5 ms·

Wait, has anyone had any illusion that google wanted to continue to allow developers to make good content filtering? They are in a full-blown war against adbloc

Wait, has anyone had any illusion that google wanted to continue to allow developers to make good content filtering? They are in a full-blown war against adblocking.

tmpz22 2y ago
Devil's advocate: the main objective was to limit full read access required by many extensions and naively installed by most users. There was no way to facilitate traditional content blocking AND achieve that objective.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Devil's advocate Why do people use this phrase? Do you believe what you said in your comment? If so, why not accept attribution to yourself? If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
  - vosper 2y ago
    > Why do people use this phrase? Google are being depicted as the bad guys (devil) in the original comment, and the person you're replying to was advocating for Google's stated position of trying to improve user security. They were being an advocate for the devil. Is this not pretty much a perfect use of the saying? > why not accept attribution to yourself? Because this is Google's claim, being repeated here by their advocate. > If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil". The counterargument was the very first comment saying that the changes are really about adblocking. Google's statement on Manifest V3: > Manifest V3 aims to be the first step in our platform vision to improve the privacy, security, and performance of extensions. Along with the platform changes, we are working to give users more understanding and control over what extensions are capable of. The changes will take several years to complete.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      No, there's a big difference between (1) "Devil's advocate: X" and (2) "Google said X". If someone just means (2), that's unexceptional, but the use of the phrase "Devil's advocate" in that case is unnecessary, misleading, and weird.
  - curtisblaine 2y ago
    Devil's advocate was a way for the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint by providing a contrarian point of view about his life (everybody possibly loved the guy who was about to be canonized, after all he was a saint-to-be, but it was the Church's responsibility to provide an objective judgement on him). Today it's synonym with providing an explanation of the facts which goes against public sentiment, for sake of completeness. In this case, it means "I don't know what is the truth, but Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this: ...", which seems a perfectly reasonable and informative comment to me.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > for sake of completeness Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs? > Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this That's actually a claim, which is disputable. Unless it's simply reporting what Google has said publicly, which as I noted in another comment would be much better phrased as "Google said X" rather than "Devil's advocate: X". As you noted, the Catholic Church origin of the phrase carries the implication of insincerity behind it, which is one reason I find the use of the phrase in other contexts to be objectionable.
      - curtisblaine 2y ago
        Why insincerity? Doing the devil's advocate is all about painful sincerity: we'd all love to proclaim a new saint but we have to nitpick his life adversarially first, to be really sure. In this case, we all love to say "Google bad", but there's an alternative explanation to explore first.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > we all love to say "Google bad" No, we don't love to say it for no reason. Google has demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they are in fact bad and have made a mockery of their previous motto "Don't be evil".
        2y ago
  - freedomben 2y ago
    I use that phrase on occasion but speak only for myself. To me it's a way of steel-manning the other side. If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. I like this a lot because it makes for much deeper and more interesting conversations with someone who already shares the same opinion as me. If we just sit around agreeing then IMHO the conversation is dull. Using the phrase "Devil's advocate" is a way of communicating that this is not my personal opinion, but rather my attempt to argue/articulate "the other side." Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil - we think him the opposite of good/true/etc, so presenting "his" argument attributed to him implies well that meaning. Most people do seem to think as you though, that it's really my hidden opinion that I'm afraid to embrace. This especially becomes evident on HN and Reddit because so many people are always suspecting and looking for some hidden agenda in everything. For that reason I'd love to find a better phrase, but I don't know of one. Do you have any ideas?
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. Ok, but why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I think it's weird, and also somewhat hostile, to insincerely present an argument that's not your own and then implicitly place the burden of proof on everyone else to refute it. Not to mention, there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions. > Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil Metaphorically speaking, current events prove this to be quite false.
      - freedomben 2y ago
  - caminante 2y ago
    Summarizing your exchanges below, you can't seem to make up your mind why you can't accept the meaning of the idiom or how you'd re-define it. Take these two statements, which prove inconsistent: > why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? > Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs?
    - lapcat 2y ago
      Those aren't inconsistent at all. My point was that there's no inherent value in simply stating and defending one of many possible, hypothetical claims. On the other hand, there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong.
      - caminante 2y ago
        > there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong. You're making my point re: your intrinsic dissatisfaction with a commonly accepted meaning for "devil's advocate." You're prescribing that people have to not only present counter-arguments, but also disprove the counter-arguments. This is overly critical. They may not have the color, and further, there's no contract for someone to do this.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > there's no contract for someone to do this. There's no contract to be a Devil's advocate. It used to be a specific job assigned by the Catholic Church during the canonization process, but it wasn't something that random people would volunteer to do. To me, it's very suspicious that so many people on social media positively relish the role that was once considered a somewhat distasteful but "necessary evil", as it were. Some people are paid to do PR for Google. The corporation doesn't need unpaid volunteers. If you sincerely agree with Google, then so be it, but that's not a Devil's advocate.
- ghostwords 2y ago
  Google can keep talking about user safety all they want but their talk is hollow because: (A) Chrome Web Store is full of malicious extensions. Google doesn't appear interested in consistently enforcing their own policies. (B) Requiring DNR does nothing about all the other avenues for stealing user data. The fundamental problem is that a totally safe set of extension APIs is a totally limited set of extension APIs. No real innovation or differentiation is possible.
- dangus 2y ago
  Then why is Apple able to do it so easily with a content blocking API?
  - Spivak 2y ago
    They didn't, iOS ad blockers have the same limitations the new APIs in Chrome have. They're fine. Apple's limitation on list size but no limit on number of lists is funny because every ad-blocker is forced to have you toggle on 5-10 different lists. These days I prefer Orion on iOS with uBlock Origin than Safari with Apple's ad blockers.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      I haven’t had to toggle anything with Wipr on iOS and macOS.
      - sgentle 2y ago
        Here's Wipr's instructions for toggling on its blocklists: https://kaylees.site/wipr-faq.html#wipr-has-no-effect-after-updating-to-ios-17 https://kaylees.site/wipr-faq.html#wipr-has-no-effect-after-...
- grayhatter 2y ago
  I find it very telling that the strongest argument is just parroting the PR line of > Wont somebody think of the children?!
  - hulitu 2y ago
    They are always thinking about the children. Their (children's) data is very valuable. Plus today's children won't know, that a world without ads, can exist.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Sounds like the problem was manufactured to create those very conditions.
- rurp 2y ago
  We're talking about the biggest ad company in the world deliberately making it much harder for users to block ads. I think their primary goal is to show people more ads, and anything to do with safety is a nice to have and/or pretext.

Wait, has anyone had any illusion that google wanted to continue to allow developers to make good content filtering? They are in a full-blown war against adblocking.

tmpz22 2y ago

Devil's advocate: the main objective was to limit full read access required by many extensions and naively installed by most users. There was no way to facilitate traditional content blocking AND achieve that objective.

lapcat 2y ago
> Devil's advocate Why do people use this phrase? Do you believe what you said in your comment? If so, why not accept attribution to yourself? If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
- vosper 2y ago
  > Why do people use this phrase? Google are being depicted as the bad guys (devil) in the original comment, and the person you're replying to was advocating for Google's stated position of trying to improve user security. They were being an advocate for the devil. Is this not pretty much a perfect use of the saying? > why not accept attribution to yourself? Because this is Google's claim, being repeated here by their advocate. > If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil". The counterargument was the very first comment saying that the changes are really about adblocking. Google's statement on Manifest V3: > Manifest V3 aims to be the first step in our platform vision to improve the privacy, security, and performance of extensions. Along with the platform changes, we are working to give users more understanding and control over what extensions are capable of. The changes will take several years to complete.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    No, there's a big difference between (1) "Devil's advocate: X" and (2) "Google said X". If someone just means (2), that's unexceptional, but the use of the phrase "Devil's advocate" in that case is unnecessary, misleading, and weird.
- curtisblaine 2y ago
  Devil's advocate was a way for the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint by providing a contrarian point of view about his life (everybody possibly loved the guy who was about to be canonized, after all he was a saint-to-be, but it was the Church's responsibility to provide an objective judgement on him). Today it's synonym with providing an explanation of the facts which goes against public sentiment, for sake of completeness. In this case, it means "I don't know what is the truth, but Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this: ...", which seems a perfectly reasonable and informative comment to me.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > for sake of completeness Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs? > Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this That's actually a claim, which is disputable. Unless it's simply reporting what Google has said publicly, which as I noted in another comment would be much better phrased as "Google said X" rather than "Devil's advocate: X". As you noted, the Catholic Church origin of the phrase carries the implication of insincerity behind it, which is one reason I find the use of the phrase in other contexts to be objectionable.
    - curtisblaine 2y ago
      Why insincerity? Doing the devil's advocate is all about painful sincerity: we'd all love to proclaim a new saint but we have to nitpick his life adversarially first, to be really sure. In this case, we all love to say "Google bad", but there's an alternative explanation to explore first.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > we all love to say "Google bad" No, we don't love to say it for no reason. Google has demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they are in fact bad and have made a mockery of their previous motto "Don't be evil".
        2y ago
- freedomben 2y ago
  I use that phrase on occasion but speak only for myself. To me it's a way of steel-manning the other side. If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. I like this a lot because it makes for much deeper and more interesting conversations with someone who already shares the same opinion as me. If we just sit around agreeing then IMHO the conversation is dull. Using the phrase "Devil's advocate" is a way of communicating that this is not my personal opinion, but rather my attempt to argue/articulate "the other side." Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil - we think him the opposite of good/true/etc, so presenting "his" argument attributed to him implies well that meaning. Most people do seem to think as you though, that it's really my hidden opinion that I'm afraid to embrace. This especially becomes evident on HN and Reddit because so many people are always suspecting and looking for some hidden agenda in everything. For that reason I'd love to find a better phrase, but I don't know of one. Do you have any ideas?
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. Ok, but why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I think it's weird, and also somewhat hostile, to insincerely present an argument that's not your own and then implicitly place the burden of proof on everyone else to refute it. Not to mention, there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions. > Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil Metaphorically speaking, current events prove this to be quite false.
    - freedomben 2y ago
- caminante 2y ago
  Summarizing your exchanges below, you can't seem to make up your mind why you can't accept the meaning of the idiom or how you'd re-define it. Take these two statements, which prove inconsistent: > why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? > Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs?
  - lapcat 2y ago
    Those aren't inconsistent at all. My point was that there's no inherent value in simply stating and defending one of many possible, hypothetical claims. On the other hand, there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong.
    - caminante 2y ago
      > there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong. You're making my point re: your intrinsic dissatisfaction with a commonly accepted meaning for "devil's advocate." You're prescribing that people have to not only present counter-arguments, but also disprove the counter-arguments. This is overly critical. They may not have the color, and further, there's no contract for someone to do this.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > there's no contract for someone to do this. There's no contract to be a Devil's advocate. It used to be a specific job assigned by the Catholic Church during the canonization process, but it wasn't something that random people would volunteer to do. To me, it's very suspicious that so many people on social media positively relish the role that was once considered a somewhat distasteful but "necessary evil", as it were. Some people are paid to do PR for Google. The corporation doesn't need unpaid volunteers. If you sincerely agree with Google, then so be it, but that's not a Devil's advocate.
ghostwords 2y ago
Google can keep talking about user safety all they want but their talk is hollow because: (A) Chrome Web Store is full of malicious extensions. Google doesn't appear interested in consistently enforcing their own policies. (B) Requiring DNR does nothing about all the other avenues for stealing user data. The fundamental problem is that a totally safe set of extension APIs is a totally limited set of extension APIs. No real innovation or differentiation is possible.
dangus 2y ago
Then why is Apple able to do it so easily with a content blocking API?
- Spivak 2y ago
  They didn't, iOS ad blockers have the same limitations the new APIs in Chrome have. They're fine. Apple's limitation on list size but no limit on number of lists is funny because every ad-blocker is forced to have you toggle on 5-10 different lists. These days I prefer Orion on iOS with uBlock Origin than Safari with Apple's ad blockers.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I haven’t had to toggle anything with Wipr on iOS and macOS.
    - sgentle 2y ago
      Here's Wipr's instructions for toggling on its blocklists: https://kaylees.site/wipr-faq.html#wipr-has-no-effect-after-updating-to-ios-17 https://kaylees.site/wipr-faq.html#wipr-has-no-effect-after-...
grayhatter 2y ago
I find it very telling that the strongest argument is just parroting the PR line of > Wont somebody think of the children?!
- hulitu 2y ago
  They are always thinking about the children. Their (children's) data is very valuable. Plus today's children won't know, that a world without ads, can exist.
trinsic2 2y ago
Sounds like the problem was manufactured to create those very conditions.
rurp 2y ago
We're talking about the biggest ad company in the world deliberately making it much harder for users to block ads. I think their primary goal is to show people more ads, and anything to do with safety is a nice to have and/or pretext.