Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Google did NOT backtrack on ANYTHING. From the new thread:

> Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API.

"We are still narrowing down proposed changes" means they still plan on removing the part of webRequest that everyone cares about, the feature that lets it block requests.

There was an initial thread about these changes: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom.... Lots of people made great comments about why the proposed change was a bad idea. What did Google do? Ignore the thread and post another about how they are "iterating" on Manifest V3. Google's strategy is clear: wait for the outrage to subside, keep making new threads to divert discussion if you have to, then go ahead and make the changes you were planning on anyway.

Keep in mind that their story about performance has been shown to be a complete lie. There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this. This is about removing sophisticated ad blockers in order to defend Google's revenue stream, plain and simple.

> There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this

Citation needed. My personal experiments show that blocking webrequest has more latency than the network connection!

Did you read the article? That's what it's about. I'm actually really surprised you posted this, the whole article is about Cliqz doing a performance test and finding that the claims about ad blockers hurting performance were not true.

I think it was sarcasm.

Yeah I'm not good at detecting that, especially not online where people say all sorts of weird things :)

My own personal experiments show that even with huge rule lists, the latency incurred on the connection is barely above the noise and improves loading times on most websites by mulitple magnitudes more than it could increase latency.

Well quite frankly, I dont care what google does. I am doing if old school since forever, squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers, but is completly out of control of browser and ad blockers or OS vendor. Anyway there is firefox too, while for chrome, as everything from google, I can only say - I told you so (10 years back).

Btw, it is quite interesting, that over all those "we were right" years, people are still trying to confort themself about how great their favorite brand is, we have a saying that even donkey walks on ice only once.

> squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers

I use Pi-Hole, but I also use uBlock Origin since Pi-Hole cannot block ads that require more advanced heuristics to block, like YT ads for example.

To do a mitm with squid you have to setup a trusted root cert on all of your machines right?

Only if you want to MITM SSL connections. If you just want to do HTTP, you don't need a certificate.

I can't imagine Ads are served up primarily via HTTP, especially with the push to HTTPS everywhere.

Do you know of a good guide for setting up a squid proxy in this way?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact