Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's wrong.

V3 doesn't allow network calls to be modified, for privacy reasons. It still allows them to be blocked, which is how the adblocking works in the first place.

Contrary to what you say, v3 does block the tracking in the ad request as well as the bandwidth.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...



It only allows them to be blocked with static rulesets. And these rulesets have a maximum size of 50. There's no way this is large enough to cover all your websites. It's also trivial for an anti-adblock script to try a few different urls until it finds one that isn't in your static ruleset

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...


The maximum number of rule sets is 50, not rules, as your own link clearly and unambiguously states.

The actual minimum (not maximum) number of supported rules is 30,000:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

In reality, Chrome supports over 10x that. And UBOL doesn't even use/need the minimum, sticking to around 17,000.

So that's plenty to cover all your websites. Which is why UBOL works perfectly fine in practice.


In my uBO (not uBOL) setup, I have about 1.7M rules active.


Person who resembles 0.000001% of the internet userbase complains on hacker news.

More news at 7.



I'm not well versed into adblocking, but shouldn't the extension also get access to the content of the request as well, to be able to either improve it's blocking accuracy (e.g. detect if the whitelisted content matches blocked content patterns) or decide to hide a resource after it was fetched ?




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

Search: