uBlock Origin for Microsoft Edge
microsoft.com
microsoft.com
Back when Windows 10 came out, Cortana opened Bing searches in your default browser. Someone made a Bing2Google extension for Chrome, and Microsoft responded by making Cortana only open Bing searches in Edge.
Now that Edge supports extensions, I can make a Bing2Google extension for Edge, but Microsoft will never accept it. If I make a Bing2Google userscript for Tampermonkey[1], Microsoft will probably take down Tampermonkey eventually once they learn about the userscript. There is already a very simple userscript available[2] that you can install right now to get this "banned" functionality in Edge.
Edge's extension ecosystem is a walled garden. When it comes to browsers, I prefer freedom over performance and efficiency. This is why I'm still not switching to Edge. I'll give Edge another chance if/when they open up their extension platform to everyone. For now, it's useless without Microsoft approval.
I use Tampermonkey for some userscripts on other sites and I don't feel comfortable relying on Microsoft's goodwill to not remove this extension.
[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/tampermonkey/9nblggh...
[2]: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/11308-bing-to-google/code
Yes, redistributing extensions for Windows Chrome users (not Windows Chromium) does require the Chrome Web Store. This is unfortunate, but at least Google has a better track record when it comes to banning extensions that modify their things on their own web properties.
However, as you point out, Google prohibits side loading for the majority of real Chrome installs.
The time since I last found a malicious extension in the Chrome Web Store is five days[0]. They're terrible at policing this, which is a point I've actively complained about for years.
I was going to say it's not a big deal but I quite distinctly remember it being the entire reason I switched to Vivaldi instead of Chrome. Full extension store compatibility with none of the nagging, and all the other cool shit it does is just a bonus at this point.
Interesting, which ones?
I tried searching for some examples of removed extensions, so far I've only found some awful stuff like this:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/03/google-chrome-jews/
It's an ad company that allows ad blockers, so it seems at most like a small chain-link fence garden.
Only popular religions ;)
I agree. I pointed out that your statement "You can only install extensions from their store" is incorrect for Chrome. Thank you for adding information about Edge.
2. Forced updates and forced spying that auto-turns-on after updates
3. Cannot turn off updates
4. AntimalwareServiceExecutable uses 50% of my CPU constantly. With 2 cores at 2.2 GHz, that's A LOT.
5. Crashes due to driver issues that Windows installs itself from Windows Update
6. BSODs from drivers from WU
7. More spying
8. Explorer crashes constantly and sometimes the whole computer freezes and I have to restart
Please note that this happens on multiple new and old computers, so don't give me the "oh it's a hardware issue" bullshit, my best friend who works as a PC service technician also experiences the same complaints from many people.
I simply don't understand why Microsoft can't do what Linux and the BSDs (including macOS) have been doing for years; no matter how big the update, it can be done in the background and only requires one quick restart to complete.
That said, Windows actually has real file locks so it can't update libraries and executables that are in use, unlike Linux. And I have recently noticed Mac OS updates taking a long time at bootup as well, the last one took 15 minutes, I assume because of System Integrity Protection--granted it's very rare unlike with Windows.
Oh, and I forgot, my mom hates Windows 10 because Flash that she uses to play some games crashes because the display driver it automatically installed for an AMD E1-2100 APU is bad and incompatible. Meanwhile Windows 7 works fine, so that's what I installed for her. My grandparents share a Ubuntu 12.04 which I will upgrade to 14.04 sometime next year, but that's only because their computer can barely run XP and I don't want XP anywhere on my network...
I don't know. I mostly use Linux. But when I do have to use windows, I like windows 10.
I guess someone missed the news 5 or so years ago that Linux supports secure boot perfectly well.
It's an open spec any anyone is free to implement it. And Linux devs did! Amazing, eh?
Looking at your comment, I guess this is how life looks for the people who read and spread FUD on the internet without never actually checking out any of the claims them selves.
You've locked yourself down. And secure boot had nothing to do with it. Interesting eh?
https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/25/uefi-boot-how-does-...
I really doubt this is the case. Microsoft actually mandated that all OEMs provide a method to disable Secure Boot and allow for loading in arbitrary, user-defined keys as part of the Windows certification process.
As for the rest of it though it sounds spot on.
Cortana through the ages: https://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cortana#Appearance
Does Siri give you any choice about using Safari? Does Google Now give you any choice about using Chrome?
I imagine Windows doesn't do much to stand between you and writing your own code for personal use.
Why don't you use an OS that you don't have to fight against?
That's one reason, I guess. My reason for not using Edge is that Edge still, after all this time, can't save files from the internet. That's, like, the second thing that I expect a web browser to be able to do after looking at files from the internet.
( You can test this at home. Go to visit some arbitrary text file in Edge. Let's say https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Microsoft/vscode/master/LI... for example. Now save it. File menu? Nope. Ctrl+S? Nope. Right-click? Nope. )
In all seriousness, it is definitely a glaring omission in Edge. Though, I can see the OneNote integration being useful on a tablet.
(props to morganvachon for figuring out that you can use OneNote, but omg)
Only option is to highlight it and save it using another program.
Go to the file. Then try to save it. Don't argue with a scenario that I'm not talking about.
HN adds that link, but not all links come from HN. I know this is asking a lot, but, maybe, just for the sake of argument, try to pretend like you were given the URL somewhere else that doesn't automatically hyperlink and that I didn't just make this up. Hell, pretend that you got it on a piece of paper and actually had to type it in like a caveman. Now save it.
> There is usually a link to whatever file you want to download.
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that in some cases you just cannot save the file, and that in all other cases you just cannot save the file while looking at the file without knowing that you need to go...somewhere nebulously else? That's what I said too. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
It doesn't seem to be possible to download a file you already have open in Edge that you have no link to, but how often does that happen, really? I'm sure you can come up with lots of other scenarios that you can't do with Edge either, or Chrome.
You told how to download something referenced by a hyperlink within the browser, a problem that I did not say I had. We call that moving the goalposts. It's very frustrating and I wish you would stop.
> If you really need to type in the URL yourself, just type in into Notepad's open file dialog and save it from there.
I 100% agree that the solution to a web browser not being able to do the 2nd most important function of a web browser is to use a different program. Suggesting Notepad instead of a more capable browser seems a tad strange though.
> but how often does that happen, really?
Why bend so far backwards to try to poke holes in my problem? Are you responsible for the decision to disallow saving documents? If I don't use Edge does your favorite nephew lose a toe? If you want to use Edge that's fine. Knock yourself out. I won't, and I gave my reason why.
I think it actually was specifically to save files, before content types, and saving binaries as raw text was unreliable at best.
I didn't expect the same to be true 20 years later.
msSaveOrOpenBlob currently silently fails in Edge extension content scripts.
My first workaround of creating an invisible objectURL download link from the document body text (trying to not re-download the file) and then programatically clicking it only partially works, because Edge currently ignores the download attribute value on links so you can't set the default file name and you get a disgusting GUID as the default filename instead. This is sadly the best option so far.
My second workaround of re-transferring the file using the document URL directly, again with injecting a hidden automatically clicked <a> tag, also only partially works. This is in fact worse than the first workaround, because it doesn't even prompt to save or choose a file name. It just pops the file open in Notepad with the right file name but the wrong file extension, changing, for instance, "constants.js" to "constants.txt".
And now I'm tired of this exercise. Back to just not caring about Edge.
I believe when they were astroturfing against Google, they also added a search experience to Xbox -- one that defaulted to Bing & one that you could not change to anything but Bing.
Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, but to me it seems like 1. you use Google Chrome and 2. Google search.
If so, how are these not walled gardens? How do these promote freedom? I'm not sure I see how those are any better.
If I misread your comment and you use actual free software for browsing the internet (which leaves you at Firefox and seemingly only Firefox), please have me and my comment excused :)
There's absolutely nothing to these claims.
You can use your browser of choice in Windows 10, and your search engine of choice. Nothing forces you to use either Edge or Bing.
If you choose to use Cortana then you are asking Microsoft to deliver a different type of service, which it does.
Apple and Google control their own back-end systems in exactly the same way, and Siri also "forces" you to use Bing (among other things) without asking or telling you.
You can change the default search engine to any site that uses OpenSearch technology. In Microsoft Edge, first go to the website of the search engine you want. Then, select More actions (...) > Settings, scroll down, select View advanced settings, scroll down again, and then select Change search engine. Select your search engine's website in the list, and then select Set as default. If you don't see your search engine in the list, make sure that you've visited the search engine's website in Microsoft Edge, and that your search engine uses OpenSearch technology.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/instantanswers/390c87f8-...
It's also worth pointing out they allowed an Evernote extension, even though its a direct competitor to OneNote
'A faster browser' is why Internet Explorer lost users to Firefox and Chrome in the first place. Microsoft could still win that back.
Older article but still valid in Q4 as well: http://marketingland.com/microsoft-reports-21-7b-revenue-201...
Maybe if MS showed dedication to their hardware and actually cared about users they could pull it off...
Are you complaining about actual paid advertisements, eg for beer, or the "suggestions" that you can turn off?
Facebook bought the Atlas Advertiser Suite from Microsoft. However, Microsoft outsourced its non-Bing ad sales business to AOL, along with 1,200 staff.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/aol-is-taking-over-microsofts-...
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Microsoft-Ad-Revenues-Cont...
Edge doesn't have enough marketshare to deter retaliation and they are easy to detect because they are the only ones to use EdgeHTML so it would be hard to counteract that via spoofing.
(I'm using uMatrix and try to allow all non-terrible ads on quality sites)
Although, as it's less known than others and it has no Microsoft or Google shoving it in users' faces, I guess you could count finding and installing it as "effort".
When was the last time you saw a Chrome 0-day?
Having worked in the ad-industry for almost five years, I'm remarkably conflicted. Malware, duping users, and scams are a real issue on the modern web. However, blocking ads comes with significant consequences for businesses, as most users aren't willing to pay direct for content.
What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
I see it most with ads in paragraph breaks.
I have fond memories of the 'old' internet, where web sites existed because someone cared, not because someone wanted to sell ad space. Maybe I have selective memory, though.
Search was pretty awful, so I guess I'm glad ads funded Google.
The "Cool Site of the Day" archives give a good idea of what was online back then:
http://www.coolsiteoftheday.com/cgi-bin/stillcool.pl?month=0...
The oldest active site plugged by "Cool Site of the Day" is "The Froggy Page."
http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/
The only other one from Aug '94 that seems pretty close to original was a site dedicated to documenting thoughts of festival-goers at Woodstock '94:
http://www.well.com/woodstock/
Hrm, maybe we are a little better off... but there is some charm in pages from that era. Even though it's not conventional modern design, it's like outsider art. You can see people's passion, just doing what they care about.
This is business, not morality. I have no moral obligation to support their business model. They have no moral obligation to deliver a website without intrusive advertising. (Okay, maybe they have a moral obligation not to invade my privacy by tracking me all over the internet, which is why when it comes down to it, adblocking is probably more moral than putting ads on your website).
More intersting though::: Don't you think it is in your interest for these publishers to survive? It sometimes seems as if people are spending hours and hours reading these publications but have nothing but scorn for them, cheering their demise.
Sure, but one should probably have to start with making the argument for there being a moral burden incurred when sending a digital message to another persons computer that says "what have you got sitting there?" that requires the person to then execute everything they receive.
>Don't you think it is in your interest for these publishers to survive? It sometimes seems as if people are spending hours and hours reading these publications but have nothing but scorn for them, cheering their demise.
I don't think you necessarily need to be cheering to be fine with their demise. As for their heavy use? It's effectively dead time. I might read a lot of crap on the internet but if not that I'd be watching some tv show I don't really care about or doing a crossword or watching a bug on a wall. It's not high value entertainment it's something to do to make doing nothing slightly less boring.
There are no moral or ethical concern with ad-blocking. And even if there were, they pale in comparisson to the despicable practice of advertising itself, even if you managed to fix malware and scams.
Since I block ads, I don't get any viruses on my computer anymore. And no I do not visit porn sites. Many prominent websites have served malware to users in the past.
Second, my laptop battery lasts way longer since there is less Javascript to serve. Pages display faster and most auto-play video don't even show up anymore.
> What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
How about publishers serve ads from their own main domain ? I'm sure they'll be more careful what kind of bullshit is actually loaded , since there is no cross origin policy protection for them. And since they'll have to pay for the bandwidth, they'll also ask for lighter ads from networks. Ad networks can also offer campaigns that are not driven by pay per click or impression , but renting space on websites for a limited period of time at a fixed price.
The difference is that websites have rep, and google polices sites with malware protection (which firefox uses too, btw).
What about ads?
Ads means otherwise reputable websites serve malware. Even when the ads themselves are trustworthy, they very often do not have acceptable security practices, preventing interception.
(And, FWIW, Google's malware blocking applies equally to ads as it does sites you type into the address bar)
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the idea. Imagine this - what if advertisers would give you a small PHP script to include in the website source code, that would run random code on the server, instead of ga.js? Would they think twice before including that crap? I bet they would.
As it stands, I've encountered sites that wanted me to run even 10 different scripts on a page, for ad networks I haven't even heard about.
This may be a pro or a con, I'm not sure. Would optimising for ad-clicks instead of ad-views encourage more valuable and interesting ads, that one would actually want to know more about? Or would it encourage (literal) big mouse clickbait at the expense of understated, informative, Google Analytics-style text ads?
The fact that viewing the vast majority of ads involves running completely unaudited, often heavily obfuscated JavaScript, written, published and served by companies who don't give the slightest of shits about (or in some cases, actively seek to harm) the security of the people who view them, makes them a complete non-starter for me.
Any ‘immorality’ involved in blocking ads doesn't even begin to compare to that of the ad industry's disregard for security (let alone privacy).
I haven't had any security issues it 10+ years, often without ad blocking. And I'm more afraid of an internet that is only Facebook, Amazon and Breitbart and what it will do to the civil society.
Every single media outlet can be burned to the ground for all I care, there will always be a new one to readily and eagerly take its place.
Find me a media outlet that actually has moral standards and I will happily concede, but before that I will sleep soundly at night knowing that ad-blocking is the best way to defeat propaganda as well as protecting myself from malware.
Then websites started blocking me with ad-blocker-blockers. This occurred in tandem woth finding normal browsing getting slower and slower. This offended me that I switched to uBlock.
Yes, of course not everyone is bad but one is enough.
"Users simply need to turn on Brave Payments from within Brave’s preferences page, then fund their Brave wallet (either with Coinbase, or by using Bitcoin they already have), and then browse as usual. While everything is automatic, once enabled, the Brave Payments UI allows you to control which sites receive your support by manually enabling or disabling funding for any of the sites you visit."
Advertisement is where spam was 20 years ago, and no amount of moral discussions can stop people from using spam filters. If the requirement to use gmail was that you had to turn off the spam filter and deal with all the scams, malware and crap every day, people would stop using gmail. For now people aren't forced into that choice, so people either just ignore the advertisements or filter it.
If I picked up a free, ad-supported newspaper from some booth on the street (pretty common where I live), and set up a Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers to black out all the ads from my copy, would the publisher have any right to complain? Not any more, I think, than if I had wiped my ass with that paper. As soon as that copy enters my possession, I have every right to rip it apart as I see fit.
Replace "some booth on the street" with "some website" and "Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers" with "browser plugin". This should not change anything about the moral and/or legal conclusion.
Now assume that some of the ads on the free paper were printed with toxic ink (malware) that stinks up my living room (computer), or were embedded with tiny chips to track when and where I read which story. Few people in real life would tolerate such ads, but for some reason we are constantly being told that we should allow them online.
I think we really need to emphasize these offline analogies. They are among the strongest arguments that could convince non-technical judges and juries to come up with reasonable rules for acceptable ads.
If I surf with adblock, lots of sites will die because of lack of funding.
Loss-Loss situation.
> What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
I feel comfortable with dumb (non-tracking, non-targeted, non-animated) ads. I could go as far as allowing third party ads from a whitelisted ad network with a VERY strong integrity policy (uses ADSafe, states explicitly what limited information is given to advertisers, what information is used for targeting etc.).
If a site can't work without using dubious ad networks then by all means just kill the site. I'm choosing how to consume your site and I have moral quandries about helping kill ANY site that uses todays "normal" ad networks to finance their operation.
I don't CARE whether sites can prevent fraudulent clicks. I don't CARE whether the advertisers can actually be charged per impression or even get stats from their advertising.
I wouldn't lose any sleep if 90% of the content on the internet just disappeared tomorrow because all the browser vendors suddenly added on-by-default watertight ad blocking.
Ads are pollution, IRL and online. I will block them and ignore them as much as I wish to.
I would be happy to set a header in my http requests, telling the site "Will not render" anything I consider to be advertising. But the moment you send me the content, it's fair game to display however I wish.
I am still undecided about things like Patreon.
It is similar to people saying that just by owning a car they are entitled for a parking space for it.
Also adplatforms seem to underestimate amount of stuff in the modern Internet and overestimate their own importance - I've switched dozens of tech sites in the last 5-10 years, I don't even remember names of some of them, so even if there will be a mass extinction event for internet media there'll still be lots of stuff to read or watch. Also - ad model obviously does not guarantee quality of material, as we all see on almost all websites.
Happy to see it in the store.
I assume they just copied this behavior.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-A-9.7-Tablet-1...
With uBlock Origin the "Customers also considered" section is hidden and the Read More link doesn't work. But they show up and work in Adblock Plus just fine.
Chrome 55 and UBlock 1.10
There is no filter in EasyList or EasyPrivacy for googletagservices.com (hence it worked fine with ABP), it's something I added to "uBlock filters - Privacy" a long while ago, and created a neutered script to replace the real one to minimize web page breakage.
If you want uBO to behave just like ABP blocking-wise, just select the same exact filter lists -- though I strongly advise you at least keep "uBlock filters" for best results.
For reference, ABP comes with only EasyList enabled by default + a regional list if applicable. Privacy-wise though, you lose a lot by not using EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's and other uBO's own filter lists. See this graph[1]: second bar is when only using EasyList + "uBlock filters". Third bar is uBO's default list/settings.
And no, you don't need to sign in (on PC, on mobile you cant event start the phone without signing in)
A simple port has nowhere to go on iOS right now. (Though there are rumblings that Firefox might introduce some sort of add-on support for their iOS browser in the future.)
No sprinkles on that turd please!
Who is "Nik Rolls" and why should I trust him with ALL my browsing data?