Chrome is now /our browser/

chrome is now /our browser/

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra
github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO-Extra-is-useful
archive.is/36LIc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
jbcs.info/poc/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>what is streamlining ads
how stupid are you

Every browser with ublock origin is /our browser/ to bh.

If webdevs wouldn't be incompetent it would be no problem preventing ad blocking.

...

It's a proprietary, spyware poc.

>ghostery
fake news.

>article about chrome
>post firefox screenshot
sasuga nyp

That is because they want to force sites to use their Google ad services.

Yes, but they'll have to give up tracking, making pay per click impossible.

Gorhill warned Chrome users that Ad Companies are more aggressive toward Chrome users than Firefox users.

github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra

github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO-Extra-is-useful

Google has been silent about Instart Logic.

Gorhill personally stated that Firefox users have less security and privacy issues to deal with than Chrome users due to concerning issues like Instart Logic that have malware like behavior.

I find it disgusting how Google as a monopolist dictates how others should build their websites.

That's just what they want you to think.

B O T N E T
O
T
N
E
T

>Colaition for Better Ads
sounds like a cartell trying to regulate competition out of the market

It's a bit late for Goigle to be seeking good will.

> Gorhill warned Chrome users that Ad Companies are more aggressive toward Chrome users than Firefox users.
Makes sense to aim for circumvention of 70% of adblock users vs. 10%.

>be google
>have pajeet ceo
>ceo wants to buy a gold plated designated shitting street
>its the only way to compliment his platinum sprinkled poo and silver infused curry
>literally the only reason why he took the job
>needs money for such a street
>have 70% search share
>have 60% browser share
>decide to implement AMP for more (((better))) ads
>autists cry out but doesn't matter because search monopoly
>still need more money
>create coalition for better ads
>decide to create built in adblocker don't care
>autists begin migrating to firefox
>ohshitohshitohshit.jpg
>create anti-adblock
>works so well all adblockers are literally BTFO'd
>trained by years of Captcha solves
>give anti-adblock to sites freely
>adblock scripters can't do anything because anti adblock is closed source
>people not on chrome are forced to watch 1minute long malware ridden porn ads
>only chrome's adblocker can work
>people forced to migrate back to chrome
>mozilla literally dies and chrome wins the browser wars forever
>only google ads exist
>100% of profit goes to rajeesh
>finally have gold plated designated shitting street

tfw when 1billion indians will one day outnumber the werstern world...

>Blocks non-Google paid ads
FTFY

B O T N E T
O O T N E T
T T T N E T
N N N N E T
E E E E E T
T T T T T T

Antitrust lawsuits in three... two... one...

I hope google will block *doubleclick.net and *google-analytics.com

>It's a proprietary, spyware poc.

In other words a botnet.
Iridium remains the only real alternative.

lol Google about to get BTFO by the EU if they don't block their own ads too

>blocking every ad-agency out there except google adsense
Its genius they will make shit ton of money.

Hey, OP.
CAN YOU FUCKING LINK TO THE ARTICLE NEXT TIME, DO I HAVE TO SEARCH FOR IT EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!?

it only covers what they consider malicious ads

It's useless if it overlooks Jewgle's own ads.

archive.is/36LIc

Reminder that Adblocking suck on chromium browsers compared to Firefox

>google will only show their own ads

And this is why monopolies are a bad thing

Shit, I've never thought of it that way. Now it all makes sense.

Ghostery is botnet and anything other than uBlock Origin or shit based on it won't perform as well.

I'm a webdev and I handle the ads on my site and no one has ever complained because they're not just random ads, they're explicitly related to site content and fit in with the design.
Users can always use ad blockers and select the ads manually, but honestly the referral kickback is still amazing so seems they don't mind.

Just wait until Google gets slapped with a DMCA for DRM circumvention. It's going to be great, goy.

>chrome blocks all ads except google ads

It begins!

Chrome will never be my browser. If I was to use any chromium brower, it would be brave, but there are still a lot of problems with it, too.

10/10

It'll be really neat to see how those ads get around NoScript.

Offer content through Javascript?

Which NoScript would block.

So you wouldn't get content. The actual content you came for. Which is how anti-adblock works, denying you content until you disable adblock.

NoScript allows you to select which Javascript you activate on a per-site basis.

Antitrust in 3...2...

Do I still need that if I'm using noscripts/scriptsafe? I don't have issues with ads it seems, unless they are hosted on the site I'm visiting, which they usually aren't

So it all gets combined into one javascript file. Now what?

I don't see how that could be feasible.

no, Google want to sell their ads

all commercial ads are malicious

>blocking the competition
>still won't block their own ads

Get a real job.

That would require all pages with ads to be given to Google, which is a huge security concern, as well as an enormous undertaking on Google's part. Sites would sooner just block the Chrome browser.

So all javascript from various providers is merged into one file on server, both JS responsible for displaying content and JS responsible for bringing you ads. Don't see this as possible either? Get glasses.

I've tried to warn you, Sup Forums. I've told you over and over that Google Chrome was only here to kill Firefox and to give Google a monopoly on IETF privacy features and on ads.

Or the site just fetches ad providing javascript from whoever the ad provider is and serves it to you without any need for trusting anyone.

I don't see it as feasible, if that's what you're asking. You'd have to essentially give control of your website over to google in order to pull that off.

If it's fetching it from off-site, then you would need a script to do it, which you could block (this is what happens now).

Close the tab and never visit that page again.

That """""" coalition""""" is literally Facebook + Goolag

>If it's fetching it from off-site, then you would need a script to do it, which you could block (this is what happens now).
It's happening on their server, not on your browser. I feel insulted I have to explain something as simple as this to you.

Because that worked well against micro$oft

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
> It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states
>The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft

In the old days if you wanted to have a website, you paid for it yourself.

Then you realize you really didn't need to read that content and move on.

Then the anti-adblock has done its job.

Can't start an antitrust case against Google when they own the judicial system through extensive lobbying.

Now in Europe however, they just got a record penalty for almost this exact thing.

Congrats, your website still has no ad revenue, only now it's because nobody visits it rather than visitors blocking ads.

Great. I'm glad you could finally understand how anti-adblock is possible even when you have NoScript.

Which would still take a script to do. Which you could block. The only way to get google ads without needing an additional script would be to host your shit on google. Feel as insulted as you like, it won't make a difference in the reality of things.

I don't see your point.

I suppose I was assuming you were running a website in order to make money.

If that's not the case, then it would be simpler for everyone if you simply didn't put ads on it.

The JavaScript has to do something to let the site know you watched the ad. You can run scripts in ublock (only scripts added to their repo so no security concerns here) so you can move that logic into ublock and make the site believe our watched the ad.

Look for script inject documentation in ublock.

I have no doubt that it has ulterior motives, but its suggestions are just things like no-popups, audio, flashing etc., nothing crazy

No, whether they use script, a program or anything else server-side to create a big single javascript file to send to you, you won't get access to whatever they're using, and you won't be able to block any parts of that - only the whole single Javascript file that's responsible for both content that you desire and ads.

i hope google does this and they get sued for anti-trust.

I'm not arguing about monetization in the fist place, I'm arguing about whether anti-adblock is technically possible on a browser that runs NoScript.

You can add anything you want, we're talking about removing, not adding. Removing the functionality that shows you ads while preserving the functionality that serves youcontent you want.

>Removing the functionality that shows you ads while preserving the functionality that serves youcontent you want.
Until you discover that the content you want is really just ads in disguise

Indians already do outnumber is idiot

>chrome is now /our browser/
keep reading, retard. Google will remove ads of other companies but not their own ads.
they want them to use Google's ads.

I suggest you to and research how Javascript works. You have 2 options to get ads delivered in the same script as the page. Either: 1) Google individually crafts the scripts needed to do so for each site (which would be a massive undertaking, especially considering the timeframe they would need to do it in, or 2) the site would needed to be hosted under the same script as the ads themselves, essentially making every single webpage fall under the google adsense script, essentially forcing all webpages to be hosted on google's servers. Neither would be acceptable to the host.

wtf so I need another ublock extension? i already got ublock protector as an addon to ublock origin

They wouldn't get real view count if they have to trust sites to serve their ads directly.

You can block their JavaScript and use your own. You can fetch their script, replace parts with no-ops and run that.

Who the fuck actually clicks on adverts except by mistake?

Google already offers a service to speed up sites where they proxy/cache your site so all content goes through their servers to your clients. Merging the ads into those pages would be the easiest thing to do.

Normies. Last time I visited my mother, she wanted to go to the JCPenney website. So she goes to google.com, searches jcpenney and clicks the first link which is the sponsored link.

They can poll those sites periodically to make sure they are running the actual javascript they are supposed to run.

>You can block their JavaScript and use your own. You can fetch their script, replace parts with no-ops and run that.
For every site, and every time they change their javascript. Good luck and have fun.

I'll take 3). Google automatically crafts the JS for the server that's offering content, the server automatically bundles it into its own javascript necessary for showing you the content.

If you can't see them, you can't click them

Normies ruin everything again?

Not him, but at that point, I would just block the hosting script. I don't need it in order to read text.

The text for you to read is served through that javascript. You won't get the text.

>encrypted text is fetched by a script
>decrypted using unique key released after solving captcha related to the advert that the website tells your browser to display

I do all the time. But I also run ad blocking, so I actually only get internal ads or search ads, both of which are pretty useful.
And majority of people who own smartphones now also click on ads, they have ads on their screen 24/7 with huge brand icons. Operating systems aren't free from this either.
But the last two examples are ones people try to pretend aren't ads for whatever fucking reason even though they do the same exact thing an ad does - infiltrate your mind so you're constantly aware of [x] product/service.

And the best part is people will generally lap it up because of brand engagement

You could even give every 1/N visitors who solve the captcha a token branded prize in order to further incentivize them

>ad company offers adblocking in their browser
This is not a good thing, it's just anti-competitive bullshit from Google.

Show me a site that does that right now, as a proof of concept.

Pretty sure if they pulled that shit, there would be some anti-monopoly lawsuit in response, especially with Chrome blocking all non-google ads.

>For every site, and every time
This is already happening. Only for high profile sites like news sites, fuck clickbait blogs. It's in a git repo so people who care can make a pull request and everybody benefits.

We are already creating lists of urls to block and css selectors to remove. For every site.

looking forward to google getting slapped by another antitrust measure from the EU
Don't get me wrong. I hate ads and I'll do what I can to get the ad industry, and all industries incapable of having a businessmodel without ads to die a quick but painful death, but Google is using this to strengthen their position in the ad market, not to weaken ads.

no need for that shit, they could just made youtube chrome compatible only, I guranteed 99.9% of other browsers including myself would install chrome for it, and knowing how shitty google is they haven't done it because they haven't found a way to do it yet

>Show me a site that does that right now, as a proof of concept.
jbcs.info/poc/

Selecting urls to block is trivial, actually working with javascript code to figure out which parts are needed and which are not requires way m,ore technical proficiency.

>edit hosts file
>avoid all this
ez pz

>step 1: add own adblocker
>step 2: ban 3rd party adblocker plugins.

just sit and wait.

Now explain why websites don't do this already, and how google could shut them down if they did this themselves.