The headline is the perfect anti-Google HN-clickbait, and it is quite misleading. These people just run any ad-blocker, they mostly all block Google Analytics as a side-effect. The majority of those 58% probably don't care about GA specifically.

To be honest, I've used Brave for a long time and I didn't realize it blocked GA.

Well, for extra irony, I use the Steven Black /etc/hosts content to block on the order of 70,000 domain names, and plausible.io is in there. So I can't even read the article because I'm one of the people it describes.

Isn't the primary use-case for plausible that you can run the tracking entirely off of your own domain. Which means that blocking plausible.io doesn't really give you much.

it's just one of a list of about 68,800 hosts in the blocking data. nothing specifically intended to block plausible alone.

How do you install extension on mobile Chrome? The link shows button to install on Desktop.

> > This makes sense especially considering how difficult it is to install an adblocker on Chrome, the most popular browser on mobile devices.

> Nope, it is really easy: is just an extension https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-%E2%80%94-...

The key word here is mobile devices.

AFAIK, ad blocking in Chrome on my phone is difficult. But with Firefox, I can easily install uBlock Origin.

I use a PiHole on my phone occasionally to block ads in anything that isn't Firefox, but I found that the OpenVPN client is a significant battery drain (~7% per hour).

Wireguard may use less power, I've not noticed any loss of battery life when using it across multiple devices.

I'm trying the option to pause the VPN while the screen is off again. I had done it before, but found that it frequently didn't reconnect to the VPN when I powered back on.

It says it's difficult to install on mobile

I see where the disconnect was: the article had a subtitle of "68% of laptop and desktop users block Google Analytics"

Yet, their stated cause ("how difficult it is to install an adblocker on Chrome") refers to mobile users

A logic shift there - a bait and switch? Not sure if this is an error, or outright manipulation

This puts the entire article's credibility in question

Proof: in case they modify it like they did in HN's title

1. Title: https://ibb.co/Q87pDPr

2. Subtitle: https://ibb.co/nDshDCT

One sentence says that mobile users block GA less than desktop users. The following sentence states it makes sense since installing add-ons on most popular mobile browser is difficult. Context matters:

>At the device level, laptop and desktop users (68.2%) block Google Analytics more frequently than mobile and tablet users (49.9%).

>This makes sense especially considering how difficult it is to install an adblocker on Chrome, the most popular browser on mobile devices.

Thank you for the explanation.

My bad, but the original premise still stands

No it doesn't.

Care to elaborate? Not sure why the HN title changed