News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes after may not be better. Parent comment

Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by IX-103 on Thursday August 15, 2024 @09:49AM (#41256026)
I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests.

It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised to, but then has reneged on that promise in favor of "user choice". I don't for a second think Chrome would have kept then around if they weren't tied to an advertising company.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by yjftsjthsd-h on Thursday August 15, 2024 @10:25AM (#41256517)
> The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests.

That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason.

> Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests.

Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by nolist_policy on Thursday August 15, 2024 @10:54AM (#41256851)
I think the third party cookie thing is due to their other antitrust lawsuite in advertising.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by t0mas88 on Thursday August 15, 2024 @05:29PM (#41260567)
They've used the UK regulators as a very convenient excuse. But realistically the problem is that Google's DoubleClick has a monopoly on both sides of the ad marketplace. If that wasn't the case, the regulators would not have a problem with Chrome deprecating cookies.

So Google has maneuvered into this position skillfully and then blamed the regulars for not continuing on a pro-privacy path, while conveniently that also makes them the most ad money...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by EasyMark on Thursday August 15, 2024 @10:26AM (#41256532)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by nolist_policy on Thursday August 15, 2024 @10:52AM (#41256830)
> Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2

They didn't, but other malicious extensions did.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by aembleton on Thursday August 15, 2024 @11:11AM (#41257012)
In that case, it should be a permission thing that a user can switch on for certain extensions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by shadowgovt on Thursday August 15, 2024 @02:34PM (#41259051)
It currently is, and it's easy to trick users into switching it on.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google is a monopoly. Breakup may be coming; what comes a... by stefan_ on Thursday August 15, 2024 @05:06PM (#41260362)
If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. Look at the things they were up to even back in 2017:

https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1821558368659456399

And thats what they dared put into writing.

[ Parent | on HN ]