[HN Gopher] Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: I just updated my wife's Chrome, and uBlock is no longer
supported
It seems the day has arrived. Merry Christmas from the folks at
Google, I guess.
Author : christophilus
Score : 181 points
Date : 2024-12-25 02:49 UTC (20 hours ago)
| randomcatuser wrote:
| yeah same... but then i got an ad for Pie, which i guess works to
| block youtube ads
| gnabgib wrote:
| Discussion (119 points, 79 days ago, 62 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178
| peutetre wrote:
| Friends don't let friends use Chrome. Use Firefox. uBlock Origin
| works best with Firefox:
|
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
| ornornor wrote:
| Unfortunately Firefox is slower than chromium and the devtools
| are worse. I used Firefox for years because I hate google. I
| eventually gave up, that's how bad ff is.
| Zardoz84 wrote:
| I think that Firefox dev tools are better
| Alex-Programs wrote:
| Yeah, I'm used to the Firefox ones and whenever I use the
| chrome ones they seem fine, worse in some ways but better
| in others (device emulation) while being a little
| unfamiliar.
|
| The webextension dev tools are better too, imo.
| ramon156 wrote:
| My average friend doesn't care about devtools, only if they
| can watch YouTube in silence
| winrid wrote:
| FF actually uses hardware acceleration on my machine and
| chrome won't for some reason, so FF is actually faster for
| some!
| bartvk wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get all this fuss. I mean, if you block ads then
| do you think Chrome will also stop reporting to the mothership?
| Of course not. Use Firefox and simple be done with all this
| hoohah.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _I mean, if you block ads then do you think Chrome will
| also stop reporting to the mothership?_
|
| I'm mostly interested in improving my browsing experience.
| Viewing the web without an adblocker is a nightmare, it makes
| some websites nigh-unusable.
|
| The privacy issue _is_ an issue, but it 's not one that
| actively prevents me from reading things online.
| harrisi wrote:
| > The privacy issue is an issue, but it's not one that
| actively prevents me from reading things online.
|
| Yet.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Blocking malvertisements is a matter of _safety_ , I
| personally find the privacy aspect secondary to that.
| not_your_vase wrote:
| That definitely shows why Google isn't abusing its monopoly
| powers, and why it shouldn't be broken up.
| syvanen wrote:
| It's so weird to observe how Alphabet doesn't seem to even try
| to keep its parts separated.
|
| Amazon at least tries keeps its companies separated from each
| other. AWS account teams doesn't know what Amazon teams do and
| vice versa.
|
| While Google Cloud account team constantly gets involved with
| Workspaces, Ads and Google Play related stuff.
|
| If I remember right just few years ago Google was told to stop
| giving cheaper prices on Google Cloud based on customers Ads
| and Google Play revenue.
| jsnell wrote:
| > While Google Cloud account team constantly gets involved
| with Workspaces, Ads and Google Play related stuff.
|
| Not sure what you mean. Do you have a couple of concrete
| examples of that?
|
| > If I remember right just few years ago Google was told to
| stop giving cheaper prices on Google Cloud based on customers
| Ads and Google Play revenue.
|
| This one you've definitely just made up.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| I see offers (or "ads") for Google Ads inside of the Google
| Cloud Platform Dashboard all the time.
| syvanen wrote:
| > This one you've definitely just made up.
|
| It was called "Project Hug". Based on the different sources
| it contained credits for all the google offerings such as
| Ads, Youtube and Google Cloud in exchange for keeping apps
| on the Google Play platform.
|
| Different repots on this:
| https://www.gamesindustry.biz/google-reportedly-paid-
| activis... https://gizmodo.com/google-denies-its-project-
| hug-bribed-20-... https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-
| google-trial-antitr...
| pjmlp wrote:
| Everyone that is shipping Electron garbage, and has focused on
| Chrome as The Best Experience, is to blame.
| talldayo wrote:
| Situation: People are getting fat from choosing to eat too
| much bacon
|
| "Pitiful, though with a thankfully straightforward cure. We
| arrest all pig farmers, meat packers and delivery drivers
| while inspecting all refrigerated cargo at checkpoints. We
| shall demolish any restaurant serving pork, blame each person
| who has ever eaten a slice regardless of their health, and
| demonize every salty and fatty food."
|
| "Yes, my stance is drastic. But once we remove the _burden_
| of choice from our citizens, they will be empowered to make
| new, more valuable decisions with their life. Bacon will
| never be a problem again. "
|
| New situation: People have quit bacon and started smoking
| cigarettes
| pjmlp wrote:
| In fact, governments do step in to fix behaviours when
| their citizens go overboard.
| Spivak wrote:
| I don't ship any Electron app at $dayjob so while I could
| afford to sit on a high horse I don't think it's warranted.
| Electron really isn't an issue, it doesn't really help
| Chrome's position as a browser in any meaningful way. It
| doesn't drive people to use the Chrome "chrome" which is
| where the money is.
|
| It's why despite Edge being built on Chrome they're pushing
| it _hard_ because owning the space around the browser window
| is the goal.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Anything that pushes chrome helps Chrome gain market share.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| You dropped this:
|
| /s
| Krustopolis wrote:
| Happened to me a couple of days ago. I installed Ublock Lite and
| it seems "good enough".
| bn-l wrote:
| It doesn't do content blocking unfortunately.
| quenix wrote:
| What do you mean?
| thebytefairy wrote:
| For the vast majority of users Lite does the job just fine.
| Flimm wrote:
| Reminder: uBlock and uBlock Origin are different extensions from
| different developers.
| tech234a wrote:
| The removal can be bypassed until June 2025:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1/manif...
| peutetre wrote:
| Bypass Chrome altogether. Use Firefox.
| infotainment wrote:
| If only Mozilla (the parent organization) wasn't horrible.
|
| Can't a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| What's so horrible about it? I don't like how they're
| pampering to the ad industry now but other than that I
| think they're pretty decent.
| 6510 wrote:
| If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards
| your project. If you spend it on beer or buy Jacuzzi I'm
| happy too. If you chose to spend it on other projects ill
| be excited to learn what they are.
|
| https://future.mozilla.org/projects/
|
| Do you use any of that? Is there anything there I should
| be using? (honest question) It seems premature to donate
| to things I don't know.
|
| > Solo helps entrepreneurs expand their web presence with
| a suite of AI-backed tools for building websites,
| optimizing for SEO, and showcasing your best work.
|
| > Solo will instantly create a beautiful website so you
| can grow your business.
|
| > Improve brand visibility: SEO keywords are
| automatically added to help drive search traffic. View
| statistics by connecting a Google Analytics account.
|
| I'm very biased no doubt, it reads like I donate to
| progress the commercial web, more canned template
| websites, product SEO and to promote the use of google
| analytics. I'm sure it is awesome to some people, to me
| it is the opposite, I'm sure it is a project that should
| exist some place but I don't want to pay for it.
|
| The web browser can still be infinitely improved.
| krabizzwainch wrote:
| Clicked the future projects link. Thought the DidThis
| project sounded interesting. Aaaannnddd it's already a
| dead project as of 2 months ago.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| I mean Llamafile is great and is built on fantastic tech,
| but no I definitely want my Mozilla money to go to
| Firefox, not what Thing is currently in vogue by Mozilla
| execs.
| debugnik wrote:
| > If I donate to your project I hope the money goes
| towards your project.
|
| Firefox is not a project of the Mozilla Foundation, but
| the Mozilla Corporation, so you just can't donate to
| Firefox at all; in fact, the money flows the opposite
| direction between them. I know it's frustrating but this
| argument is misleading yet keeps showing up in every
| thread.
| infotainment wrote:
| They also fired a whole bunch of software engineers
| (including everyone working on Servo), and then massively
| boosted their executives' salaries, so that was certainly
| something.
| peutetre wrote:
| As a criticism that applies equally to Google.
|
| Google lays off engineers:
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034124/google-
| layoffs-e...
|
| Google boosts their executive's compensation:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-
| executive-pa...
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Mozilla can't be worse than google (or brave/opera etc)
| fnqi8ckfek wrote:
| Mozilla let's me use ublock origin, Google doesn't.
| mazambazz wrote:
| I think you need to be a little bit crazy to enter the
| browser space. It's not for the feint of heart.
| christophilus wrote:
| *faint of heart
| weikju wrote:
| > Can't a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser?
|
| Here's to hoping LadyBird remains non crazy and can be
| relevant by the time of their planned alpha release in
| 2026.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| To be honest it needs a different name if it's going to
| hit critical mass adoption with the average consumer.
| rascul wrote:
| What's wrong with ladybird?
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Netscape, Edge, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, All have a pop
| appeal to them (the names)
|
| "Ladybug" makes a reference to a bug. And not a thrilling
| one.
| rascul wrote:
| It's bird though, not bug.
| ac29 wrote:
| Ladybird is the UK term for what Americans call Ladybugs
| freehorse wrote:
| Then it is going to be adopted everywhere fine except the
| UK.
| em-bee wrote:
| huh? of all the bugs in the world, ladybugs are among the
| most popular, the majority of them are harmless and prey
| on agricultural pests. at least where i come from the
| association with "ladybug" is "cute".
| o999 wrote:
| Ladyfeature
| youngtaff wrote:
| You might want to read back through the history of its
| creator
| mynameyeff wrote:
| What are your qualms with Brave Browser?
| rascul wrote:
| I'm not convinced that it's much more than a Chrome skin
| with an integrated crypto scam.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| You don't have to use the crypto features.
| Meph504 wrote:
| when the defense of a project is that you can turn off
| the bad features, you aren't really making a chase better
| than say chrome or anything else.
|
| A product built on trust, shouldn't involve having to go
| turn off untrustworthy elements.
| mynameyeff wrote:
| The crypto part isn't something you turn off. It's buried
| in a menu somewhere. For all intents and purposes, it's a
| pretty elegant UX.
| Ageodene wrote:
| You don't need to "turn off the bad features" because
| they are opt-in to begin with.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I shouldn't need to opt into or out of features that
| shouldn't exist in the first place, much less in a
| browser.
| IronRod wrote:
| I've used Brave for years. Never used any of the crypto
| features. It is just a solid, privacy-based, chromium-
| based browser.
| freehorse wrote:
| At the very least, I do not trust a browser that was
| putting affiliate links to unsuspecting users' urls [0].
| Plus I tbh I am really sick of everything tending to be
| chromium-derivatives nowadays and I think it is good to
| have greater diversity, to exactly avoid situation susch
| as the one here.
|
| https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/10134
| jldl805 wrote:
| Firefox on ChromeOS sucks though. Just went through this,
| tried Canary, etc. Went back to Chrome.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Bypass ChromeOS alltogether. Use a different Linux distro.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| Just ChromeOS? Firefox on _Mac_ sucks.
|
| Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse cursor
| is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent) applies a
| vector translation so when trying to click something like a
| button or menu, the cursor needs to be about 100 x-y pixels
| away from the target. Only Firefox native UI is affected.
| These are My_First_Program.app tier bugs that should not
| exist in mature, 20 year old software.
|
| Phoenix 0.1 didn't have this many beginner bugs. Mozilla
| has lost its way and only continues to exist because Google
| funds them to be a paper tiger competitor. Opera sold out
| to the Chinese. Microsoft gave up and now simps Google.
| Apple only supports their own platform. What is left?
| grecy wrote:
| I've been using Firefox on OS X since forever (never
| jumped to chrome and back) and I've never experienced
| this. Is there a bug report? Surely this would get a lot
| of attention.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse
| cursor is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent)
| applies a vector translation so when trying to click
| something like a button or menu, the cursor needs to be
| about 100 x-y pixels away from the target. Only Firefox
| native UI is affected. These are My_First_Program.app
| tier bugs that should not exist in mature, 20 year old
| software.
|
| While I've not noticed that myself, just yesterday I
| noticed something similarly weird.
|
| I had a Safari window that was persistently half the
| screen width and height away from where the mouse was. As
| in: click to drag, and the whole window jumped half the
| screen down and to the right, so I couldn't get it to any
| other quadrant of any screen. Fixed on restarting the
| app.
|
| I don't know if that was an app bug or an OS bug, but in
| either case it's Apple's fault.
|
| How did we get to this?
| stuartd wrote:
| Been using Firefox as my browser since 0.2 (Minefield,
| Phoenix was later) on Mac since around 10.3 and I don't
| recognise what you're seeing at all?
| benterix wrote:
| Can you provide a link to a bug report? I've been using
| FF on macOS for years and haven't noticed that. Maybe
| it's just a bug on a random site?
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| Maybe I wasn't clear - this bug affects me personally,
| it's not some random tale I read in a forum. No, it
| doesn't affect the site or page rendering at all. Only
| the Firefox-native dialogs - like the bookmarks dialog
| and the hamburger menu - are affected. The bug is likely
| in XUL. Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through
| Bugzilla, make an account, etc. only for the bug to be
| ignored for years like the others...
| slenk wrote:
| > Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through Bugzilla,
| make an account, etc. only for the bug to be ignored for
| years like the others...
|
| So, if no one reports the bug, how do you expect the bug
| to get fixed? Instead, you just keep harking back on that
| unfixed bug whenever Firefox conversations come up and
| you can be like "but this bug has been around and no one
| has fixed it"
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Are you kidding?
|
| Firefox is notorious for having bugs open in core
| features for over a decade! I've found outright broken
| code, narrowed it down to the specific line, included
| documentation references, repro steps, etc... only to be
| totally ignored by the devs. I did get comments from
| several thousand other frustrated users, but never a
| Mozilla employee other than the occasional generic or
| automated housekeeping message.
|
| Sadly the Mozilla Foundation has been overrun by special
| interest groups that simply want to suckle at the teat of
| Google funding. Millions of dollars are allocated to
| outright corruption, but very nearly zero to development
| of Firefox itself.
|
| It's a slow but certain road from here to a sad end.
|
| Why would I or anyone else pretend otherwise? At the
| expense of our own time and effort no less?
| GranPC wrote:
| FWIW I used to experience the same thing sporadically on
| Mac, about 10 years ago. Not just you - but a rare bug.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| For me, the scroll randomly breaks and stops work all
| together for a minute.
| hadrien01 wrote:
| I've seen the exact same problem on my mother's Mac and
| it's making her crazy. Haven't found a corresponding bug
| report, but it's sort of reassuring she's not alone with
| that annoying bug
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| Thanks for confirming I'm not crazy.
| yumraj wrote:
| So one inconsistent bug, that only happens for a small
| subset and there's no bug report filed makes FF suck on
| Macs.
|
| Hyperbole much?
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Get a real computer.
| youngtaff wrote:
| A decent alternative to ChromeOS would be a great thing
| fp64 wrote:
| How can I swap ^W and ^D in Firefox? For Chrome I found an
| extension that works (...worked?) fine, the only thing for
| Firefox I found would be compiling it myself, which I find a
| much worse experience than compiling Chromium myself (neither
| of which I like doing)
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| What do those do?
| fp64 wrote:
| ^w is delete word in vim/bash/everywhere else. It's
| terrible whenever I accidentally type this in the browser
| and the window closes. I typically close terminal windows
| with ctrl-d so I have this mapped in my browser as well.
| It's really muscle memory and I do not want to change it
| slenk wrote:
| By that same logic, ^w is used as close window everywhere
| else
| fp64 wrote:
| Not for me, I hardly use anything GUI apart from my
| browser. Can't actually think of anything right now apart
| from some niche tools. Either way, the fact that I can
| customise it that easily in Chrome but not in Firefox is
| a huge factor why I don't like using Firefox
| nonamesleft wrote:
| Patch localization/en-US/browser/browserSets.ftl in your
| browser/omni.ja (a .zip with a weird file extension), it
| contains stuff like: close-shortcut = .key = W
|
| See: https://github.com/SebastianSimon/firefox-omni-tweaks
| how it can be done.
|
| I do this myself as ctrl-n has to be new tab for me,
| forever, and firefox broke the old keyconfig extension
| years and years ago. (I had ctrl-n create tabs with an
| external window manager back in netscape 4 times and opera
| (pre-chrome-fork one) after that.)
| fp64 wrote:
| Amazing, thank you!
| redserk wrote:
| This is just kicking the can down the road.
|
| The bigger question is how the Chromium forks are going to
| respond long-term. I suspect the APIs enabling ad blocking are
| only going to get more clamped down requiring additional work
| for forks.
| tech234a wrote:
| Policy-installed extensions can continue to use the
| WebRequest blocking APIs on Manifest V3 [1], so I would
| expect that the underlying code for the API would remain
| available for forks to use.
|
| [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/ap
| i/w...
| IronRod wrote:
| Brave has committed to do what they can as long as they can.
| But unsure how long and what that really turns out to be.
| https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
| mindcrash wrote:
| Like I said before, Brave even has a better solution
| because it has a uBlock compatible ad blocker _built in
| straight into its core_ (but its disabled by default). Same
| block lists, same safety assurances.
|
| Although I still use Firefox with uBlock as my daily driver
| at home, Brave with block lists and Shields is right next
| to it (and I use it as my daily driver at work). It works
| pretty damn well!
| sebazzz wrote:
| That is easy talking from Brave as long as it is still a
| config flag, then after a compile-time flag. Once the
| internal APIs for MV2 or where MV2 get removed or changed
| it becomes very difficult to maintain. Never mind the
| possible security issues you introduce, but won't get so
| quickly discovered, because Brave is a smaller target.
| sss111 wrote:
| and its really easy on MacOS, you just have to run
| defaults write com.google.Chrome.plist
| ExtensionManifestV2Availability -int 2
|
| Another case where windows makes simple things unnecessarily
| cumbersome
| wqaatwt wrote:
| You can't edit config files on Windows from the terminal?
|
| Not really an expert but PowerShell always seemed kind of
| more "powerful" and/or complex than bash
| sss111 wrote:
| These are the instructions for Windows from OP's reddit
| post: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
| issues/discussions/29...
|
| So much more complicated.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| It's a one liner in Powershell
|
| New-ItemProperty -Path
| "HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome" -Name
| "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" -Value 2 -PropertyType
| DWORD -Force
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >So much more complicated.
|
| Are you one of those guys[1] who doesn't understand files
| and folders?
|
| Seriously, the only thing you're exhibiting is your
| abject ignorance of Windows and possibly computers in
| general which are not something you should be proud of.
|
| [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/stu
| dents-do...
| squiffsquiff wrote:
| Powershell is more equivalent to Python than BASH TBH
| darthrupert wrote:
| Switch to ublock origin lite. It's pretty much as good.
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
|
| People who are strongly suggesting firefox have probably not been
| in a relationship.
| Zardoz84 wrote:
| People suggesting that using uBlock Lite and not Firefox with
| full uBlock, probably not has been in an abusive relationship.
| grayhatter wrote:
| or have, and that's why they can recognize the warning signs
| that op can't.
| wklm wrote:
| Could someone explain in simple terms, what's so tricky about
| spinning off a v2-compatible chromium fork?
| Jyaif wrote:
| Forget about forking, just offering a build of Chromium for a
| single platform and architecture that gets the security updates
| in time is a lot of work.
| wruza wrote:
| People who remove v2, own ad networks, develop chrome and write
| standards are the same people. It's new age mafia, cancer of
| the internet and they do everything for you to not be able to
| just spin off a fork.
| efilife wrote:
| So what would they do?
| wruza wrote:
| Already done: used lying tactics to make their browser and
| ad networks dominate, bloated the standard to make browser
| development unsustainable.
|
| Right now: rooting out the entire possibility of running
| full adblock-capable extensions from the sources, so that
| even chrome-based browsers could not support it back.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Chromium is maintained by the largest ad company in the world.
| Jahak wrote:
| Oh no! That's really disappointing!
| pogue wrote:
| Both Brave & Opera have built in adblockers that are not
| dependent on Manifest to run. I haven't played with Opera too
| much, but Brave lets you add custom lists and works quite well.
| Combine that with a DNS based adblocker such as HaGeZi [1] or
| OISD from free DNS providers like ControlD or NextDNS and you'll
| be golden.
|
| [1] https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists?tab=readme-ov-
| file#...
| mancerayder wrote:
| I'm using Brave and have no idea why you got downvoted. People
| are talking like Chrome and FF are the only two things on
| Earth.
| mancerayder wrote:
| The silent downvote curse spreads.
|
| Can someone kindly speak up and explain?
|
| _What 's wrong with talking about Brave_?
| cwillu wrote:
| I downvote comments that disregard the hn guidelines.
|
| "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It
| never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
| octopoc wrote:
| Yeah plus Brave on iPhone auto blocks ads. No extensions or
| configuration needed. Not sure if Firefox does that.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Chrome is trash, download Firefox and never look back.
| r0ckarong wrote:
| Just use Firefox ffs.
| KurtMueller wrote:
| Come join the Firefox revolution!
| irobeth wrote:
| It really is amazing how things have come full circle from the
| point where chrome positioned itself as a "Libre" alternative
| to the IE near-monopoly
|
| There was a point between IE and chrome when Mozilla was always
| in the near-foreground offering alternatives to every internet
| hegemony, right around web 2.0, kinda makes me optimistic for
| the internet to see a resurgence of recommendations
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Huh, I don't remember that narrative at all...
|
| From how I remember it, we started with Netscape, IE
| outcompeted that by adding new features until they had enough
| share to strangle the competition. By that time IE became
| mandatory because of their extensions. Windows systems
| couldn't get updates without opening IE.
|
| Eventually it (IE) fossilized and Firefox became the better
| browser with more features (remember that debugging
| extension?) but was still pretty slow.
|
| Then came chrome. Way way faster, sleek and modern UI,
| removing the search and tool-bars. Hiding bookmarks by
| default and putting everything into the Omni bar. Really,
| that was what everyone I know of cared about:
| responsiveness/speed and that sleek UI.
|
| Finally Firefox improved its resource usage/speed and
| adjusted it's UI, taking inspiration from chrome... But by
| that time, it's popularity had already dropped massively.
| grounder wrote:
| Try Firefox Nightly for the native sidebar vertical tabs. That
| and native tab containers make Firefox work really well for me.
| rchaud wrote:
| Uh, YT on FF is unusable now. They'll show the "adblockers not
| allowed" message if you have Ghostery enabled. Even if you
| disable that, they will add tons of artificial lag on things
| like key input, clicks and screen draw speed. I know it's
| artificial because it worked fine for years and then one
| day....
| snailmailman wrote:
| I've had zero issues or ads lately using Firefox + uBlock
| origin. For a while I had to update the Adblock lists
| manually sometimes, but for months now it's been flawless for
| me.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Just wait a day and uBlock will update its filters. That's
| what happened to me initially. In the meantime I had a yt-dlp
| script for videos I wanted to watch. Tubular on mobile also
| works fine.
| Alifatisk wrote:
| Try out Zen browser, built on Firefox but closer to Arc.
| scoobydooxp wrote:
| It took a while to get used to vertical tabs but once that
| took, I have moved completely to Zen. It was good to see it
| move from alpha to beta recently.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Too bad they removed the ability to open the vertical tabs
| side bar on hover, that was a critical feature that caused
| me to go back to Firefox proper. I'll go back to Zen once
| they add it but to be honest, I'm not too sure what extra
| value Zen would bring me.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Yeah if you want the same fate in about a year
| singleshot_ wrote:
| What can uBlock Origin do that one couldn't do with a
| sufficiently sophisticated SSL-terminating forward proxy?
| crtasm wrote:
| Remove elements added dynamically without entirely blocking the
| script that produces them.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Using a proxy to do DNS blocking has significant failures
| modes. They wont work on youtube because youtube uses the same
| endpoint to serve the videos and ads for starters.
| grayhatter wrote:
| provide a UI within the browser chrome
| wruza wrote:
| I guess Vivaldi awaits the same fate.
|
| I don't want to switch from it, especially to Firefox, so much.
| It's in little things like context menus, gestures (don't tell me
| about that "crx" extension crapware), tab order/cycle behaviors,
| downloads ux, bookmarks ux, customization, etc etc.
|
| These "default" browsers always feel like Crysis 3 gameplay
| wrapped into a primitive text adventure interface.
| barrenko wrote:
| Seriously, what is a good alternative to Chrome's password
| management? For lazy end users.
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| 1password if you are willing to pay for it. If you're not,
| Bitwarden is just as good and it's free / open source.
| barrenko wrote:
| Thank you all for the suggestions.
| shitlord wrote:
| I set up Bitwarden for my dad who keeps forgetting his
| passwords. It seems to work well on his PC and Android phone.
| leohart wrote:
| I have always found Bitwarden to be the best one after trying
| many alternatives. One thing that stood out is how its phone
| app works seamlessly with FaceID/Fingerprint. From logged out
| to login is as smooth as allowing your phone to use biometrics.
|
| Bitwarden seems to be getting updates often as well which I
| value in a security conscious product.
| mancerayder wrote:
| Brave seems to work well with its privacy shield and a button to
| turn scripts off as-needed.
|
| People only focus on Firefox as an alternative. Am I missing
| something?
| pixxel wrote:
| Brave CEO once said some mild hurty words about a fragile
| group, and so the lefty hive must not publicly support his
| endeavours (whilst using his JavaScript all day long lol).
| mancerayder wrote:
| I haven't the first clue about the politics but I'm guessing
| the response is more toxic than the original message.
| enriqueycombi wrote:
| Lame.
|
| Try using NextDNS to block ads entirely instead of just in
| Chrome.
|
| Also, duck.com has a browser extension that can do this. You
| could also just use their browser instead.
| rcxdude wrote:
| DNS-level blocking is more or less what Chrome's more limited
| API allows you to do. Full-fat adblockers can do a lot more.
| snailmailman wrote:
| There are many types of ads that _cannot_ be blocked by dns-
| based blockers. Just like there are ads that can't be blocked
| by the new "ublock lite" that is allowed in manifest v3.
|
| uBlock origin can do more complex ad detection and removal, and
| is the most thorough approach for anything in the browser.
| delduca wrote:
| Wipr for the win, Chrome nevermore.
| Meph504 wrote:
| The irony is it isn't for the win(dows)
| raydev wrote:
| Last time I tried Wipr+Safari, it didn't match the power of
| uBO+Chrome.
| SnowingXIV wrote:
| There has to be google engineers here. Does this just fall on
| deaf ears? I realize it's a massive corp but imagine high ranking
| staff have a say and input. Maybe they don't and Sundar isn't
| worried about that. Or they do a simple cost analysis and short-
| term they see the benefit and are willing to to risk long term
| erosion that maybe be minimal.
|
| Weird returning to Firefox, but I did and there is nothing in
| chrome I miss.
| acheron wrote:
| If only Stalin knew!
| oliwarner wrote:
| Google is an advertising agency. It's a miracle blockers lasted
| this long.
| Raed667 wrote:
| by now they have made tons of user-hostile changes, just to see
| the line keep going up, they know that there is a loud vocal
| minority, but most users are totally fine with MV3 if they even
| notice a change at all.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for
| Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non
| Google ads. Most users probably won't care enough to change
| browsers or many won't really notice
| ac29 wrote:
| > Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for
| Google ads
|
| If so, they are doing a crap job of it because uBlock Origin
| Lite successfully blocks all of the search ads on google.com
| SSchick wrote:
| They were pretty much forced to do this slowly and
| gradually. There was a large amount of external pushback
| and some internal too (though money controls here).
| fransje26 wrote:
| > Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for
| Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non
| Google ads.
|
| That's the best way to get antitrust breathing down your
| neck.
|
| So, with talks of Google monopoly ramping up, either this is
| extremely shortsighted and reckless, or they will choose to
| not throw oil on the fire and will not go down that road.
| talldayo wrote:
| Believe it or not, the DOJ (and EU) have almost entirely
| ignored AdSense and it's integration as a monopoly force.
| They consider Chrome and Google Search to be the primary
| source of harms - the war against adblock is perfectly
| legal even if client-side modding should always be morally
| correct.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| FAANG engineers in general are remarkably well informed as to
| who is buttering their bread. You may assume that Google
| engineers are excruciatingly aware (particularly after several
| rounds of layoffs) that their continued paychecks and stock
| grant value depend on continuing to firehose advertising into
| the face of the general public from every possible angle.
| Spivak wrote:
| Why do you think in the anti-trust lawsuit they're desperate to
| avoid Chrome divestment? A project that on the surface _surely_
| must be a massive cost center for them that doesn 't benefit
| their advertising arm one bit. No sir, made out of the goodness
| of their hearts and given away for free for nothing other than
| promoting the open web.
| siva7 wrote:
| It's a giant corporation. Everyone who had a managerial role in
| one of these mega corporations should know how such decisions
| are made. Sundar sees finance numbers, numbers go up if we do
| strategy x (block adblockers) , someone gets a promotion for
| turning these numbers up. It's simple as that. Those people
| have no clue and don't care about how you hackers here use
| chrome.
| hu3 wrote:
| I'd say that a >=300k/y USD compensation is higher priority for
| most than arguing with your bosses boss that manifest V3 is a
| mistake.
| gaws wrote:
| > _There has to be google engineers here. Does this just fall
| on deaf ears?_
|
| Yes. Extension that blocks Google from making money from ads?
| It's a no-brainer to upgrade the browser infrastructure to make
| it obsolete.
| olliej wrote:
| So there are multiple factors here - I used to work on browsers
| so have some experience here :D
|
| First off, there are legitimate security concerns with the kind
| of functionality required for effective ad blocking given the
| immense work the ad industry (i.e google) have put into
| preventing purely static filters is also very powerful for
| exploitation. Those powers can (and have been) abused: the
| recent news about "Honey" replacing affiliate links so that
| they are getting paid for ads on peoples page, but also there
| have been numerous examples over the last year of extensions
| being sold and then having the extensions getting malware,
| crypto miners, etc.
|
| Second, there are real performance problems - the non-JS filter
| rules are vastly more efficient, for memory usage, cpu usage,
| and load time (I recall people doing benchmarks a while ago,
| showing ad blocker extensions that actually slowed down page
| loads).
|
| So those are the engineering arguments for not supporting this
| model of extension.
|
| However, the engineers on the chrome team are not stupid, or
| malicious, and understand that the trade offs are something
| users want. But those engineers work for Google, and google is
| an advertising company.
|
| So it does not matter what those engineers want, or think is
| better, if the company management says "you cannot block our
| revenue model" they do not have a choice. Well, they could
| quit, but that's basically it.
| denkmoon wrote:
| Does MV3 do anything to stop the behaviour of Honey?
| CLiED wrote:
| I'm superlatively surprised Google has followed through on what
| it has promised to do over and over again.
| kacesensitive wrote:
| "I'm surprised they did what they said they would do" will be
| the anthem of 2025 unfortunately
| mindcrash wrote:
| If you want a Chromium based browser Brave has a uBlock-esque
| blocker built right into its core but it's disabled by default
| because "Brave Shields is enough protection" (it isn't, given the
| stats I see when enabled). Anyway, you can turn it on and it uses
| the same blocklists uBlock uses aswell.
| cbluth wrote:
| Any reference or instructions on how to do that?
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| > " _if you want a Chromium based browser_ '
|
| There is also Vivaldi:
|
| https://help.vivaldi.com
| Filligree wrote:
| Alas, it crashes every time I try to import my Chrome
| profile.
| zamalek wrote:
| Vivaldi would not stop offering to sign me into google
| automatically on sites that support it, it kept re-enabling
| it somehow. How this is enabled on a privacy-aware browser is
| beyond me. Brave is pretty good once you disable all the
| crypto stuff.
| nyarlathotep_ wrote:
| Wait, really? There's something other than the default
| "shields" thing? Where is this and how do I enable it? Been
| using Brave for years with all the "aggressive" boxes checked
| and I've never seen such an option anywhere.
| cwillu wrote:
| ~$ cat /etc/chromium/policies/managed/ubo-policies.json {
| "ExtensionManifestV2Availability": 2 }
|
| Will save you for another year.
| kkfx wrote:
| If I recall correctly only till June 2025, did they change the
| date?
| dizhn wrote:
| There's some chrome attestation stuff I've been starting to see
| for implementing security related services. The support for that
| is probably bundled with this manifest v3 thing? Or is the device
| attestation separate? If they are bundled, Firefox will disappear
| even more in corporate and probably at home too.
| olliej wrote:
| I just use Safari and 1Blocker and everything works fine for me
| :D
| gaws wrote:
| Replace Chrome with Firefox. Reinstall uBlock Origin. Problem
| solved.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-25 23:01 UTC)