Technology

42126 readers

285 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 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Ad blocking alive and well, despite changes to Chrome (www.theregister.com)

submitted 9 hours ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/technology@beehaw.org

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] XLE@piefed.social 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Something is fishy here.

Manifest v3 has hard limits, and the developer of uBlock Origin has documented issues with the supposedly "just fine" new APIs in AdBlock Plus:

uBO Lite reliably filters at browser launch, or when navigating to new webpages while its service worker is suspended. This can't be achieved without uBO Lite's declarative approach. Example: [video]

But has also said that updates to their filters depends on Google graciously allowing it:

There are no filter lists proper in uBOL. There are declarative rulesets and scripts which are the results of compiling filter lists when the extension package is generated. Those declarative rulesets and scripts are updated only when the extension itself updates.

In other words, you can either have a tool that blocks ads unreliably, or a tool that can only update ad-blocking rules if an ad company allows it.

There are also things that are objectively impossible to do with Manifest V3.

So consider me skeptical. Any perceived parity or improvement is due to competent developers, not due to a willingness to make manifest V3 good. I think I'll trust the people building adblock tech over a couple of university students.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, it feels like it was written by either a Chrome or advertising shill.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, and I expect much better from The Register!

I'm also convinced that the current state of ads, where people can compare old to new and say "looks good to me," is entirely intentional on Google's part. I've been convinced of this well before the change actually happened.

Of course Google didn't want to raise any hackles... until well after their new scheme had been adopted.

[–] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago

The paper states that there are no significant changes in ad block efficiency and in some areas it seems even a tad bit better, but by seeing how many revisions Google had to make due to public pressure, this still just is another boiling frog effect

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

MV3 went through revisions after significant pushback. Of course it's not as bad as people were worried about. They changed it lol.

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago

Was there any actual justification/benefit to it, other than the obvious attempt to cripple adblockers? I don't remember seeing anyone say anything positive about it. And, if not, and adblockers apparently are working well anyway, then what was the point?

[–] Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

I wasn't aware of this, still too little too late several years ago.