Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Chat about just about anything else
User avatar
philotux
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Utopia

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by philotux »

Pierre wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:00 am
Moem wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:09 am
Those who are looking for a more privacy-friendly alternative to Firefox, with access to more add-ons, might want to check out Waterfox
that's gonna need another Tutorial - on how to Extract / Run that version.
:mrgreen:
If you prefer deb, for Waterfox , it can be downloaded from https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox

User avatar
philotux
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Utopia

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by philotux »

thx-1138 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:30 am
sell more Chromebooks with ChromeOS, it will run fine under are own hardware -
Linux instead can be 'broken' eternally (with Nouveau or not, with Wayland or not...not our problem at all).
With the possibility of running Linux apps on ChromeOS and if I am not mistaken, there are plans to run Windows' as well, it looks like that ChromeOS is turning into kind of an omnipotent system which may very well attract a lot of new users. And with some really powerful, high spec machines in the market running ChromeOS, they are making you "a suggestion you can't refuse"! At least, I am very tempted to put my hands on one of those.

User avatar
thx-1138
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:15 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by thx-1138 »

philotux: Yes, that might very well be the case.
Or also very likely something among the lines of ChromeOS 2.0 or similar as gm10 suggested.

What i was merely trying to suggest & make clear above with the Nouveau driver blacklisting incident,
is that the choices that Google makes when it comes to it's browser,
aren't really dictated (as 'semi-officially' claimed in the first place) due to...
the Chrome browser's perceived poor performance under Linux.
It's not 'just' that '..hey, you know, your driver isn't working properly and in effect makes our browser look bad / insecure'...

The choices they make for such (regardless if their excuses are valid or merely partially valid),
reflect a much wider picture than just...people's satisfaction with Chrome itself.
They don't focus on the browser only when they add / remove features there:
they think of the whole, and by far more wide, ecosystem of Google product(s) line.
And how 'tweaking' this or that feature in this or that Google 'product' (in this case, the browser),
will help the 'whole' ecosystem of theirs in terms of future market penetration.

...you nicely said that yourself: "At least, I am very tempted to put my hands on one of those."
If 'Linux' (as we generally know it) has broken accel, Nouveau has poor performance, Nvidia doesn't support Wayland etc,
yet Chromebook / ChromeOS has accel, runs properly Linux apps etc...
If they deliver the 'full package' as nicely said above - then, there's your future customers. :wink:
Under that light, i would further add that in a world with 7.65 billion people,
where the roughly estimated of Linux users worldwide is 2.3%...it is certainly not a small potential market,
that Google would actively ignore (ie. like we were used to think it back in the past with Microsoft's open hostility etc).
After all, it is indeed (previously?) Linux users that would want to run Linux programs...

Please also do note that i'm not saying that as some sort of criticism towards what you suggested,
or say anyone who would prefer a Chromebook instead of 'Linux as we know it'.
My only criticism referred to certain people that think that Google would ever be willing to...
somehow 'save Linux' & 'make it better' as it is: they only care for making their own product line more attractive.
What people choose afterwards & for what reasons though...
Last edited by thx-1138 on Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flemur
Level 17
Level 17
Posts: 7675
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Potemkin Village

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by Flemur »

Check out privoxy if you need up-stream ad filtering.
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] if/when it is solved!
Your data and OS are backed up....right?

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

gm10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:51 am
Or maybe it's time to go back to the basics, I only just saw the other day that somebody reverse engineered and updated Proxomitron, that sure was a blast from the past.
wow :shock: got link?!

I loved Proxo! and considered self a master of tweaking proxo, config and filter merges and even early ventures into program hacking via resource edits and such :mrgreen:

User avatar
philotux
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Utopia

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by philotux »

thx-1138 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:22 pm
philotux: Yes, that might very well be the case.
Or also very likely something among the lines of ChromeOS 2.0 or similar as gm10 suggested.

What i was merely trying to suggest & make clear above with the Nouveau driver blacklisting incident,
is that the choices that Google makes when it comes to it's browser,
aren't really dictated (as 'semi-officially' claimed in the first place) due to...
the Chrome browser's perceived poor performance under Linux.
It's not 'just' that '..hey, you know, your driver isn't working properly and in effect makes our browser look bad / insecure'...

The choices they make for such (regardless if their excuses are valid or merely partially valid),
reflect a much wider picture than just...people's satisfaction with Chrome itself.
They don't focus on the browser only when they add / remove features there:
they think of the whole, and by far more wide, ecosystem of Google product(s) line.
And how 'tweaking' this or that feature in this or that Google 'product' (in this case, the browser),
will help the 'whole' ecosystem of theirs in terms of future market penetration.

...you nicely said that yourself: "At least, I am very tempted to put my hands on one of those."
If 'Linux' (as we generally know it) has broken accel, Nouveau has poor performance, Nvidia doesn't support Wayland etc,
yet Chromebook / ChromeOS has accel, runs properly Linux apps etc...
If they deliver the 'full package' as nicely said above - then, there's your future customers. :wink:
Under that light, i would further add that in a world with 7.65 billion people,
where the roughly estimated of Linux users worldwide is 2.3%...it is certainly not a small potential market,
that Google would actively ignore (ie. like we were used to think it back in the past with Microsoft's open hostility etc).
After all, it is indeed (previously?) Linux users that would want to run Linux programs...

Please also do note that i'm not saying that as some sort of criticism towards what you suggested,
or say anyone who would prefer a Chromebook instead of 'Linux as we know it'.
My only criticism referred to certain people that think that Google would ever be willing to...
somehow 'save Linux' & 'make it better' as it is: they only care for making their own product line more attractive.
What people choose afterwards & for what reasons though...
I just wanted to say that I find what you are saying very interesting and insightful. Honestly, I can't find a single line in your whole post that I disagree with. I am not a longtime Linux user as many of you are, rather the contrary . Even much of the FOSS philosophy is new to me. But one thing I can say is that with each passing day, not only I enjoy more and more using my Linux-based OS:es but also I appreciate more and more to be part of a community consisting of so may competent people who so generously share the fruit of their hard labour and their knowledge with the rest of us. It's just great and I am so grateful for that. And I do wish a bright future for it. Regardless of what plans giant players like Google and the like have for the future of computing and else, I do wish Linux and the community of it's users to grow and flourish. By the way, I don't need one of those machines, I am just tempted to see what it is capable of and not more. Usually, but not always, I manage to resist such temptations.

gm10
Level 20
Level 20
Posts: 11000
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by gm10 »

redlined wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:25 pm
gm10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:51 am
Or maybe it's time to go back to the basics, I only just saw the other day that somebody reverse engineered and updated Proxomitron, that sure was a blast from the past.
wow :shock: got link?!

I loved Proxo! and considered self a master of tweaking proxo, config and filter merges and even early ventures into program hacking via resource edits and such :mrgreen:
Proxomitron and SpamPal, it was the time of the great proxies. I don't think I still have my Proxomitron setups though. Here's the link: http://www.prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=2331

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

At work we used Netscape (late 90s-early 2000s), and for personal use I recall leaving InternetExplorer v6, for Mozilla in the early 2000s (buggy and bland phoenix, then firefox v1 days) and using Opera alongside. When Chrome came onto the scene (2008ish) I installed it but generally avoided using it in any significant manner, for years, until some major change a few years back in FF (circa 2011?) pushed me towards using chrome daily. I ran back to Firefox going on two years ago now, seeking respite from google's database and profile of me building, deciding the worst offender was me logged into chrome all the time while using it and losing all trust in google's openness about what exactly was going where.

My approach was always leaning towards privacy and security, however, I tended to trust the words present or implied by the data collection giants, namely facebook and google ranking topmost in those regards, but I never felt assured I could keep ahead of that race to protect my interests from being monetized and the "me" being traded like a commodity, earning them profits without my explicit consent.

and the vigilance for concerns, and "race" to defeat and deny all new vectors has certainly been fatiguing, in Firefox as well, however FF is where I chose to take the stand and fight. Is it better or best, nah... is it trustworthy, to me, yes. Why?
Because I still place faith in their words as being open and honest, an approach I prefer regardless.

and this recent news MS Edge adopts chromium is the primary reason I do not see any desire to migrate back towards anything chromium based.

otherwise, what has fed my rational is considering their open approach discussions about privacy and data and all.
Mozilla Manifesto and 10 Principles
How they're engaging and influencing Internet policies
Data Detox kit I'm on day 5:) see also tab links at top for Security&Privacy, Openness, Decentralization, Inclusion and Literacy
What Moz collects and how to tame it in Firefox
Taking an active approach for user learning
Transparency

In the end, Firefox is my fight against google and by extension all data giants and brokers, and I don't see that changing for other than a different brand of gecko engine (looking into waterfox as it is now a consideration)

User avatar
Schultz
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:57 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by Schultz »

Besides Waterfox, there is also Basilisk and Pale Moon.

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

gm10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:39 pm
Proxomitron and SpamPal, it was the time of the great proxies. I don't think I still have my Proxomitron setups though. Here's the link: http://www.prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=2331
thanks! :mrgreen: reading now~
ahhh, for the days of chaining proxies, local and remote, BindPE (a dev porting Bind for easy install and config under windows) edexter, proxomitron, stunnel/ctunnel/putty, in addition to good hosts file management (HostsMan)... and on and on, good ole days, for sure and fun, if not for my naivete and trust of the players at the time.

yah, I'd be relearning from scratch anyways, cut off from too many memories as it is... although I do have some good old winderz backups from them days to scour now :lol:

edit to add, from that link to proxomitron reborn I see some very familiar names in the likes- kye-u and mizzmona def ring some big bells from days gone by and my old newsgroup haunts, blast from the past indeed! :mrgreen:
Last edited by redlined on Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

Schultz wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:07 pm
Besides Waterfox, there is also Basilisk and Pale Moon.
another good reminder of options I have recently considered then forgotten as I focused instead to 'hardening and locking down' firefox.

going to check into all three though, if they meet or match my tweaked FF and concerns initiating such, then very cool and may be high time to jump 8)

gm10
Level 20
Level 20
Posts: 11000
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by gm10 »

redlined wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:14 pm
ahhh, for the days of chaining proxies, local and remote, BindPE (a dev porting Bind for easy install and config under windows) edexter, proxomitron, stunnel/ctunnel/putty, in addition to good hosts file management (HostsMan)... and on and on, good ole days, for sure and fun, if not for my naivete and trust of the players at the time.
Don't forget personal firewalls in that context. I remember I got gifted a copy of Tiny Personal Firewall Pro by its devs back then, good times (and good firewall). These days the free firewalls are the ones spying on you, haha.

If you're looking to relive your hosts file days (still as useful today as back then), here's a good place to start:
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

User avatar
bfrost
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by bfrost »

I am using AospExtended ROM on my Android phones with microG service plus Firefox Focus on my devices. Firefox with uBlock Origin with extra privacy add-ons on desktop. Careful with apps you install on your mobile phone and use Firefox interface instead of specific apps, f.ex. Facebook etc. Qwant is also a good alternative too Google Search.
Last edited by bfrost on Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

gm10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:26 pm
redlined wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:14 pm
ahhh, for the days of chaining proxies, local and remote, BindPE (a dev porting Bind for easy install and config under windows) edexter, proxomitron, stunnel/ctunnel/putty, in addition to good hosts file management (HostsMan)... and on and on, good ole days, for sure and fun, if not for my naivete and trust of the players at the time.
Don't forget personal firewalls in that context. I remember I got gifted a copy of Tiny Personal Firewall Pro by its devs back then, good times (and good firewall). These days the free firewalls are the ones spying on you, haha.

If you're looking to relive your hosts file days (still as useful today as back then), here's a good place to start:
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
ahhh, yes, firewalls, one of my loves from the day, for sure... Started on Norton personal firewall, then early on was beta tester for ZoneAlarm 1&2, even got a free license when they turned it "Pro", until it was discovered the shady comms used from early engine that was never proven to not be "spyware" in effect (much earlier than was eventually addressed by Zone Labs) Then to TPF from there to KPF (my favorite for a very long time) then a slew of others when KPF was pulled, Sygate, TDS, and others forgotten. Eventually settling on WFC (from Binisoft, now Malwarebytes owned). Never could find a good 'multifunction' product so AV/AT/Anti-everything was a similar march thru products and varying levels of trust, eventually settling on MBAM and purchase of lifetime license during beta testing of that one (they still honor it too, hasn't been a purchase option since 1st year release, iirc)

the good ole days indeed :mrgreen:

for hosts now I use blacklist for dnscrypt-proxy generated using dev's "mybase" script which StevenBlack's offering gets rolled in and parsed with other sources for a nice clean list. More on that here:
https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-pr ... blacklists

still want to get back to playing with proxomitron though, will be nice to offload some browser extension filtering to it and disable some of my xmas tree of addons :wink:

User avatar
eddycanuck
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by eddycanuck »

an often suggested Alternative is:
https://vivaldi.com/download/
Wow - I had not heard of Vivaldi and just had a look. I am impressed - despite the "it also has Chromium" slag.

Also had not read "The Register" article and understand the concern - but it simply does not make sense to me that all of these Chromium-based Browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, possibly Firefox and now apparently Edge?) would risk exposure to nefarious methods of Goolag. Surely they as main users of Chromium have some input in how new Chrome code is written/implemented in Chromium?

Furthermore I see at bottom of article this "addendum" as supporting my point:
Following a huge outcry from plugin developers and netizens, Google has reiterated that the proposed changes are not set in stone, and are subject to revision. While the internet goliath wants to rein in the level of access granted to Chrome browser extensions, it is prepared to work through the messy matter with third-party coders – who will have to rewrite parts of their software if this all goes ahead.
TOSHIBA Laptop: Satellite L300
https://pastebin.com/GcH0S0cq

User avatar
Schultz
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:57 pm

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by Schultz »

Since Chromium is open source, can't browsers like Opera and the others based on Chromium undo the changes that make ad-blocking more difficult?
eddycanuck wrote:
Also had not read "The Register" article and understand the concern - but it simply does not make sense to me that all of these Chromium-based Browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, possibly Firefox
Firefox is not based on Chromium.

User avatar
absque fenestris
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:42 pm
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by absque fenestris »

60.3.0esr GNU IceCat

32bit in my case - and the thing is fast...
Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia (Mate) 32-bit - Acer D250 Netbook (Intel Atom N270, 2 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD)
Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa (Mate) 64-bit - MacBook Pro 15" (Intel Core2 Duo, 8 GB RAM, 240 GB SSD) - with some separation difficulties...

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

Schultz wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Since Chromium is open source, can't browsers like Opera and the others based on Chromium undo the changes that make ad-blocking more difficult?
If it is worth their efforts... how many cups of coffee do you really think gnu/foss devs get in a day from devoted, if not appreciative, users :?

since it's an API access to get chrome/ium to do something, revoking one API and issuing another for the base chromium may force feed it to others branches/forks :?: sounds significant and serious.. bigbigsigh...
Schultz wrote:
eddycanuck wrote:
Also had not read "The Register" article and understand the concern - but it simply does not make sense to me that all of these Chromium-based Browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, possibly Firefox
Firefox is not based on Chromium.
def +1, firefox is not chromium based, it's mozilla dev from netscape days and based on gecko rendering engine. chromium is webkit :?: or another I'm forgetting.. fwiw Edge (MS browser) is headed into chromium land, these two giants cohabitating makes me nervous for the internet road ahead.

back to ref article, besides the real deal listed at top:
How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks?
tells the entire story and most likely outcome.

Best bet, start learning local proxy, pi-hole, dns blacklisting, etc methods for filtering ads, scripts, popups/unders/etc and all the rest of everything (especially fingerprinting, which I suspect is another reason behind such a move- nothing strikes greater fear in big biz and gov than anonymity at any level. follow the money, it always tells the honest tale.

Compare:
Manifesto for Mozilla/FireFox
Find something on "privacy" in Google's (googledocs link provided by OP article, hyperlink under "Manifest v3")
hint:
Privacy
Users should have increased control over their extensions. A user should be able to determine what information is available to an extension, and be able to control that privilege.
(should is such a weakazz word, in my world. saying Will or Must is putting money where mouth is though and I don't see the big G giving away any more of it's candy... btw, that quote is basically all they have to say on privacy- really earning my trust breaking effective and popular addons, like uBlock

this quote by uBlock dev is most disheartening:
"If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin and uMatrix, can no longer exist," said Hill.
also saying, effectively, uBlock days sound numbered (which kills it for FF as well :cry: unless they commit to care-taking it forward for the mozilla community...

whole thread is already an awesome resource for alternatives to the threat. Google may really feel a hit if they trick this change in, openly or not- they have it on their mind for sure, so expect it from somewhere more undetectable if they do capitulate this frontier :roll:

(edited for typos)

redlined

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by redlined »

absque fenestris wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:38 pm
60.3.0esr GNU IceCat

32bit in my case - and the thing is fast...
this completely fell of my radar...wow. d/l now will run it then check waterfox, palemoon, et al.. Thanks for the reminder, sounds even better than others I'm considering, real cool- Overview: Differences :mrgreen:

User avatar
absque fenestris
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:42 pm
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica

Re: Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

Post by absque fenestris »

@ redlined
Thanks for your feedback.
I've been amazed for years that the GNU IceCat Browser is completely negated in the linux scene - yes, even in the super-free Trisquel Distro...
About 2 to 3 years ago IceCat was the fastest (and maybe safest) browser I used on Mac and Windows - on Android it was unusable. On Linux rather lame, well, on my device.
The 60s version of IceCat runs surprisingly well on my old netbook and I'm about to set up this browser - besides Vivaldi - as my internet access.
Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia (Mate) 32-bit - Acer D250 Netbook (Intel Atom N270, 2 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD)
Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa (Mate) 64-bit - MacBook Pro 15" (Intel Core2 Duo, 8 GB RAM, 240 GB SSD) - with some separation difficulties...

Post Reply

Return to “Open chat”