2 ms·

Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to

Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've already raised it.

jimbob45 3y ago
Has Google explained why the limit is so low? I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Well, I don't see how this would impact Google at all. Obviously as one of the biggest advertisers all of Google's advertising will fit within the limit and will be highly prioritized over others.
  - THENATHE 3y ago
    Yea, I would be okay with spending all 30k of those on just YouTube ads, and pihole for the rest. Google is the biggest advertiser, so logically their ads would go first or close to the top
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      If anything Google would be incentivized to increase the size, since that would impact competitors. So I'm just curious to learn more about the justifications - like I said, they've made a number of changes to the APIs already in the last two years or so.
SquareWheel 3y ago
EasyList has become bloated with many rules being outdated or invalid. It's a system where rules are added at a much faster rate than they're removed. It's not like there's test suites or anything to shake loose old rules, so it only ever grows. Checking 150K rules once wouldn't be a problem, but if you have to do that for 50 network requests on every single page load, that adds up. So the hope, as I understand it, is to set a ceiling to encourage developers to keep more up-to-date lists by pruning old and outdated rules. This prevents a situation where browser performance slowly degrades. I'd like to see a system where users opt-in to allow ad blockers to collect metrics on which rules are actually applying, and have them occasionally trim anything under 0.01% usage. Which sounds like a small number, but should capture the majority of dead or unused rules. Of course, that would require a new browser API in a declarative system.

Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've already raised it.

jimbob45 3y ago

Has Google explained why the limit is so low? I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.

insanitybit 3y ago
Well, I don't see how this would impact Google at all. Obviously as one of the biggest advertisers all of Google's advertising will fit within the limit and will be highly prioritized over others.
- THENATHE 3y ago
  Yea, I would be okay with spending all 30k of those on just YouTube ads, and pihole for the rest. Google is the biggest advertiser, so logically their ads would go first or close to the top
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    If anything Google would be incentivized to increase the size, since that would impact competitors. So I'm just curious to learn more about the justifications - like I said, they've made a number of changes to the APIs already in the last two years or so.

SquareWheel 3y ago

EasyList has become bloated with many rules being outdated or invalid. It's a system where rules are added at a much faster rate than they're removed. It's not like there's test suites or anything to shake loose old rules, so it only ever grows. Checking 150K rules once wouldn't be a problem, but if you have to do that for 50 network requests on every single page load, that adds up. So the hope, as I understand it, is to set a ceiling to encourage developers to keep more up-to-date lists by pruning old and outdated rules. This prevents a situation where browser performance slowly degrades. I'd like to see a system where users opt-in to allow ad blockers to collect metrics on which rules are actually applying, and have them occasionally trim anything under 0.01% usage. Which sounds like a small number, but should capture the majority of dead or unused rules. Of course, that would require a new browser API in a declarative system.