Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

Posted by timothy on from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.

MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."

6 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Not entirely random by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple is closely involved with Webkit (it's the backend Safari uses), and this feature that made better ad-blocking possible was contributed by Apple. So it's not entirely random.

    1. Re:Not entirely random by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple is not just closely involved with Webkit. They wrote it. Apple created a fork of KHTML and KJS and Webkit was born from that. In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.

  2. Re:Meta: this story is under Apple? Why? by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its meta-commented Apple because of the last part of the summery:

    one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs Chrome just got a bit more exciting.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  3. Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has by Zarel · · Score: 4, Informative

    It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads.

    It looks like the resource blocking not working in some cases is an accepted bug, and thus will be fixed soon.

    And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.

    Chrome has that built-in. Go to "Preferences" -> "Under the Hood" -> "Content Settings" -> "JavaScript" -> "Block all". You can also manage per-site blocking from that screen. On websites that use JavaScript, a "JavaScript blocked" icon will appear in the toolbar, and you can click on it and click "Allow JavaScript on this site".

    --
    Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
  4. Re:Uh, not really by xororand · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few reasons for Firefox:

    - NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
    - CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
    - RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
    - Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
    - FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
    - Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
    - Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

    Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

  5. Chrome does NOT have NoScript by warrax_666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.

    Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)

    --
    HAND.