Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjulius | Hacker News Reader

... which means that UBO will be disabled.

If A=B and B=C, then yadda yadda.

Sure, but in the context of a headline/submission title, "Google confirms they will disable uBlock Origin" strongly implies that Google mentioned uBO by name, which they did not. The news articles that the Reddit post links to have more general headlines for that reason.

Plus, for me at least, there are plenty of other extensions I'd like to continue using, not just uBO :(

There is zero chance that Google as an organization are unaware of uBO and of how their changes will affect uBO.

There’s a significant difference between:

- Google blocks uBlock Origin

- Google EOLs manifest v2 extensions

So whether a consequence of #2 is #1 doesn’t change the fact that #1 and #2 as headlines mean different things and imply very different ideas around the scope and intention of the action.

Yes, but the title of the Reddit thread is the title used here, so that complicates the situation. The title is accurate and not editorialized in that context.

People are talking about it because of the effects on uBlock origin. Nobody at large cares that Google is finally pulling the plug on v2 extensions.

> The title is accurate and not editorialized in that context.

So long as you treat the Reddit thread as a primary source which in this case it's clearly not.

While we avoid low quality re-print/syndication, it is normal to submit and discuss secondary commentary on HN. Think of all the “X did Y, here is why it matters” style blog posts.

I think that is some lousy excuse for lying

Sure, but surely you agree there's a difference in implication, right?

Like, if a headline says "McDonald's Announces It Will Stop Serving McNuggets to Donald Trump", and the story was actually that McDonald's was discontinuing McNuggets altogether (and therefore also to Trump), would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?

> would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?

The latter because McDonalds managers have been publicly discussing how and why they should stop serving nuggets to Trump in order to better protect their customers

That's not true in reality or in your weird twisting of the metaphor. When has Google ever mentioned uBlock specifically?

How dare you tease us with that pornographic hypothetical?

Not the best analogy as we all know that the rationale behind the change is to cripple ad blockers.

If most people thinks that McDonald's actual motive is to starve Trump, then it would be fair to post a headline like that too.

If McDonalds sees a certain politician walking toward their register eyeing the picture of nuggets on the overhead screen, and they frantically rush to slap “sold out indefinitely” there… well, then I’ll think they had an agenda.

Chrome wants to get ad revenue on YouTube, but those ads are blocked. Now, it after many years finally decides Manifest v2 has to go? Suspicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com