Conversation

An accurate/informative thread about the proposed changes in Chrome by the uBlock Origin developer, summarized in this conclusion: twitter.com/gorhill/status I recommend reading that thread and skipping all the fake news falsely claiming Chrome is removing support for ad-blocking.
Quote Tweet
I am not against the declarativeNetRequest API, and I am not arguing against the stated advantages -- they are legitimate. I am against the conversion of the webRequest API into a passive one and other changes crippling uBO's ability to seamlessly function as it does now.
Show this thread
1
8
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
I don't quite know what you mean. Filter lists is how existing extensions work, and they implemented an equivalent to the EasyList / Adblock Plus style filters. uBlock Origin offers more power than that, but there's no reason it couldn't be how the built-in blocking engine works.
1
Replying to and
These kinds of blacklists inherently don't work against an adversary putting any effort into bypassing the blacklists or detecting blocking and responding to it. It would need to keep being updated, and they can respond to each update. How could it be any different?
1
Replying to and
There is no rigorous / fundamental way of blocking the ads or tracking going on in any of this. It's an opportunistic way of doing it and depends on there not being active work to bypass. Most of the stories / tweets that I've seen about this have definitely been misinformation.
1
Replying to and
webRequest doesn't even work properly for implementing a privacy or security feature. It's not a reliable API and is fallible. The failure mode is not blocking the request. It wasn't designed for the kind of privacy and security related features that it's being used to implement.
1
Show replies