of Ublock Origin called Ublock Safari. It hasn't been updated in a year, and is thousands of commits behind the official version.

It also isn't distributed by Gorhill, even though the extension lists him as the author in the extension store. In fact, none of this information is listed on the extension page itself.

I'm not sure the extension you're using is what you think it is -- I would be at least mildly cautious about installing it.

See also this issue (https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/145) on Ublock Safari's Github filled with people complaining that the extension doesn't work and that Safari's tech restrictions mean that there aren't suitable alternatives.

I'm interested to see how this will affect other browsers built off the Chromium source code, e.g. new Edge, Brave, Opera, etc

Brave and Opera have said they're going to fork and add back the API to allow true adblocking.

Vivaldi has mentioned this possibility as well.

https://vivaldi.com/blog/chromium-ad-blockers-choice/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com