3 ms·

They are backtracking because of the size of the backlash. Google will keep trying to kill adblockers that don't exempt Google's ads, until they get away with i

They are backtracking because of the size of the backlash. Google will keep trying to kill adblockers that don't exempt Google's ads, until they get away with it quietly. I know this was not a mistake because they used the exact same single-use-only rejection to kill AdNauseam, a less popular ad-blocker I use: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html Also, they then doubled down and blocked manual installation of AdNauseam, which is an overstep even if they were somehow justified in the ban.

zamadatix 7y ago
AdNauseum wasn't targeted because it was small it was targeted because it abused ad networks instead of blocking them. I'm not saying blocking the extension was right or wrong I'm just pointing out you're conveniently dropping details that don't fit your narrative. > Also, they then doubled down and blocked manual installation of AdNauseam, which is an overstep even if they were somehow justified in the ban. No they didn't. Again I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your stance on AdNauseam being blocked from the store but your wording conveniently drops details that don't fit your narrative. Chrome won't load any packaged extension that isn't in the store but it loads unpacked extensions regardless when you click the developer mode toggle. When installed manually with the steps on https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on... the extension loads fine.
- dooglius 7y ago
  > AdNauseum wasn't targeted because it was small it was targeted because it abused ad networks instead of blocking them. Well, maybe. The stated reason for both of the bans was the single-use-only policy, which is clearly BS. The fact that AdNauseam is more damaging for Google certainly wouldn't help its case, but the fact that Google has now gone after uBlock as well indicates they don't make much of a distinction between the two. The point of my comment is not so much to relitigate the AdNauseam ban, but to argue that both bans were not errant mistakes but deliberate moves. > Chrome won't load any packaged extension that isn't in the store but it loads unpacked extensions regardless when you click the developer mode toggle. It looks like you're right, and I was not aware of this; I thought the packed extension blocking was specific to AdNauseam. The page I linked is being somewhat disingenuous on this point. Unfortunately, it's too late for me to edit my comment now.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
You believe they rejected uBlock and weren't ready to withstand the total opposition of a single story making it onto HN?
- dooglius 7y ago
  The top story on HN and multiple subreddits for most of a Saturday, with a pretty big point count, and it looked like it was picked up by several tech news sites. All it takes is for them to slip it under the radar once.

zamadatix 7y ago

AdNauseum wasn't targeted because it was small it was targeted because it abused ad networks instead of blocking them. I'm not saying blocking the extension was right or wrong I'm just pointing out you're conveniently dropping details that don't fit your narrative. > Also, they then doubled down and blocked manual installation of AdNauseam, which is an overstep even if they were somehow justified in the ban. No they didn't. Again I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your stance on AdNauseam being blocked from the store but your wording conveniently drops details that don't fit your narrative. Chrome won't load any packaged extension that isn't in the store but it loads unpacked extensions regardless when you click the developer mode toggle. When installed manually with the steps on https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on... the extension loads fine.

dooglius 7y ago
> AdNauseum wasn't targeted because it was small it was targeted because it abused ad networks instead of blocking them. Well, maybe. The stated reason for both of the bans was the single-use-only policy, which is clearly BS. The fact that AdNauseam is more damaging for Google certainly wouldn't help its case, but the fact that Google has now gone after uBlock as well indicates they don't make much of a distinction between the two. The point of my comment is not so much to relitigate the AdNauseam ban, but to argue that both bans were not errant mistakes but deliberate moves. > Chrome won't load any packaged extension that isn't in the store but it loads unpacked extensions regardless when you click the developer mode toggle. It looks like you're right, and I was not aware of this; I thought the packed extension blocking was specific to AdNauseam. The page I linked is being somewhat disingenuous on this point. Unfortunately, it's too late for me to edit my comment now.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

You believe they rejected uBlock and weren't ready to withstand the total opposition of a single story making it onto HN?

dooglius 7y ago
The top story on HN and multiple subreddits for most of a Saturday, with a pretty big point count, and it looked like it was picked up by several tech news sites. All it takes is for them to slip it under the radar once.