6 ms·

The ad blocking changes also prevented blocking the request to the ad servers, which is what people were upset about (or at least, why I was upset). I don't rem

The ad blocking changes also prevented blocking the request to the ad servers, which is what people were upset about (or at least, why I was upset). I don't remember seeing anyone be upset about anything related to browsing history.

scarface74 7y ago
No one was upset about a plug in not getting access to your browsing history. People were upset about the declarative ad blocking that took away some of the features that they ad blockers previously had and said Google was doing it to protect their business. I’m not going to defend Google’s overall business practices, but from what I understand, it’s the same type of architecture that Apple has had for four years and no one said Apple’s intentions were nefarious.
- gildas 7y ago
  Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources. In the future, they will only have a regular expressions list to block domains. It will be much easier for malicious actors to bypass this feature.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It also allows developers to intercept your entire browsing history. If you care about your privacy, why would you let a random third party intercept all of your browsing history?
    - gildas 7y ago
      I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extension that is based only on a list of regular expressions for the reason I mentioned. If uBlock did a bad thing, I'll know very quickly and all I'll have to do is install an alternative extension. I am also a developer. I would like to continue to have the right to code such extensions for myself.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So how many consumers would know if uBlock did something bad? Should we optimize security for the minority or the majority?
        gildas 7y ago
        Google would remove uBlock from my PC before I even know it and I would notice it very quickly (unfortunately). A personal computer has always been very complicated and using it has always been a risk in itself. I remember a time when a virus could damage the computer's hardware, and someone who knew how to program in BASIC (edit: or LOGO) was not considered as a "minority". My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. No need to optimize, I switched to Firefox, the browser for the minorities ;). I really liked Chrome though.
        scarface74 7y ago
        My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. How has that been working for the last 30 years? Why would it start now? Computers have been mainstream consumer appliances since the “multimedia PCs” were a thing in the mid 90s. Most people no more want to program computers than they want to fix their own cars.
        hnaccy 7y ago
        Why is better to fix adblocking capabilities at model that is borderline insufficient now let alone in 10 years. There is arms race and you want adblockers (good guys) to give up any improvements in perpetuity, that is a recipe for losing. Me installing uBlock for parents has improved their browser experience and security. I'd rather risk uBlock being compromised and having to phone them to uninstall it than have them being at the mercy of adtech, spyware, and scammers companies in 5 years.
        scarface74 7y ago
  - bradknowles 7y ago
    I want whitelist-only. No blacklists, unless that's something to be applied after the whitelisting step. So, no -- Google's method is not sufficient.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      You really want an extension that limits your ability to access only a certain number of websites?
    - therealx 7y ago
      Sounds kinda like a firewall would server you better. Not that I don't think you should or shouldn't be able to have this feature.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    It’d be interesting to have one sandbox that can synchronously intercept requests, and one sandbox that can make its own requests, but only a one way communication channel between them. So the interceptor part can have its own stateful logic and access the blacklist, but not exfiltrate your history.
- bradknowles 7y ago
  With respect, Google is not Apple, and Apple is not Google. I think a lot of people would say that Google is a pretty evil company in many respects, whereas Apple isn't exactly 100% saintly, but at least their profit and business goals align more closely with what is generally considered to be good for customers.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I’m definitely an Apple customer - our cell phone plan has 6 devices and we have two AppleTVs. But playing devil’s advocate, Apple’s business model only allows a small percentage of upper income people globally to be able to afford their products. Android and Google have done a lot more to bring computing to the masses than Apple. The cheapest iPhone that you can buy is $475 over $200 more than the average selling price of an Android phone.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      iPhone 7 is $449 on Apple's website.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        $26 less. That really makes it a lot more affordable compared to a $200 Moto G.

scarface74 7y ago

No one was upset about a plug in not getting access to your browsing history. People were upset about the declarative ad blocking that took away some of the features that they ad blockers previously had and said Google was doing it to protect their business. I’m not going to defend Google’s overall business practices, but from what I understand, it’s the same type of architecture that Apple has had for four years and no one said Apple’s intentions were nefarious.

gildas 7y ago
Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources. In the future, they will only have a regular expressions list to block domains. It will be much easier for malicious actors to bypass this feature.
- scarface74 7y ago
  It also allows developers to intercept your entire browsing history. If you care about your privacy, why would you let a random third party intercept all of your browsing history?
  - gildas 7y ago
    I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extension that is based only on a list of regular expressions for the reason I mentioned. If uBlock did a bad thing, I'll know very quickly and all I'll have to do is install an alternative extension. I am also a developer. I would like to continue to have the right to code such extensions for myself.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So how many consumers would know if uBlock did something bad? Should we optimize security for the minority or the majority?
      - gildas 7y ago
        Google would remove uBlock from my PC before I even know it and I would notice it very quickly (unfortunately). A personal computer has always been very complicated and using it has always been a risk in itself. I remember a time when a virus could damage the computer's hardware, and someone who knew how to program in BASIC (edit: or LOGO) was not considered as a "minority". My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. No need to optimize, I switched to Firefox, the browser for the minorities ;). I really liked Chrome though.
        scarface74 7y ago
        My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. How has that been working for the last 30 years? Why would it start now? Computers have been mainstream consumer appliances since the “multimedia PCs” were a thing in the mid 90s. Most people no more want to program computers than they want to fix their own cars.
      - hnaccy 7y ago
        Why is better to fix adblocking capabilities at model that is borderline insufficient now let alone in 10 years. There is arms race and you want adblockers (good guys) to give up any improvements in perpetuity, that is a recipe for losing. Me installing uBlock for parents has improved their browser experience and security. I'd rather risk uBlock being compromised and having to phone them to uninstall it than have them being at the mercy of adtech, spyware, and scammers companies in 5 years.
        scarface74 7y ago
- bradknowles 7y ago
  I want whitelist-only. No blacklists, unless that's something to be applied after the whitelisting step. So, no -- Google's method is not sufficient.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You really want an extension that limits your ability to access only a certain number of websites?
  - therealx 7y ago
    Sounds kinda like a firewall would server you better. Not that I don't think you should or shouldn't be able to have this feature.
- closeparen 7y ago
  It’d be interesting to have one sandbox that can synchronously intercept requests, and one sandbox that can make its own requests, but only a one way communication channel between them. So the interceptor part can have its own stateful logic and access the blacklist, but not exfiltrate your history.
bradknowles 7y ago
With respect, Google is not Apple, and Apple is not Google. I think a lot of people would say that Google is a pretty evil company in many respects, whereas Apple isn't exactly 100% saintly, but at least their profit and business goals align more closely with what is generally considered to be good for customers.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I’m definitely an Apple customer - our cell phone plan has 6 devices and we have two AppleTVs. But playing devil’s advocate, Apple’s business model only allows a small percentage of upper income people globally to be able to afford their products. Android and Google have done a lot more to bring computing to the masses than Apple. The cheapest iPhone that you can buy is $475 over $200 more than the average selling price of an Android phone.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    iPhone 7 is $449 on Apple's website.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      $26 less. That really makes it a lot more affordable compared to a $200 Moto G.