uBlock Origin is no longer available in the Chrome store
-
Instead we get an almost unusable internet where ads take up more and more real estate.
Its even worse than just hurting usability. Lots of ad networks are not policing their advertising customers and malicious payloads have been injected from ads. So allowing ads is a security risk because of the lack of security at the various ad networks.
It's even worse when you consider the entire point of advertising is to deliver a targeted payload at a very specific demographic. So you can target IT folks of a specific company, etc.
-
It probably didn't have anything to do with Firefox itself. It's likely related to something I messed up in FF or it was something to do with the ancient laptop I had at the time being a junk heap, but I tried Chrome and noticed that the trouble didn't exist there. So I started using Chrome.
I kept using it because of all the google integration, which was really handy when I was using the google business suite to run my own small business. I shut that down two years ago now, so there's nothing really keeping me on Chrome any more.
I swapped back to FF a few days ago and YouTube works fine now. So I'm back on the FF train and giving Google the finger the whole way over banning the adblockers that I liked.
Yeah if you fiddle around with about:config without knowing exactly what yer doing, shit breaks. Fortunately you can type "about:profiles" in the url box, make a test profile, and mess around as much as you want before nuking your default browser.
-
As I understand it that has more to do with covering their ass. They haven’t changed their practices.
The fact that they think they need to cover their ass about selling user data is concerning enough.
-
They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven't actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.
...The reason being that they can't legally claim they don't sell your data.
-
I think the Brave CEO recently said some Trumpy shit (in case you're at all curious for the downvoting).
I wish more people were like you. Not everyone can keep up with everyone's beefs (this one not so much) but it really grinds my gears when I see seemingly polite, on topic, engaging or contributing comments with no replies but still geyting down voted. Especially on a forum as thirsty as Lemmy users are for more user involvement.
It makes me think there are too many people in the world conditioned to be preset to hate thst the fact a person doesn't know they're supposed to hate something is enough grounds to be shunned and hated on. Lol. It's cool to see someone jump in and say:Hey homie, we don't hate you we hate a person who is unrelated to the topic of the thread or the context of your comment but we do hate them enough to hate on you
Edit: the parenthesis comment was meant to imply hating Trump monkeys is glaringly obvious. My comment was about lemmy etiquette and wasn't about why or why not OP was getting downvoted.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Chrome hasn't been my main browser in a while but I kept it as a backup and because Firefox doesn't support PWAs and I didn't want to mess with the extension. Turns out, the extension only takes about 3 minutes to get set up and now Chrome has been uninstalled. And on a random Tuesday, who knew?
-
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh
Doesn't cover 100% of what uBO did, but it still works just as good IMO with DNS based ad-blocking on top.
Surprised so few people are aware of this. It seems equivalent to me when you give it the same permissions Ublock Origin had.
-
They’re too strict, unless you have one that’s usable by default?
"Too strict" how? I don't know what's "usable" for you.
-
Mullvad. Its only real downside is its lack of port forwarding and it passes all the Lemmy purity tests. You will never be downvoted for recommending it.
Lack of port-forwarding is a deal-breaker, unfortunately.
-
firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently
They changed the phrasing, since in some jurisdictions "sharing anonymized data with partners" can apparently be interpreted as a sale of data, if they get something in return, even if it's not a fiscal payment.
But after the outrage that sparked, they've rephrased the policy again and wrote a lengthy article detailing the reasoning, which is at the very least plausible.
-
Lack of port-forwarding is a deal-breaker, unfortunately.
Yeah it's one of the reasons I prefer Proton. Not many VPNs offer that functionality now, unfortunately.
-
I was about to comment something similar but you said it before I did. Sometimes I'll mistakenly open YouTube with Chrome and then I realize I messed up because I have to sit through three, sometimes one-minute long ads just to watch a twenty second video. I'll typically just nope out and switch to Firefox. The worst thing is they're unskippable and I swear for some of them the ad actually pauses if you switch to another tab or browser. I'm getting ads even on super old videos so I'm pretty sure it isn't all to do with the channels themselves monetizing their videos.
3 one minute long adds are better than those 2 hour long prageru racist propaganda videos trying to masquerade as "Educational" content
-
...The reason being that they can't legally claim they don't sell your data.
Yes, because the definition of "sell data" varies by jurisdiction, and they can't guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of "sell data" in some jurisdictions. In particular, California's CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren't actually selling data still fall under its definition of "sell data".
-
This post did not contain any content.
Webserial is only reason I see to install Chrome. For everything else Firefox works great.
-
The fact that they think they need to cover their ass about selling user data is concerning enough.
Don’t take my word for it, you can read what they said about it here. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
-
Yes, because the definition of "sell data" varies by jurisdiction, and they can't guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of "sell data" in some jurisdictions. In particular, California's CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren't actually selling data still fall under its definition of "sell data".
And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.
-
Don’t take my word for it, you can read what they said about it here. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Yeah, I read that and I think it's a weak justification.
-
Surprised so few people are aware of this. It seems equivalent to me when you give it the same permissions Ublock Origin had.
Agreed. I haven't even found anything that it doesn't block that UbOrigin did.
-
Agreed. I haven't even found anything that it doesn't block that UbOrigin did.
But then the whack-a-mole game continues, and you're constantly having to find new extensions to serve the same task. When you could simply switch to firefox, deal with the very minor growing pains, and keep using uBlock with no problems whatsoever.
-
I know what he's talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript's standard.
But google implemented it into chrome's javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren't available, but, because of a 'mistake' they didn't work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google's throat that it needed fixed.
google does this kinda shit on purpose to reinforce their market position
