People Are Mad That Google May Kill Chrome Ad Blockers

[captaincharisma]

lmao apparently not a lot of people know the definition of the word "may" to be this upset about it

 

[SkOrPn]

Wow, I guess its time to go back to Firefox then. I have been with Chrome since day 1 of its beta release, but now it looks like Firefox will become the #1 browser again. Fine by me.

 

[TJ Hooker]

sooooo back to a different browser then?

I would say Firefox or Edge but last news was Microsoft is rewriting Edge to use Chromium. So yay.

Given that Chromium is open source, I think it ought to be possible to just remove this adblock-killer change for any browser built on top of it. Whether MS will go that route, I have no idea...

 

[bit_user]

Besides hijacking my hosts file and or dns there is no way to weaken this protection.

I never understood why they didn't serve the content from the same distribution network as the ads. That would defeat both your hosts file & DNS filtering.

 

[cknobman]

Try this, works better than an ad blocker and cannot be detected.
https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/

 

[Onus]

I have always thought of Chrome as malware, and don't see that changing. It's one thing to search for, and deliberately read, ads for specific products; I remember browsing newspaper ad circulars specifically to "see what's out there." It's something else to have ads foisted on me any time I go online.

 

[expunged]

just turn off updates from chrome and stay on an older version. this is what i will do if they move forward with this plan, or switch browsers.

 

[BulkZerker]

"Firefox it is!"

Or Brave.

 

[JamesSneed]

Google makes a browser that can't block ads ...

I'm surprised Google let Chrome block ads at all for this long.

"A fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind.


I've always used Firefox and Noscript, but even this was only a last line of defense.

Adguard DNS can block ads no matter which browser you use.
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html


A custom HOSTS file can also block ads no matter which browser you use.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm


When I teach Online Security classes I sadly use Toms Hardware to show the difference between a site with tons of ads (before any of the above protections) and a site with no ads (after the above protections) with a page load timer showing exactly how much time is saved with ads being removed.

I don't teach classes more just 1 on 1 but I do the same with Tomshardware. It's one of the worst sites for advertisements as they fully change the page layouts. The DNS approach is lovely especially if set at the router level as your entire "house" is add free even phones using the Wifi which has a nice effect on older phones by letting them render pages faster.

 

[bigdragon]

I will stop using Chrome if ad blocking goes away, period.

I want to support sites and content creators. However, I've had too many bad experiences of ads completely overtaking pages to the point where the content is buried away or the user experience is obnoxiously slow. Worse, I've had too many experiences where malware wants to sneak through some ad or simply getting your cursor or finger too close to the ad triggers it to load a new window. Advertisers and the sites that rely on them need to earn my respect before I consider turning off ad blocking. Taking away the ability to block ads will cause me to jump to another browser.

 

[SkyBill40]

I've used FF for the longest time as my default and haven't been anything but pleased. I have to use Chrome at work and I hate it. This seems like a cash grab to me on the part of Google (and soon to be MS). They want that ad revenue and will upset everyone to get it. Or, conversely, maybe they'll go back and re-think their motives seeing the resistance that is building against it. Time will tell but this change doesn't bode well for them.

 

[TJ Hooker]

just turn off updates from chrome and stay on an older version. this is what i will do if they move forward with this plan, or switch browsers.

Deliberately using out of date browsers is a pretty big security risk...

 

[canadianvice]

Anyway, the reason I haven't switched to FF and am so disappointed with the possibilities here is the omnibar. Having a loose flexible keyword site search straight from a single bar is a really powerful feature. Last I tried FF, it didn't have a good answer for that.

We'll see. If Chrome doesn't do the job well themselves (since ostensibly it's just an api switch that moves certain aspects of responsibility to the browser) then I will have to switch in any case, but otherwise I'd very strongly prefer to remain on Chrome.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Brave is affiliated w/ the Chinese, no?

Not that I know of. It's developed by Brave Browser Inc., which is based out of San Francisco and led by Brandon Eich (creator of Javascript and co-founder of Mozilla).

Maybe you're thinking of Opera? It's developed by a Norwegian company but that company is owned by some Chinese companies I think.

 

[ctchewy]

Isn't Brave based on Chromium as well? That would really mess up their whole reason for being.

 

[allenb54]

I realize that Google has far too much influence on my web usage. As a perhaps token effort to reduce Google's power. I use DuckDuckGo as my search provider. They don't record or track my searches. Even if subpoenaed, they can't provide your search history because they never captured it!

 

[TJ Hooker]

@ctchewy as I said above, I think developers should be able to modify chromium to remove this change. But it won't affect Brave either way, as this change only affects extensions and Brave's adblocking is implemented natively rather than through an extension.

 

[bit_user]

just turn off updates from chrome and stay on an older version. this is what i will do if they move forward with this plan, or switch browsers.

Just some of the problems you'll encounter:

■ No security fixes.
■ No bug fixes.
■ No support for new web standards.

And eventually, you'll upgrade or reinstall your PC. Then what?

Of all the workarounds discussed here, simply not updating Chrome is probably the worst.

 

[kyotokid]

..i used to use FF, however there were some issues that turned me away.

1. it would bloat in memory so badly I would get frequent "not responding" messages.
2. starting up Gmail in the morning would take about 5 to 10 minutes before I could access my inbox often received Not Responding" messages as well).
3. With every new update, my AV's browsing scan, as well as various plugins and add ons would often break.
4. the Advert blockers compatible with FF were just as much rubbish, as I kept getting adverts and pop ups even when blockers were turned on, or access to some sites was hamstrung often leaving me in basic HTML mode (which on sites like YouTube made them worthless).

The basic issue today is that sites have become savvy to advert blockers and found ways to either get around them or make your life miserable if you have one running. I hate adverts as much as anyone else. Most of the ones I see are for products and services I would never purchase.

 

[aambrozai]

I wouldn't mind small unobtrusive static (i.e. pictures, not videos/animations) ads. I just hate big ad videos, that start automatically, so you have to stop them, mute them etc. Also, lower end laptops/PCs really struggle when there a dozen video ads on a page, it takes ages for a page to load.

 

[aambrozai]

I wouldn't mind small unobtrusive static (i.e. pictures, not videos/animations) ads. I just hate big ad videos, that start automatically, so you have to stop them, mute them etc. Also, lower end laptops/PCs really struggle when there a dozen video ads on a page, it takes ages for a page to load.

 

[Injeun]

I use and value Google Chrome and search engine. But without uBO it's nearly impossible for me to tolerate using the internet. And if I can't use the internet, then of what value is Google anything to me?

 

[Injeun]

I use and value Google Chrome and search engine. But without uBO, the internet would be intolerable for me to use. And if I can't use the internet, then of what use would Google anything be to me? Then again, if killing uBO makes Google more money, then maybe my suffering would not be in vain. Because God knows Google needs more money.

 

[andrzej.wrotek]

Nobody forces people to use Google browser. There are alternatives.

 

[canadianvice]

How observant.

Have you considered that some people become fond of a product offering and are disappointed when it changes in a negative way?

I've been pushed out of whole markets, because while there are "alternatives", none of them were a good fit for me.