The ad company blocking an ad blocker is totally about security
- Google stans
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
399 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37581 readers
320 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But they're not blocking ad blockers. They're restricting a huge attack surface which has the side effect of making it harder to build ad blockers. With this change, extensions can "only" alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That's not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there's limit now.
Google should add a specific ad blocking API (though I suppose that name would run afoul of market competition laws, so maybe they'd need to workshop that stuff info "content enhancers" or whatever) before removing the ability for extensions to hide/block/redirect/alter arbitrary requests, but the way extension's currently work is pretty terrible.
It's all fun and games if uBlock Origin uses this API, but if one of your other extensions get bought out by a Chinese malware company, you'd be wondering why "save downloads to Nextcloud" and "remove Google search bar from the browser home page" were able to steal all the money out of your checking account and open several credit cards in your name.
Google's approach sucks, but in my opinion other browsers should show stronger warnings when installing extensions with access to everything you do in a browser (and outside it, if you screen share).
I don't really care about Chrome, Chrome users can just download another browser if they don't like ads. I do care about the risks in other browsers, and browsers need to do a lot better communicating and compartmentalising this risk to end users.
With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.
That seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 20,000? Or 300,000? What the hell is this limit even for? Even malware can still target 10 domains and do some significant damage. So, what the hell is the point?
Remember, politicians don't pass racist laws by directly saying they are excluding PoC into the law. They do it by targeting commonalities that happen to apply to PoC.
Google isn't going to flat-out say they are blocking uBlock Origin. They are going to do it by implementing "security features" that just so happen to target only uBlock Origin.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"For the security" is starting to sound a lot like "for the children". I hope this works out better than secure boot. When these new ideas emerge that have, let's call them, "side effects" like disabling ad-blockers or preventing Linux from being installed I am suspicious.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is the most succinct, unbiased explanation I've seen for this change. Thank you for this! It's good to know there's an unintended security improvement in their otherwise brazen attempt to kill ad blockers on Chrome.
Fuck Google.
load more comments
(1 replies)
At this point, using Firefox and an ad blocker does more for the climate than paper straws or recycling.
Even with ad blocking, half of consumer internet traffic is ads. Google is contributing to increasing this ratio, where most traffic on the internet will be stuff the client did not request, contributing more to climate change than Bitcoin - not that this makes crypto look better, they are just a useful milestone to compare to with the press they get.
And this doesn't include the idiotic AI shit they do.
load more comments
(3 replies)
More people should use Firefox. Anyone who does not want Google to control the web browser space with a single base. Firefox will continue support uBlock Origin in its full strength. Notice, Google does not "kill" uBlock Origin, but rather weaken it substantially with a new protocol.
But I get it. With such headlines more people will read it. At least it has a good effect of getting attention of people, who would otherwise ignore it.
They do kill uBlock Origin. The Lite version is a different extension.
load more comments
(6 replies)
At this point if you use Chrome I think there is something wrong with you.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Google was declared a monopoly. Next step: Let the monopoly keep doing the monopoly stuff.
The judge has yet to rule on how this should be addressed. Even after he makes a decision on that, there will be appeals. So long as the orange shitbag isn’t reelected, things look better for the industry than they have in a long time: at least something is finally happening.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck chrome, FF ftw.
Enshittification goes brrrr.
Perhaps this will bug people who currently use Chrome and uBO to switch browsers.
This coming down the line finally got me off of my incredibly lazy ass and forced me to switch a few months ago. It was easy, and I don't know why I didn't do it sooner.
I wish I could for work. But stupid corporate policy demands otherwise, Google workspace is so shit.
Google workspace
Dystopia is real
Only a few more steps until "Google Government"
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Block Chrome and use anything not Chrome based. In other words use Firefox.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Google has been telegraphing this for months. Either switch browsers now or enjoy your ads.
They've literally said ad blockers are a threat to their revenue https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419000004/goog10-kq42018.htm
Risks Related to Our Businesses and Industries
[...]
New and existing technologies could affect our ability to customize ads and/or could block ads online, which would harm our business.
Technologies have been developed to make customizable ads more difficult or to block the display of ads altogether and some providers of online services have integrated technologies that could potentially impair the core functionality of third-party digital advertising. Most of our Google revenues are derived from fees paid to us in connection with the display of ads online. As a result, such technologies and tools could adversely affect our operating results.
It's not exactly super helpful to just link to an 86 page SEC filing. Maybe you could provide a quote?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well, they're only doing what they announced already like 1-2 years ago. So we knew it was coming. This is also accompanied by Google making YouTube more restrictive when viewed with adblockers. Google is (somewhat late, to be honest) showing its teeth against users who block ads. I always expected it to happen but it took them quite some time. Probably they wanted to play the good guys for long enough until most users are dependent on their services, and now their proprietary trap is very effective.
On the desktop, you should switch to a good Firefox fork right now. Firefox can also be used but needs configuring before it's good. The forks LibreWolf or Mullvad Browser are already very good out of the box. There's the potential issue of the forks not being updated fast enough, but so far these two have been fast. Mullvad shares a lot of configuration with the Tor Browser, so using it may break some sites. LibreWolf might be "better" for the average user because of that, but otherwise I think Mullvad is the best Firefox fork overall.
On mobile, Firefox-based browsers aren't recommended, because on Android, the sandboxing mechanism of Firefox is inferior to that of the Chromium-based browsers. And on iOS, all browsers (have to) run on Apple's proprietary Webkit engine anyway, but well this is Apple we're talking about so of course it's all locked-down and restricted. It's one of the reasons I don't even like talking about Apple that much, just be aware that as an iOS user, your choice doesn't mean as much when it comes to browsers, and your browser might not behave like you think it does on other platforms.
So on mobile, I'd suggest things like Brave, Cromite or Mull. Or Vanadium (GrapheneOS). If the browser doesn't have built-in adblocking capability which sidesteps the MV3 restrictions, make sure to use an ad-blocking DNS server, so your browser doesn't have to do it. But you still need it. Adblocking not only helps you retain your sanity when browsing the web in 2024, but it also proactively secures you against known and unknown security threats coming from ads. So adblocking is a security plus, a privacy plus, and a sanity plus. It's absolutely mandatory. As long as the ad industry is as terrible as it is, you should continue using adblocks. All the time. On every device and on every browser.
The ad industry is itself to blame for this. There could in theory be such a thing like acceptable ads, but that would require ads to be static images/text, not fed by personal data, and not dynamically generated by random scripts which could compromise your security, and not overly annoying. Since that is probably never going to happen, you should never give up using adblockers. Since they basically fight you by reducing your security and privacy, you have a right to defend yourself via technical means.
There are no issues with the main Firefox branches for desktop and mobile, for the average user, not sure why you're so against them.
load more comments
(3 replies)
With this from chrome, and Reddit going paywalls do you think we'll see another spike in Lemmy traffic...i think it's a safe bet.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Use DNS filtering. I use NextDNS which has a free tier that meets my needs. You can add popular filter lists and your browser will never even see those ads, trackers etc. Or you can use Vivaldi and Firefox of course. But DNS cuts it off before it even gets to your machine.
dns blocking methods do not, and literally cannot, block them all.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The garbage is taking itself out
i use firefox (and you should too) but they're blocking ubo, which as not updated to mv2 - ubo lite still works.
Yes but that's not the same. Because of Chrome limitation it can't update it's blocklist directly. You have to update the whole extension to update the blocklist and that goes through Google validation in the Chrome store. It adds delay and Google could even refuse some updates. The blocklist is also shorter because not all filter rules are supported.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›