uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.
At this point, using Firefox and an ad blocker does more for the climate than paper straws or recycling.
Even with ad blocking, half of consumer internet traffic is ads. Google is contributing to increasing this ratio, where most traffic on the internet will be stuff the client did not request, contributing more to climate change than Bitcoin - not that this makes crypto look better, they are just a useful milestone to compare to with the press they get.
And this doesn’t include the idiotic AI shit they do.
Block Chrome and use anything not Chrome based. In other words use Firefox.
Google was declared a monopoly. Next step: Let the monopoly keep doing the monopoly stuff.
The judge has yet to rule on how this should be addressed. Even after he makes a decision on that, there will be appeals. So long as the orange shitbag isn’t reelected, things look better for the industry than they have in a long time: at least something is finally happening.
deleted by creator
Looks like I’m going to use my work laptop browser a lot less.
Yet another reason to use Brave, which has better native ad block than any of the other browsers.
Meh, Brave is still Chroium. Even if they continue to support manifest v2, even today the are selling „good“ ads to the users. That and the Crypto bullshit they tried a while ago makes them untrustworthy in my eyes.
Firefox is the only real alternative.
Brave is still Chroium
And yet, it does a better job blocking YouTube ads than Firefox, without any add-ons.
Crypto, Ads
Those features are opt-in.
You mean by building the add-on directly into the browser? No thanks. I like my browser dev to work on my browser and my ad-block dev to work on my ad-block. They are both good at what they do on their own, I don’t need them to mix.
Those features are opt-in.
They are now. They were opt-out to begin with. This is one of those “fool me twice” situations. That, and the founder of Brave is also an outspoken homophobe. He financially backed Prop 8 in California to overturn same-sex marriage, and left Firefox because it was too woke. I seriously would rather Chrome at that point. They’re just regular levels of corporate evil, not “every person who uses my browser is proving my identity politics” level of evil.
They are now.
That’s what I don’t get with the Anti-Brave crowd. Brave learns their users don’t like a feature and then they do better. This would, to me, be indicative of the way things should proceed.
Meanwhile Firefox is moving backwards.
By all means, use a browser that doesn’t work as well, but maybe don’t run a circle jerk of trolls whenever someone offers a better-working alternative.
Personally, I think I should be able to expect a company to understand their target demographic well enough to know that those “features” wouldn’t be well received. But I also personally don’t consider ads and crypto garbage to be features. I guess if you do, then it’s the perfect browser for you. However, I don’t really want to contribute to Google’s monopolisation of browser engine development anymore. Nor do I want to use a browser developed by a homophobe. So even if Brave may be slightly “better-working” I would not consider it better at all.
As well, even though I’m a Blahaj member, I’m going to take the time to point out the “Bee Nice” rule of the instance we’re currently on. It feels like you’re skirting dangerously close to violating that, considering you implied I’m a troll for calling out the prejudicial politics of the founder of a piece of software, which you didn’t at all address in your comment. I’m going to attach some resources about it here, if you care to read them at all:
- https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-gave-1000-to-support-californias-gay-marriage-ban/
- https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/
- https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-eich-step-down/
- https://tim.dreamwidth.org/1844711.html
- https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/killing-the-messenger-at-mozilla
- https://tim.dreamwidth.org/1852118.html
- https://community.brave.com/t/brave-needs-to-address-brendan-eich/281044
(Some of these are older, about the push for him to step down as Mozilla CEO, some are newer and urging him to leave Brave, or for people to boycott it.)
The ad company blocking an ad blocker is totally about security
- Google stans
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.
That seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 20,000? Or 300,000? What the hell is this limit even for? Even malware can still target 10 domains and do some significant damage. So, what the hell is the point?
Remember, politicians don’t pass racist laws by directly saying they are excluding PoC into the law. They do it by targeting commonalities that happen to apply to PoC.
Google isn’t going to flat-out say they are blocking uBlock Origin. They are going to do it by implementing “security features” that just so happen to target only uBlock Origin.
deleted by creator
“For the security” is starting to sound a lot like “for the children”. I hope this works out better than secure boot. When these new ideas emerge that have, let’s call them, “side effects” like disabling ad-blockers or preventing Linux from being installed I am suspicious.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
