• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    I’m not worried about this at all. I don’t use Chrome anyways. I use Brave. It has a built-in ad blocker that works pretty well and I don’t see that going away.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    831 year ago

    The modern Internet is completely unusable without an ad blocker. Way to remake ie6, Google!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    231 year ago

    Gee, what a shame. Good think I switched to FireFox. Hey, does anyone know how to make chat work on FireFox?

    • Praise Idleness
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      80% of the websites saying we only support Chromium can be used without any problem by chaning Useragent header

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          it’s better to avoid using it and report web compatibility problems

          It would be if sites were truly incompatible, but developers know Chrome/Chromium dominates the market and instead of bothering checking compatibility with firefox, they just preemptively block Firefox since that’s an easier “fix”.

          That’s assuming the vendor isn’t Google and doesn’t have a vested interest in Chrome hegemony.

          Still. Finding a site that doesn’t work and reporting it absolutely is the way to go.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    27
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What I’m scared is publishers taking this as a reason to simply start banning Firefox and other browsers.

  • Hal-5700X
    link
    fedilink
    English
    90
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, we saw this coming. When Manifest v3 first talked about.

    Google an ad company are killing ad blockers. Yeah, that sounds right.

    • partial_accumen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Google an ad company are killing ab blockers Chrome browsers. Yeah, that sounds right.

      FTFY

      • DivineDev
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        I wish, but I don’t see it happening. Most people are just content with seeing ads absolutely everywhere, I just don’t get it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there. But the fucking obnoxious mid page ads, auto playing videos, scam link shit can go die in a hole.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s things like this that keep me using an ad blocker. I was researching when sunflowers develop their seeds, for crying out loud. Screenshot of a plug-in which has blocked ”127 ads" on this page Edit: this was on Opera. It’s… fine.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            I used to not mind them, now I do. They over did it and I can’t go back. I will block ads untill I can’t and then I’ll probably climb a clock tower with an Uzi.

            I won’t really climb a clock tower with an Uzi.

          • partial_accumen
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there.

            Since those are semi-regularly vectors for malware now, even those are not safe to allow.

    • John Richard
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      MV3 doesn’t kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.

      Some of these “features” that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.

        Then allow a savvy user to choose to keep MV2 mode via an opt-in control instead of depreciating years of hard work by non-malicious extension authors. uBlock Origin is, in fact, the ONLY browser extension I use in Chrome, as Firefox is my main browser.

        • John Richard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I agree they should have tried to find more ways to keep the old behavior. MV3 rollout has already been delayed for a long time, and now users merely get a message. I’m not sure that the community (mostly Google contributors) won’t give in or try to find a way to keep MV2. However, what was done with MV2 can now be done with MV3 with native messaging or other network tools… I think the concern is that allowing an exception makes it much easier for a malicious extension or software to get users to agree not realizing what they’re agreeing to. Furthermore, the declarative approach is actually preferable by many. You get most of the same features without exposing all your traffic to an extension.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        From my understanding, MV3 kills vital features of ad-blockers in that

        1. Some filtering rules do rely on the ability to read the content of the webpage, which can’t be migrated, per the FAQ linked in the article
        2. The declarative API means an update to the rules requires an update to the plugin itself, which might get delayed by the reviewing process, causing the blocker to lag behind the tracker. It might not be able to recover as quickly as uBO in the recent YouTube catch-up round.
        • John Richard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago
          1. uBOL GitHub does a pretty good job of explaining some challenges, and some of them are better tracked in the issues.

          2. Your second point isn’t accurate though and MV3 does support dynamic rules.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        And yet the likelihood of Google publishing a malicious extension is quite low. Not sure why you’re so adamant about defending their shitty anti-adblock actions, making excuses for a mega corporation.

        • John Richard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, Arch Linux, NixOS, Flathub, etc. all end up publishing malicious software in their stores and package managers. It is inevitable. If you’re not worried about sandboxing then you might as well proxy all your traffic using third party software.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        . Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging.

        Some? Or all?

        uBlockOrigin would still loose some of its features and capabilities nonetheless, even if a sub-set of them could be implemented in other ways. Not?

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2341 year ago

    meanwhile firefox lists it as recommended and also lets you use it on firefox mobile.

    • LostXOR
      link
      fedilink
      541 year ago

      Almost as if a browser company that’s not also an advertising company has no reason to fight ad blockers.

        • katy ✨
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          i mean they bought a privacy preserving ad company to offer an alternative for companies to google, which is what they should be doing.

          because like it or not people depend on ads for their sites.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          You can always fork firefox. People used to use website not requiring javascript at all and it worked well. Some people still use even w3m f.e. when graphics card driver goes bad after update and they need to watch some docs on the internet. Most current browser have most features you would ever need

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Forking is indeed the way forward when Mozilla loses its way a little more. For myself, I switched to Librewolf about 6 months ago, along with replacing Thunderbird with Betterbird after using it since the Phoenix days.

            I cannot remember what prompted the move to Librewolf, it may have been the AI stuff they were pushing at the time, or possibly the update that forced the tabs into my titlebar without having to go into about:config to fix it. Or the fact that Firefox was constantly pushing me to sign up for an account. There were quite a few gripes that added up over time lol

            Betterbird restored some removed things I liked pre-supernova as well as a native systray icon under Linux and that was enough motivation to make the switch.

            It is time for a new browser to enter the market. Either Ladybird or something built with Servo seems likely.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        Same. Firefox Mobile had been a laggy mess when I used it a few years ago, but a combination of some really aggressive advertising and the announcement of manifest v3 caused me to give it another shot about a year ago. It’s a dramatic improvement in phone browsing.

  • peopleproblems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Now what would be impressive is if they ban uBlock origin from working on firefox mobile. That would be a whole new kind of sinister

  • ronalicious
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    I only use chrome for things that require my Google account.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    241 year ago

    I use Firefox but when I watch twitch or wherever, I need Google chrome’s live caption to see what streamers say.

    Firefox please get this feature asap. So I can delete Google chrome for good.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    I honestly can’t wait to see how this plays out. Only Chrome, chromium and edge in their pure forms have dedicated to doing this. Most of the Chrome forks have said they’re going to fork and keep it running. It’s certainly going to give Firefox a shot in the arm, but there’s no lack of other competition either.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year ago

    I use chromium for one thing, and it’s casting live sports to my Chromecast. My plans to implement a HTPC have just been expedited.