![]() Your product? "More or less" perhaps a good description?Īnd best of all, you have to follow 1Block and inject your own browser addon, literally breaking your privacy promise to the user for EVERY WEBSITE THAT HAS VIDEOS. You have "best in class" ad blocking on youtube? uBlock blocks all ads, period, with 100% success, on any video site. Your product doesn't do a single thing there. Consider people who have to use usability tools to make those sites work for them, like text2speech. Or consider websites who hijack right-clicking or scroll bars. This happens on the reg, and you can't do anything about it. For example, whenever my favorite news site fixes its ad block blocker, I'd have to wait for you to update the block list instead of just killing the new script. You are worse at blocking ads, because you can not block dynamically and the user can not add rules to sites or elements. It is so neutered, that literally no one uses it except where it is mandatory.Īnd here is the real banger: YOU DON'T EVEN USE IT when you try to block ads on youtube. I am really not breaking new ground when I say that the "modern API" is entirely neutered. However, we have this product where we are doing our best. If you write: Yes, compared to other platforms, the adblock ecosystem in Safari is absolutely dismal. There's a fine line when shilling your own product here. None of that is possible with your product,, no matter how much money I pay you or how many ads you write on hackernews. ![]() Once you know that it is possible, you do this every day. You can block that overlay disabling right clicks or hijacking the scroll bar. ![]() You can block videos on some news websites, but allow javascript galleries, and do the opposite on a video site. ![]() or enable some requests while blocking others selectively. On other platforms, using *entirely free* addons like uBlock, you can zap away annoying elements/bars/overlays. And yet, you continue to state the opposite even though it simply is not true. Of course, we both know this, because it simply is not possible. This is a tradeoff of performance for reduced flexibility where it is absolutely needed.ĭid you ever notice how the only people who ever say anything positive about Safari's adblock ecosystem are those who literally sell adblocker software?ĭespite the fact that most of your posts on HN are ads for magiclasso, the fact remains that even most basic features (like whitelisting or blocking cookie banners) require payment.įurthermore, you do not even come close to uBlock origin. When ad blocking begins requiring new methods of detection or filtering, it'll now be up to Chromium maintainers to implement support for it in the new declarativeNetRequest API. However, that optimization costs so much for innovative ad blocking technologies as gorhill of uBlock Origin has mentioned. The implementation in Manifest V2 requires sending a message back and forth between processes with JS processing for each network request which seems to be in part why they redesigned it. *The deprecation of webRequest's blocking behavior is what's most concerning. Forced non-persistent extensions guides developers to a better implementation which relies on less resources. Using service workers instead of a hidden background webpage is more idiomatic for web developers. I've been working towards implementing greater support for Chrome extensions in Electron which has involved reading and interacting with Chromium code. As someone who is intimately familiar with the Chrome extensions internals and is not employed by a big tech company, I believe most of the changes seem like a step in the right direction.*
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |