4 ms·

For those of you not familiar with what is being proposed ... Chrome engineers want to replace the ability to block any request with a standardized ad-block fu

For those of you not familiar with what is being proposed ... Chrome engineers want to replace the ability to block any request with a standardized ad-block functionality based on a list of provided rules and inspired by Safari. In other words the ad-blocking functionality becomes built-in. However this facility excludes dynamic capabilities that plugins like uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger need. Also I’m speaking with first hand experience in this field: the ad-blocking functionality provided but Safari sucks and can be easily fooled. That there are publishers that don’t implement anti-ad-blocking measures, that’s only because they either don’t have the resources or because they don’t want to piss off users. And at this point uBlock Origin is by far the most aggressive extension out of the popular ones and the nightmare of advertisers, not only because of its capabilities, but also because it doesn’t have a commercial entity behind it. It is no accident that Google is hitting these extensions. Switch to Firefox folks. The grass over here really is greener ;-)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Today it is, unfortunately history has shown that trusting Mozilla is also foolish.
- bad_user 7y ago
  Really? How so? I've been a Firefox user ever since the beginning and I can't remember once when they violated my trust. It seems to me that Mozilla is held to much higher standards in this community. I often see a huge double standard.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    The Looking Glass extension, the whole deal with pocket, and Studies being on by default and allowing them to push changes remotely with no user action. I don't use Firefox currently, so these are just what I recall from HN posts.
    - bad_user 7y ago
      I love Pocket, I love seeing them experiment with such services and I don’t get what the big deal is. Sure they could have pushed it as an extension instead, but note that nowadays Mozilla owns it so the issue is irrelevant. The source code for the Looking Glass extension was open source and was a mistake, they are only human. Nowadays every platform maker has the capability to push changes via updates. This increases security for regular users and it’s what the default should be. I agree that there needs to be a way to turn off these updates for power users. No, those issues haven’t violated my trust in them and when you compare it with what companies like Google are doing, the double standard should be clear as day.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

Today it is, unfortunately history has shown that trusting Mozilla is also foolish.

bad_user 7y ago
Really? How so? I've been a Firefox user ever since the beginning and I can't remember once when they violated my trust. It seems to me that Mozilla is held to much higher standards in this community. I often see a huge double standard.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  The Looking Glass extension, the whole deal with pocket, and Studies being on by default and allowing them to push changes remotely with no user action. I don't use Firefox currently, so these are just what I recall from HN posts.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    I love Pocket, I love seeing them experiment with such services and I don’t get what the big deal is. Sure they could have pushed it as an extension instead, but note that nowadays Mozilla owns it so the issue is irrelevant. The source code for the Looking Glass extension was open source and was a mistake, they are only human. Nowadays every platform maker has the capability to push changes via updates. This increases security for regular users and it’s what the default should be. I agree that there needs to be a way to turn off these updates for power users. No, those issues haven’t violated my trust in them and when you compare it with what companies like Google are doing, the double standard should be clear as day.