>"This would basically mean that Google is destroying ad-blocking and privacy protection as we know it," said a statement from ad-blocking developer Ghostery given to the Gizmodo tech news site.
>Ad-blockers are a type of add-on or extension for a web browser that, as their name implies, try to spot and stop the commercial messages found on many web pages. There are many different types of browser extension.
>Ghostery's comments were echoed by Raymond Hill, head developer of the popular uBlock Origin add-on for Chrome, who said the extension would "no longer be able to exist" if the changes were enacted according to the current proposal.
>In a message put on a key discussion list for Chrome, Google said it wanted to make the changes to improve the "security [and] privacy" of extensions and improve their performance. Often, it said, when add-ons examine incoming data, web pages take longer to load. The proposed update would mean extensions can only look at the incoming data rather than alter it.
>"I don't see what is to be gained from doing this," Mr Hill from uBlock Origin told The Register. Other developers pointed to separate proposals that could also restrict the ability of browser extensions to protect users.
>Following the comments and criticisms, Google said it planned to consult with the makers of browser add-ons to limit the changes they had to make.
>"This design is still in a draft state, and will likely change," wrote Google software engineer Devlin Cronin in a message put on the Chrome discussion list. "Our goal is not to break extensions," he added.
>Google Chrome's newest change could 'destroy' the only reason people use Google Chrome K, keep me posted
Aiden Howard
not this shit again
just use another fucking browser
Anthony Turner
What browser do you suggest?
Charles Johnson
>Often, it said, when add-ons examine incoming data, web pages take longer to load. The proposed update would mean extensions can only look at the incoming data rather than alter it. Not on Firefox.
>implying firefox wont immediately adapt a similar policy and change wew
Andrew Morgan
I don't really give a shit about that. I want my ad blockers and I don't like watching porn on Chrome because the tabs get super tiny instead of scrolling like in FF.
Daniel Jones
Pale moon + chromium as a fall back option if some website doesn't work correctly
Easton Carter
STOP CONSUMING AD SUPPORTED CONTENT YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM BY READING SHIT BLOGS AND WATCHING SHIT VIDEOS USE EITHER REAL FREE CONTENT, OR PAY FOR THE CONTENT YOU LOVE AND SUPPORT THE CREATOR, BEING APPS IN THE APP STORE, STREAMING SERVICES OR EVEN TWITCH HOES IF YOU PREFER STOP WATCHING AD SUPPORTED CONTENT
Cameron Rogers
Does Chromecast work on chromium?
Landon Butler
you're literally on ad supported content right now u sperg
Hunter Bailey
>could It's fucking nothing wow
Brandon Perry
well apparently the social justice crowd cares more about your privacy than an advertising company, who woulda thought
Kevin Harris
No this is not ad-supported content my replies nor yours are supported by ads ie: I am not posting to sell you anything shills are the exception, and ofc, you can ignore that this site displays to give the service, but the content is not made with the purpose of driving revenue on ¨reads¨
Mason Carter
we had this thread already (more than once) give me a recap of the conclusions
Maybe next time we should't promote adblockers to normies
Ethan Barnes
fake news
Michael Sanders
block adds via IP
Juan Howard
If adblockers become impossible to use with firefox I will swtich to Falkon.
Aiden Morris
Host blocking isn't as complete as an adblocker
Kayden Richardson
was that qupzilla? you know it's chromium right
Aiden Long
>my replies nor yours are supported by ads imagine being this fucking stupid
Brody King
People like you are the reason why Chrome got in this dominant position in the first place. Your hatred of SJWs blinds you to everything else. >Raaage, i hate gays, let's pick instead this browser run by the biggest adds company in the world
Just kys yourself.
Camden Hernandez
>using Chrome for the adblocking Are we ignoring that adblocking began on Firefox and is still strongest on that browser?
The irony being that Google surely employs far more types that he hates than Mozzarella.
Jackson Smith
just get the blocked addresses file and merge it with /etc/hosts
problem solved, and your system has adblocker working system wide, not just in a browser
Ryder Cox
Based and redpilled
>he doesn't have a pass
Kayden Murphy
The SJW craze wasn't really a thing yet when Chrome took off... it took off completely independently of any of that shrieking.
Christopher Brown
have fun getting your browser history stolen by exploits from 2016
John Cook
user, neither Webkit nor KHTML are downstream from Blink - Webkit is a fork of KHTML, and Blink is a fork of Webkit.
Xavier Lopez
>in other news, following the privacy apocalypse, jewgle collects even more data and revenue from unblockable advertising. Due to unblockable browser exploits, it becomes known as a virus browser. Most users don't give a shit.
See also: the great forkening
Owen Adams
I honestly dont get the fuzz. So now we just have to pass the requests through a local proxy, which easily could use code migrated from the already in use ad-blockers? How does this in any way destroy adblocking?
Its literally like saying "Oh from now on you are not allowed to put a filter in the faucet! Yeah sure you can still put it before the faucet" and you people acting like its the same thing as "All filters are from now on banned everywhere!". Are you really this dumb?
pretty sure qupzilla was a customisable chromium last i used it
Jason Taylor
Yeah guys, (((Open Source))) is good guys Lmao at the Free software loonies Stop forking software guys, you are just stopping (((progress))) Why do you even block (((ads)))? I love (((targeted ads))) that let me buy the latest (((merchantise))), (((phone))) and (((software as a service)))
Don't you like the big Jewish Google slong up your poophole goy?
Ethan Thompson
Good luck finding a proxy that decrypts your SSL connections to modify the pages.
James Cruz
Call me a pajeet, idgaf, but Microsoft was never as evil as Google Google is the worst thing ever to happen in computing and technology followed by Apple
Isaiah Nelson
And this is the reason why (((Google))) pushed to control the http layer and make (((https))) mandatory And you goys fell for it
Using Waterfox for 3 years now without issues. Granted, I don't use 9 billion tabs like some of the people I tried to convince
Angel Richardson
Encrypting the web is a very good thing, even if the NSA has backdoors.
Ian Cox
>I don't use 9 billion tabs what are you, a normie?
Aaron Perry
No, it's a false sense of (((security))) and replaces state sponsored surveillance with (((globalist))) sponsored surveillance I'd rather have http and have the government or the IT guy look what I do than (((Google)))
Caleb Turner
Are you legitimately retarded? Do you understand how PKI works at all? Do you have the faintest idea of what a public/private key pair or CA are?
It doesn't matter when (((Google (((analytics))) and (((iframe ads))) and (((JavaScript)))))) is embedded in every page HTTPS encryption is an illusion
Xavier Torres
And every other tech company isn't? You may as well give up using all consumer products at this point if you are so devoted to your cause.
Benjamin Williams
And that's exactly what this thread is about, crippling adblocking capabilities in chromium-based browsers which is what blocks those. Furthermore you are still free to disable JS globally or on a site-by-site basis. But regardless, HTTPS never claimed to prevent spying on the user, just spying on the user by somebody on some network between them and the destination. I really don't know why I'm engaging with you still but exactly how do you think Google is able to better spy on somebody on an HTTPS page that they weren't when they were on HTTP?
>And every other tech company isn't? Everything is infected by Marxism >You may as well give up using all consumer products at this point if you are so devoted to your cause. I agree, everything is poisoned by them and if you can do it it's better to go in the woods If you can't you are their slave
Leo Hall
>I really don't know why I'm engaging with you still but exactly how do you think Google is able to better spy on somebody on an HTTPS page that they weren't when they were on HTTP? Don't you see? Google by enforcing HTTPS, becoming a monopoly in web engines, and now by blocking content-blocking software they become the monopoly in network surveillance by being embedded in every page Google is the most evil organisation in human history
Levi Harris
>muhh sjeedubios I think we'd all benefit if you just dropped out of the internet altogether to be honest.
Jackson Barnes
Look mate you are talking to Google-hater in chief here. I would be just as happy as you if they dropped off the face of the earth. But your first statement is seriously flawed. HTTPS has nothing to do with the browser, nor does it have anything to do with the rendering engine. HTTPS is just taking an existing protocol (TLS) and wrapping it around another existing protocol (HTTP). In fact the browser does not even understand TLS, and leaves that up to a dedicated TLS library (e.g. openssl). Google even wrote their own TLS library (boringssl) that Chrome uses - if anything, consider getting upset about that! But the fact of the matter is that TLS existed long before Google, is an open standard, and doesn't lock anybody into anything. I really can't tell if you are arguing in good faith or not but if so I really want to understand how you view the connection between the transport protocol and the web engine, because there isn't one.
>Everything is infected by Marxism It's much worse than Marxism.We now live in an age where, as a business, you must comply with the whims of those with more money, or you won't be recognized as a potential business partner. They call this a system of standards, but it really amounts to big businesses guaranteeing their agendas are met all the may to the bottom of the food chain. This exists in virtually every aspect of business these days and it was introduced sneakily, under the guise of (((liability))).
Jace Russell
>I really can't tell if you are arguing in good faith or not but if so I really want to understand how you view the connection between the transport protocol and the web engine, because there isn't one In good faith Try to think like someone who isn't as knowledgeable as you Google trained simple users to think oh it has a lock icon, that means I'm secure and private, thanks Google When in fact users are spied more than ever and carry the Google spook in their pocket
HTTPS is good but this push for HTTPS everywhere makes HTTPS a placebo
Let's stop arguing because we agree on the Google is evil and shady, I'm just a bit more paranoid thinking that HTTPS proliferation is part of a bigger scheme
Benjamin James
That makes sense and is the first coherent point you've made. But please, you have to be more careful about what you say - when you make nonsensical or factually incorrect statements, then it encourages people to take you and your side less seriously. Particularly technically competent people, who are surprisingly even more enamored with Google than normies.
We need the decentralized internet more than ever. Imagine never having ads because the costs of hosting are distributed by people actually interested in the content.
Ads are a crutch propped up by industries who want you to believe that ads are the only way you can fund your service without having a proper business model with proper exchange of cash for services
Parker Garcia
Decentralized, unmolestable information is coming soon. Blockchains are already a good first step.
This is what I have on all my systems, but it fails to catch ads served from the same domain as the site...
Jeremiah Ross
>can't MITM himself Look at this faggot
Mason Ross
wouldn't this break most extensions then? what extensions exist that just harvest data that a user, and not an ad company, would actually want?
Nicholas Rogers
Well no one is stopping you from developing such a proxy, but you're unlikely to find one that already supports this functionality for the purpose of adblocking.
John Clark
>gutting and repackaging chromium if anything that's quite an undertaking
Joshua Kelly
I totally agree, user. I remember the promise of the internet as a distributed platform for information dissemination, I remember when I'd go from link, to link, to another link and just keep reading and absorbing that information. Nowadays you can't go too far before hitting a walled garden of some megacorp, and everything is being defacto censored and controlled by them, it drives me nuts.
I do think we should try to re-decentralize the web, and even go as far as physically decentralizing the internet.
For a short while, I thought the IoT would bring that vision alive, but then it quickly turned into another means of control and information source for the botnets.
This summer, I'll be working at my attempt to make it simple to decentralize the internet (infrastructure), I hope I can get somewhere with this.
I don't think it would be too hard to implement one, might actually seriously look into it in addition to what I mentioned above.
Lincoln Ramirez
"Opera has originated features later adopted by other web browsers, including Speed Dial, pop-up blocking, re-opening recently closed pages, private browsing, and tabbed browsing."
Early firefox versions sucked hard compared to 8-year old mature Opera browser. Too bad opera is dead...
Google ARE an advertising agent with a search engine. They ARE NOT a search engine with advertising features. Why shouldnt they do this to their browser. If you like chrome but dont want to put up with googles shit then INSTALL CHROMIUM YOU MUPPET
Charles Anderson
>implying that by paying service the content creators won't still add adds for extra $$$$$ or collect precious data about you
yeah because chromium is so much different from chrome. it's sad that this is what people consider the alternative these days
Jeremiah Hughes
Ungoogled Chromium sort of confirmed that they will keep the webRequest API alive as long as they can
Robert Rivera
>archive.fo/XzaSn here is how to get around those changes run a vmware guest operating system that runs squid. Now your webpages are loaded into the cache on the squid proxy, now what you do is to alter the page before it reaches your host machine. Alternatively use an old laptop as a proxy between your router and your lan Gorhil and the others will probably make extensions for browsers that do not interfere in such a way with the users intentions. The fact is, if there is a way for google to do this there are always workarounds. In ten years time you will be wondering wtf everyone was throwing their toys out of the pram for
Andrew Turner
I use a pi hole and brave. come at me googol :^)
Samuel Torres
you clearly know nothing of browsers, and cannot follow what is being talked about here in this thread
Carson Cruz
calling me names doesn't change the fact that your argument is retarded. ungoogled chromium is even more incapable than waterfox in maintaining apis that google doesn't want
you're just another faggot who kept recommending people switch to chrome all these years and still have a stick up your ass about it, not wanting to admit this was a mistake from the start and now google is getting ready to bohica 90%+ of the people using the internet
Caleb Ramirez
Jeez i though the stupid part was hyperbole but as it turns out it wasn't. You do realise you can filter on other things than domain right, such as content? Before you sperg about https, see my below reply.
Ever heard of a man in the middle attack? Ever heard of any framework for testing / mocking frontends? This stuff is like web 101, almost no performance decrease.
Its honestly sad how badly versed in technology most people are here, and even more that so many are on mount stupid, not realising how low their knowledge actually is.
The actual ad elements are rendered dynamically by the js. If you block the js from loading, it breaks the content from rendering correctly. Everything about the ad elements is randomized except for their location in the DOM in relation to other elements. How you going to stop that with a proxy?
Presto Opera was so fucking based. Especially on the Wii.
Luis Ramirez
>We now live in an age where, as a business, you must comply with the whims of those with more money, or you won't be recognized as a potential business partner.
Maybe all the technical people could simply revert to text only web browsers as a form of protest - I know it would be frustrating and infuriating long term - what I am saying is maybe a day or a week could be organised where google realise that the techies are reverting to text only because that would show them that there are enough people who despise what they are doing that will see google chrome go the way of Mosaic web browser
Camden Thompson
> but you're unlikely to find one that already supports this functionality for the purpose of adblocking. So you're telling me people would actually agree to be SSL stripped for the purpose of adblocking? Hmmm. Hmm. This is a great idea, my friend! People are so gullible nowadays, so... This year may be big. Remember this post. My name's Dmitry, btw.
Matthew Bennett
>expect botnet hate in thread >instead see SJW defending you guys are trash as fuck sometimes - look at what they did to poor blizzard
