7 ms·

It's kind of funny, how mobile today is a big part of traffic and this will only increase, yet while the mobile experience is already terrible, especially in ch

It's kind of funny, how mobile today is a big part of traffic and this will only increase, yet while the mobile experience is already terrible, especially in chrome with no script blocker, google constantly works at making it even worse, with preloading of undesired, external content. Does Silicon Valley not have data caps? I guess they never have bad reception, though. So at least the malicious add that preloaded in the background can transition you seamlessly to a new page. As quick as if you newer saw the content you intended to. Progress! :-D

y4mi 7y ago
If you're connected to a VPN, install pi-hole on that network and use it as dns. If not, just get blokada from f-droid. It uses 1-3% energy over the day on my phone, but saves around 15% by filtering ads
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Or just switch to Firefox on Android and use uBlock Origin or similar.
  - kermitismyhero 7y ago
    The recent extension-disabling problem made me realize how awful the unfiltered web is. Trying to use mobile Chrome for the first time ever was a dreadful experience. I legitimately had no idea that mobile Chrome doesn't have any extension capability whatsoever. I always assumed it was a Firefox-style unified experience where the same desktop extensions worked on mobile. I was horrified to discover otherwise. Ads ads ads everywhere. How do people actually live day-to-day with mobile browsers that have no true adblocking capability? Using mobile Chrome is like taking a stroll through a plague ward.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      I don’t use an Adblocker due to ethical concerns. (Not trying to convince you to do the same, just explaining.) It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. I suspect that after using Adblock for years, your brain has forgotten how to ignore them.
      - yellowapple 7y ago
        My brain shouldn't have to ignore them, though; that's what technology's for :)
        kermitismyhero 7y ago
        Exactly. Technology exists to solve problems. One of the greatest problems in today's world is the metaphorical tsunami of advertising sewage flooding our mental shorelines. Browser-based adblockers neatly solve that problem. As for the "But how do we pay for all these free things then?" counterargument, I'd suggest voluntary restraint on the part of website creators. I can live with a few modest JPEG-only banner ads hosted directly from the site I'm visiting. If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        > If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat. I just don't think this is a workable model for most users. "You want me to do extra work so I can see some (admittedly nonintrusive) ads? No way, figure out your own business." Honestly, if I started using an adblocker I'm not sure I could force myself to make that effort per website. I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model—ie, no sites ever have their ads blocked by default, but as soon as a site annoys me, I can go into my adblocker and disable their ads.
        kermitismyhero 7y ago
        >I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model It effectively does have this capability. Just disable all the standard filter lists, and manually add one's own entries to the "my filters" section. This method has the added benefit of enabling other useful privacy features that don't directly relate to display advertising, like killing off the nastiness of hyperlink auditing, CSP reports going to 3rd parties, prefetching, and remote fonts.
  - oo0shiny 7y ago
    Or the Brave browser, which has ad blocking built in.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    Firefox on my phone crashes ALL the time. I can't load 3 web pages without it crashing. Is Android doing this on purpose? I just cannot get firefox mobile to work, sadly.
    - orhmeh09 7y ago
      Firefox Mobile is being phased out and replaced by Fenix; have you tried that?
      - richjdsmith 7y ago
        Wait what? Can you give me a source or further reading on this?
        orhmeh09 7y ago
        Here’s one, sorry I did not link before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-end-of-firefox-for-android-slated-for-2020-as-fenix-rises/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-end-of-firefox-for-and...
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      This has not been my experience. I've been using Firefox for a while now with way too many tabs open and I've not encountered a crash. Or at least not one I remember. It could perhaps be some hardware it doesn't work well with? Or maybe it struggles with certain sites that I happen not to visit? I hadn't heard of Fenix but it seems I'll have to try that soon.
    - freedomben 7y ago
      I haven't used Firefox on Android in 6 months or so but it was pretty stable for me. I switched to Brave for mobile and it is amazing. Super easy to block scripts and other tracking without hijacking your DNS or requiring ad blockers/pi-holes etc.
- giobox 7y ago
  It’s a real shame you still can’t install a third party content blocker easily in the default browser on Android. Setup a VPN and PiHole for sure works, but my goodness what a lot of effort when simpler approaches exist, even on Safari on iOS... I’m aware other browsers exist that can do this, but this basically forces me to use a different browser on my phone versus my desktop. Such is the reality of using an OS made by an advertising firm I guess.
  - amenod 7y ago
    Fortunately on Android you at least can install another browser - Firefox. Works great - well, most of the time... but using it for a day without extensions makes me appreciate it even more. EDIT: and there is no reason to use a different browser on the phone and desktop, Firefox is available on desktop too. :P
  - y4mi 7y ago
    That's why I pointed out the second option (blokada). It's just a matter of installing it and you've got Android wide adblock, which mostly works even in non-website contexts But it doesn't work if you're using a VPN... So it's an either pi-hole or blokada situation
    - sinancan2 7y ago
      Check out the "MACE" function of Private Internet Access VPN as well. It may work out well. I've recently started it on desktop and mobile, and disabled any other blockers. There may be other VPNs with similar functions but I don't know yet. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/helpdesk/kb/articles/what-is-mace https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/helpdesk/kb/articles/w...
  - r3bl 7y ago
    I know it sounds complicated, but it's a one-step process that only increases to pay off the more devices are connected. I used to have four adblockers on my laptop (two operating systems x 2 browsers), one on my smartphone, one on an additional smartphone I use... and how do I stop my TV and my ebook reader from serving me ads? Pi-hole requires little to no maintenance, and offers a lot of benefit. Two people have purchased their first Raspberry Pis after I've slipped in "oh and BTW, no ads will load while you're connected to this network" after giving them a WiFi password.
- dogecoinbase 7y ago
  This is why Google is pushing DNS-over-HTTPS into Chrome, so that DNS-based ad blocking will no longer work.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrewshadura 7y ago
    Alternatively, it may become easier to set it up.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
This new element will likely not show up as a negative on any site analysis reports... a sneaky way to make your site "appear" faster but still be a resource hog.
username223 7y ago
> Does Silicon Valley not have data caps? I guess they never have bad reception, though. Pretty much. When the developers only use the latest phones, on a company (or unlimited) plan, connected to 4G LTE with full bars, this is what you get. Google seems determined to hide network latency with its various prefetching efforts, but since I'm paying for bandwidth, I'd rather just wait the extra couple of seconds.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Google seems determined to hide network latency with its various prefetching efforts, but since I'm paying for bandwidth, I'd rather just wait the extra couple of seconds. Google makes money off companies whose goal is to keep you in a mindless state of flow. Having to wait for a page to load disturbs that flow, making it more likely for you to realize you're being monetized and/or just wasting your time, and should do something else instead.
uxp100 7y ago
It's been a few years, but IIRC I had poor reception on the Google Campus with AT&T. Some spots with poor coverage by SJC too. Probably folks are just always on wifi.
- mikeash 7y ago
  One imagines that a hotbed of tech would have great cell coverage. However, it’s also a hotbed of NIMBYs and the sort of people who think cell phones give you cancer, making it hard to construct more cells.
  - calotow 7y ago
    What are you talking about? There are cell towers everywhere. The CA senate in 2017 voted to remove local rights to govern their placement. 5G is rolling out everywhere. 5g radio transmitters on streetlights broadcasting continuously next to children's bedrooms. There was once safety concern over cell towers' placement. That is no more. We made the transmitters more powerful, but now they're smaller. So they go everywhere. "NIMBYS" have no say in what happens. It doesn't matter whether people think "cell phones give you cancer". The FCC doesn't care about anyone's safety. And people come on the internet rallying against some straw man they invented to showcase how silly it is to be concerned about the health effects of new technology.

y4mi 7y ago

If you're connected to a VPN, install pi-hole on that network and use it as dns. If not, just get blokada from f-droid. It uses 1-3% energy over the day on my phone, but saves around 15% by filtering ads

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Or just switch to Firefox on Android and use uBlock Origin or similar.
- kermitismyhero 7y ago
  The recent extension-disabling problem made me realize how awful the unfiltered web is. Trying to use mobile Chrome for the first time ever was a dreadful experience. I legitimately had no idea that mobile Chrome doesn't have any extension capability whatsoever. I always assumed it was a Firefox-style unified experience where the same desktop extensions worked on mobile. I was horrified to discover otherwise. Ads ads ads everywhere. How do people actually live day-to-day with mobile browsers that have no true adblocking capability? Using mobile Chrome is like taking a stroll through a plague ward.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I don’t use an Adblocker due to ethical concerns. (Not trying to convince you to do the same, just explaining.) It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. I suspect that after using Adblock for years, your brain has forgotten how to ignore them.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      My brain shouldn't have to ignore them, though; that's what technology's for :)
      - kermitismyhero 7y ago
        Exactly. Technology exists to solve problems. One of the greatest problems in today's world is the metaphorical tsunami of advertising sewage flooding our mental shorelines. Browser-based adblockers neatly solve that problem. As for the "But how do we pay for all these free things then?" counterargument, I'd suggest voluntary restraint on the part of website creators. I can live with a few modest JPEG-only banner ads hosted directly from the site I'm visiting. If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        > If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat. I just don't think this is a workable model for most users. "You want me to do extra work so I can see some (admittedly nonintrusive) ads? No way, figure out your own business." Honestly, if I started using an adblocker I'm not sure I could force myself to make that effort per website. I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model—ie, no sites ever have their ads blocked by default, but as soon as a site annoys me, I can go into my adblocker and disable their ads.
        kermitismyhero 7y ago
        >I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model It effectively does have this capability. Just disable all the standard filter lists, and manually add one's own entries to the "my filters" section. This method has the added benefit of enabling other useful privacy features that don't directly relate to display advertising, like killing off the nastiness of hyperlink auditing, CSP reports going to 3rd parties, prefetching, and remote fonts.
- oo0shiny 7y ago
  Or the Brave browser, which has ad blocking built in.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Firefox on my phone crashes ALL the time. I can't load 3 web pages without it crashing. Is Android doing this on purpose? I just cannot get firefox mobile to work, sadly.
  - orhmeh09 7y ago
    Firefox Mobile is being phased out and replaced by Fenix; have you tried that?
    - richjdsmith 7y ago
      Wait what? Can you give me a source or further reading on this?
      - orhmeh09 7y ago
        Here’s one, sorry I did not link before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-end-of-firefox-for-android-slated-for-2020-as-fenix-rises/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-end-of-firefox-for-and...
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    This has not been my experience. I've been using Firefox for a while now with way too many tabs open and I've not encountered a crash. Or at least not one I remember. It could perhaps be some hardware it doesn't work well with? Or maybe it struggles with certain sites that I happen not to visit? I hadn't heard of Fenix but it seems I'll have to try that soon.
  - freedomben 7y ago
    I haven't used Firefox on Android in 6 months or so but it was pretty stable for me. I switched to Brave for mobile and it is amazing. Super easy to block scripts and other tracking without hijacking your DNS or requiring ad blockers/pi-holes etc.
giobox 7y ago
It’s a real shame you still can’t install a third party content blocker easily in the default browser on Android. Setup a VPN and PiHole for sure works, but my goodness what a lot of effort when simpler approaches exist, even on Safari on iOS... I’m aware other browsers exist that can do this, but this basically forces me to use a different browser on my phone versus my desktop. Such is the reality of using an OS made by an advertising firm I guess.
- amenod 7y ago
  Fortunately on Android you at least can install another browser - Firefox. Works great - well, most of the time... but using it for a day without extensions makes me appreciate it even more. EDIT: and there is no reason to use a different browser on the phone and desktop, Firefox is available on desktop too. :P
- y4mi 7y ago
  That's why I pointed out the second option (blokada). It's just a matter of installing it and you've got Android wide adblock, which mostly works even in non-website contexts But it doesn't work if you're using a VPN... So it's an either pi-hole or blokada situation
  - sinancan2 7y ago
    Check out the "MACE" function of Private Internet Access VPN as well. It may work out well. I've recently started it on desktop and mobile, and disabled any other blockers. There may be other VPNs with similar functions but I don't know yet. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/helpdesk/kb/articles/what-is-mace https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/helpdesk/kb/articles/w...
- r3bl 7y ago
  I know it sounds complicated, but it's a one-step process that only increases to pay off the more devices are connected. I used to have four adblockers on my laptop (two operating systems x 2 browsers), one on my smartphone, one on an additional smartphone I use... and how do I stop my TV and my ebook reader from serving me ads? Pi-hole requires little to no maintenance, and offers a lot of benefit. Two people have purchased their first Raspberry Pis after I've slipped in "oh and BTW, no ads will load while you're connected to this network" after giving them a WiFi password.
dogecoinbase 7y ago
This is why Google is pushing DNS-over-HTTPS into Chrome, so that DNS-based ad blocking will no longer work.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- andrewshadura 7y ago
  Alternatively, it may become easier to set it up.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

This new element will likely not show up as a negative on any site analysis reports... a sneaky way to make your site "appear" faster but still be a resource hog.

username223 7y ago

> Does Silicon Valley not have data caps? I guess they never have bad reception, though. Pretty much. When the developers only use the latest phones, on a company (or unlimited) plan, connected to 4G LTE with full bars, this is what you get. Google seems determined to hide network latency with its various prefetching efforts, but since I'm paying for bandwidth, I'd rather just wait the extra couple of seconds.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Google seems determined to hide network latency with its various prefetching efforts, but since I'm paying for bandwidth, I'd rather just wait the extra couple of seconds. Google makes money off companies whose goal is to keep you in a mindless state of flow. Having to wait for a page to load disturbs that flow, making it more likely for you to realize you're being monetized and/or just wasting your time, and should do something else instead.

uxp100 7y ago

It's been a few years, but IIRC I had poor reception on the Google Campus with AT&T. Some spots with poor coverage by SJC too. Probably folks are just always on wifi.

mikeash 7y ago
One imagines that a hotbed of tech would have great cell coverage. However, it’s also a hotbed of NIMBYs and the sort of people who think cell phones give you cancer, making it hard to construct more cells.
- calotow 7y ago
  What are you talking about? There are cell towers everywhere. The CA senate in 2017 voted to remove local rights to govern their placement. 5G is rolling out everywhere. 5g radio transmitters on streetlights broadcasting continuously next to children's bedrooms. There was once safety concern over cell towers' placement. That is no more. We made the transmitters more powerful, but now they're smaller. So they go everywhere. "NIMBYS" have no say in what happens. It doesn't matter whether people think "cell phones give you cancer". The FCC doesn't care about anyone's safety. And people come on the internet rallying against some straw man they invented to showcase how silly it is to be concerned about the health effects of new technology.