News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by StavrosK on Thursday May 30, 2019 @08:33AM (#20050486)
I used a friend's phone to look at some website and was horrified that the website had added ads everywhere since the last time I visited! Then I noticed he was using Chrome, which doesn't have adblock, and apparently the web is just terrible.

Thank God for Firefox Mobile.

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ignoramous on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:45AM (#20051049)
Most people don't realise this, but on Android, setting private-dns [0] or using local VPN apps like blockada / dns66 or intra+nextdns [1] / intra+adguard-dns [2] would block ads even within apps, provided they aren't doing their own name resolution [3]. It allows one to use Chrome for websites that don't work well or at all with Firefox+plugins; in addition to helping bypass censorship.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19208004

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012687

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788410

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19258717

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by StavrosK on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:50AM (#20051099)
I use those but don't like prefer them over uBlock, as the former approach is a bit more heavy-handed.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by Twirrim on Thursday May 30, 2019 @01:35PM (#20053777)
In my experience they slow down browsing quite significantly, almost down to 2G speeds (may be a quirk of the Oxygen OS?) Thankfully Firefox Mobile with uBlock works fine.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by Demiurge on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:32AM (#20051503)
blockada is an amazing utility. I've missed it after going back to iPhone.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ignoramous on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:45AM (#20051688)
Not that its a deal breaker: Blockada doesn't yet do DoH, which limits its abilities to circumvent censorship.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by dr0verride on Thursday May 30, 2019 @08:49AM (#20050589)
Thanks for mentioning this. I had no idea Firefox Mobile supported add-ons even though I've been using it for a year.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by StavrosK on Thursday May 30, 2019 @08:57AM (#20050649)
Yeah, just browse to the addon page (e.g. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...) and click "add to Firefox", it works as usual. Not on iOS, though, since Apple doesn't allow real third-party browsers.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ronjouch on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:35AM (#20050942)
iOS / Safari / Content Blockers are not as full-featured as Android / Mobile Firefox / uBlock Origin, but I'm quite content with https://1blocker.com/ , it provides several lists (with a less stringent limit than the crippled webRequest API discussed here) of rules to pick from, and the possibility to create your own rules through a Safari extension.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by warp on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:34AM (#20050940)
Apple does allow real third-party ad blockers though.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by saagarjha on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:47AM (#20051712)
Depending on your opinion of content blockers, not on iOS.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by msbarnett on Thursday May 30, 2019 @02:15PM (#20054265)
The content blocking API it allows on iOS is significantly less restrictive than Chrome’s proposal
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by sudo_rm on Thursday May 30, 2019 @08:52AM (#20050604)
I think add-ons only work on Android though, not iOS.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by lstamour on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:31AM (#20050911)
iOS has native Content Blockers though, so it’s not as bad, and actually quite battery-efficient!
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ce4 on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:38AM (#20050978)
there's lots of gold. eg the "oldreddit redirect", or "background video playback" addon is also nice. kind of a YouTube premium ersatz :)
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by nikeee on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:42AM (#20051017)
I use Brave on my phone, a Chromium fork. It does not allow extensions but it has a built-in ad blocker and some privacy features.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by npongratz on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:28AM (#20051453)
> I use Brave on my phone, a Chromium fork. It does not allow extensions but it has a built-in ad blocker and some privacy features.

And creates Facebook-style shadow profiles: https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160882873380870

HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by Dylan16807 on Thursday May 30, 2019 @01:58PM (#20054103)
That's not even close to a facebook shadow profile. It was a way to donate to a public creator page. It didn't track anything.

They have also fixed the issues. The page makes it clear when someone has not opted in, and in that case it won't use profile images or names and the tip won't go through.

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/wp-content/uploads/2019...

https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1085242421817102336

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by npongratz on Thursday May 30, 2019 @03:05PM (#20054802)
Seems I stand corrected. That's very good news (news to me, at least); thank you!

I hope they never backslide.

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by echelon on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:10AM (#20051269)
Too bad they're trying to monetize it. The new Basic Attention Token icon in the URL bar takes up so much real estate that it's almost pointless to have a URL bar in the first place.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by mixedCase on Thursday May 30, 2019 @02:09PM (#20054202)
What? It's no bigger than any of the other icons and even that can be disabled. What are you seeing?
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by woldemariam on Thursday May 30, 2019 @08:52AM (#20050611)
I used AdGuard and I don't see any ads in Chrome

https://adguard.com

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ulucs on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:02AM (#20050694)
Or you could use firefox and not see ads for free, AND communicate Google that what they're doing is unacceptable.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by HugoDaniel on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:22AM (#20050851)
Google is an advertising company
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by ce4 on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:41AM (#20051006)
from a recent Google SEC filing:

"New and existing technologies could affect our ability to customize ads and/or could block ads online, which would harm our business.

Technologies have been developed to make customizable ads more difficult or to block the display of ads altogether and some providers of online services have integrated technologies that could potentially impair the core functionality of third-party digital advertising. Most of our Google revenues are derived from fees paid to us in connection with the display of ads online. As a result, such technologies and tools could adversely affect our operating results."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419...

Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by WickyNilliams on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:56AM (#20051137)
I personally use NetGuard which is free and open source. It works by setting up a vpn locally combined with a hosts file to send ad requests to a blackhole. This works on the Web and in apps. Follow this guide here: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by djflutt3rshy on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:19AM (#20050840)
How trustworthy are they? I feel very iffy about sending my DNS queries to some random company in Moscow.
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by therealmarv on Thursday May 30, 2019 @09:11AM (#20050787)
actually the Adguard for Mac can work the same as Adguard on Android... so even when Google removes adblockers you can still block on network level (though not as good of course).
Re:Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBloc... by driverdan on Thursday May 30, 2019 @10:02AM (#20051185)
What does AdGuard do that a host blocklist doesn't provide?