6 ms·
Web page service workers bypass ad-blockers after Chrome 72 upgrade?
- nicoburns 8y agoIt might sound dramatic, but if they do block or cripple ad blockers, then I think that could represent a turning point in Chrome's popularity. Even my non-technical friends use an ad blocker, and it's also one of the best defenses from viruses on the modern web, so people who do family tech support are likely to be pretty proactive in ensuring that the computers they look after are running browsers with ads blocked.
- satokema 8y agoI hate Mozilla pushing their own things almost as much as Google (a screenshot service? I have a keybinding for that, thank you) but this will probably be the straw that makes me jump ship. There's always IceCat I guess. Websites get away with loading files from a ridiculous number of third-party servers and it's pretty frightening when you look at the uMatrix tab for it.
- simcop2387 8y agoFirefox's built in screenshot system provides one things that others don't. You can screenshot the entire page as a single unit, without having to resize the window beyond your own screen size.
- nixgeek 8y agoThat’s actually very useful, thanks, I wasn’t aware it did that!
- jsjohnst 8y agoMost plugins I’ve seen for doing screenshots provide that functionality. Admittedly I’ve not looked much, but any screenshot utility that can’t do that is pretty much useless to me, so maybe I’ve only looked at ones that had it.
- simcop2387 8y agoThat might be the case now (I haven't looked either), but back when this was introduced that wasn't the case.
- petetnt 8y agoChrome's developer tools also allow this (ctrl+J / F12 -> ctrl+shift+p -> screenshot -> capture full size screenshot (or node screenshot / regular screenshot)
- faitswulff 8y agoThey're deprecating the service, though the feature will remain.
- anoncake 8y ago> They're deprecating the service Looks like they're serious about imitating Google
- dmortin 8y ago> I hate Mozilla pushing their own things almost as much as Google (a screenshot service? I have a keybinding for that, thank you) The screenshot feature is quite handy, because it lets you capture only a certain element on the page which is more cumbersome using the OS' builting screen capture, because then you need to edit the captured image.
- satokema 8y agoOSX has a keybind that lets you drag the exact rectangle to capture, so all I do is keybind, drag, upload to my intended recipient instead of Mozilla's servers.
- coolspot 8y agoUbuntu Linux too - Ctrl+Shift+PrintScr
- dmortin 8y agoApparently, Windows has it too (snipping tool), so it looks like the firefox tool is not necessary.
- underwater 8y agoWindows has a new tool if you hit Windows + Shift + S, which feels a bit closer to the macOS version and less like a Windows app from 1999.
- fzzzy 8y ago(I worked on screenshots) Sure, but firefox has knowledge about the geometry of the dom, so you just click on the element you want and it intelligently sizes the shot for you. Also, before it was screenshots it was Page Shot, and it allowed full text search of the text in your screenshots. Management killed that before launch for some reason. Finally,d you’ve always been able to save the shot locally instead of uploading it to the server, and you’ll be happy, because the server is going away later this year and you’ll only be able to save them locally. You may know how to use your os screenshot tool, but we got a lot of positive feedback from non power users who don’t. Right-click->Take screenshot is a lot more discoverable than command-shift-4. It mystifies me why people hate features they don’t use. So you don’t like it — so what? Other people do. You are the one generating the hate for no reason.
- pdpht 8y agoI think Mozilla's privacy scandals are much worse than that screenshot service.
- naniwaduni 8y agoGoogle privacy scandals, meanwhile ... don't happen because look where our expectations went, huh.
- JetSpiegel 8y agoTheir very existence is a scandal.
- jviide 8y ago(Original tweeter here.) It seems that this is already fixed in Chrome 73 beta: https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097199686849581057 https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097199686849581057 Also setting "Enable network service" to disabled in chrome://flags appears to fix it: https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097202611806261248 https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097202611806261248
- will_pseudonym 8y agoBlocking ads for non-savvy/elderly users is definitely a security issue. It's reducing the chance that they inadvertently install malware or fall into a social engineering scam because "Microsoft Support" needs their credit card number to secure their computer.
- x15 8y agoI was not aware of these scams thanks to using ad blockers and not living in a country that is being targeted that much. A good way to educate elders might be by showing them some scam videos [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm22FAXZMw1BaWeFszZxUKw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm22FAXZMw1BaWeFszZxUKw/vid...
- will_pseudonym 8y agoMy mother is in her 50's and is in between savvy and unsavvy. A few years ago she called me after falling briefly for one of these "Microsoft Support" scams. She had clicked on it because it looked like an error message, and right after she clicked on it, her gut told her that it wasn't legitimate and called me to see what she needed to do. Elderly users wouldn't have fared as well. This goes hand in hand with IRS phone call "you're going to jail if you don't pay your tax debt" scams. I think there needs to be serious legislation to crack down on these scams.
- colejohnson66 8y agoI’m of the opinion that we don’t need more legislation to crack down on something already illegal
- rohan1024 8y agoThis could backfire since websites will be benefit from Chrome's move. They can subtly start supporting chrome more over other browsers. Asking users to switch to Chrome. And there are enough people who won't give second thought while making the switch.
- dmortin 8y agoThe majority of people don't use an adblocker (otherwise the ad based ecosystem would not work) and if you ask them if they want to pay for the sites they visit instead of seeing ads then most of them choose free with ads. One visits lots of sites while browsing and paying for each of them is simply not feasible. The solution would be some kind of universal micropayment scheme, but it's unclear how such a sytem could be adopted universally, because making the users setting up multiple micropayment providers in their browsers will not work.
- reificator 8y agoBut when ads are so user-hostile that they sometimes include malware, that's when I lose sympathy for the ad-supported web.
- dmortin 8y agoAd networks strive to filter these out, so it's not an argument against ads. Otherwise, you could say let's not use, for example, app stores, because sometimes malicious apps can get through the checks.
- strken 8y agoI would really like to avoid app stores, too. Unfortunately F-Droid has been unreliable for me - https://f-droid.org/en/packages/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/ is down right now, for instance.
- reificator 8y agoHaving an extra layer of filtering is good, but time has shown it to be less effective than adblocking. Your app store example is a non-sequitur, because users want to download apps. Users in the general case do not specifically want ads.
- dmortin 8y ago> Users in the general case do not specifically want ads. True, but users want to access content for free, they don't want to pay for every site they visit. And currently it's only possible with ads. And most users rather bear ads than pay. If everyone uses an adblocker then most sites will either close or become paid.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoI'd go farther and say that the web is basically unusable without an ad blocker.
- 50656E6973 8y agoThe Twitter thread ends in "submitted a bug report"...this is a feature not a bug, right?
- Sujan 8y agoNo, a bug that was even already fixed: https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097199686849581057 https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097199686849581057
- verdverm 8y agoDNS based blocking still works :]
- vezycash 8y agoDoesn't chrome circumvent host-file blocking? At least it did for me in windows before I switched to Firefox permanently.
- okket 8y agoNot for Youtube and I guess that is what Google mostly cares about.
- justanother- 8y agoWrong, i works for me. Anyway, youtube is toxic and waste of time.
- dogecoinbase 8y agoThis is why Google is pushing DNS-over-HTTPS with an in-browser resolver.
- strict9 8y agoEven if this is chalked up to something inadvertent, it's only a matter of time before it happens for good. Google will likely win this arms race, at least within Chrome. The browser from the mega company that gets nearly all revenue from ads will eventually close that hole. I switched to Firefox about a year ago in anticipation of this specific change, and haven't missed a thing.
- coffekaesque 8y agoIn the past few months several services I (used to) use, one of them being paid Spotify, started to crack down on adblockers and anti-adblockers killers. I don't feel this is just a coincidence, together with Chrome changes. I'm pretty happy about this as I want the ad companies to start getting desperate and throwing punches. It's like people won't see how bad the situation is until you they get shit almost literally thrown in their faces. Tracking, data collection and malware are too invisible for people to care.
- colejohnson66 8y agoIt wasn’t paid Spotify. It was the free one. People who provide a negative value to Spotify were having their accounts disabled
- golemiprague 8y agoI don't mind ads but I don't want scripts spying on me, making things slow or even worst, installing viruses and all kind of malicious stuff. For kids there is also a problem that sometimes the content of the ads is not appropriate for their age. If there was an ad blocker that just block those things but still shows the ads I would be fine with it.
- cronix 8y agoIt sounds like ad blockers need to work on the os level now and not a browser extension. Just block all requests from the machine to the ips.
- fzzzy 8y agoThey’ll just serve the ads from the same ip as the content then, or even embed it right in the same request as the content.
- FridgeSeal 8y agoYou’ll face kickback from ad agencies over that: the third party requests are also used by the agency to track that the impression/click/etc did actually occur and the publishers aren’t just lying about it to boost their numbers.
- fzzzy 8y agoHmm, that's interesting. Makes sense.
- greglindahl 8y agoAdblockers have been around for a long time, and few websites use the workarounds you suggest.
- greymeister 8y agoStop. Using. Chrome.