• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe the filter rules required specifically for YouTube don’t work with those rule formats, I don’t know!

    That’s all you need to read from the article. The author doesn’t know how ad blockers work (which is fine, I’m also no expert) and completely ignores the ad blockers developers expertise (which is not fine).

    • beefcat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      this is what i really don’t get about people defending google’s actions here. what incentive do uBlock Origin developers have to lie about the impact google’s changes to chrome will have on the capabilities of their extension?

      google and ad blocker developers are the only two real subject matter experts here. the former has ample financial incentive to not be completely honest in their claims here, so the benefit of the doubt naturally belongs to the latter.

    • corbin@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no expertise in that interview, that’s the problem. It’s the Ghostery dev making vague statements that Engadget partially misinterprets and then everyone else gets wrong. The main insight there is that content blockers need their lists updated on a daily basis for YT which is not new information.

    • scrchngwsl@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, surely you have to find out first, before writing an article titled “Tech news doesn’t understand ad blockers or Chrome extensions”? This appears to be the crux of the article, and yet the author isn’t worried about finding out? Weird.