Adblocking in chrome is like smoking cigarettes with filters because "it’s better for my health".
No, it’s not.
For people knowledgeable enough to read HN, there’s no excuse to still use Chrome as a daily driver.
I don't want the tracking, and I am certainly not going to install vanilla Chrome, but the performance deficit is a big compromise.
Imagine the situation: your computer is slow and someone promises you to make it faster in exchange of knowing everything about what your computer is doing. Would you accept?
Well, you did.
I’m not pointing the finger at you. We are all doing compromises. I’m just saying that if you don’t want to be tracked but want all the benefits of being tracked then, really, you want being tracked.
Also, Firefox being slow on Android doesn’t seem mandatory (it works really well for me). The fact that you didn’t look to solve this issue is yet one more confirmation that, yes, you agree to be tracked.
Making choices is about the sacrifices we are ready to make for that choice. If there’s no sacrifice, there’s no choice.
Some might opt for Apple software but Apple hardware(and OS) is a non-starter for me.
Again, its a compromise, and I dont trust it with everything.
Still, you have a point, and this feature in particular is quite telling:
> internal firewall to block all unauthorised calls made from the browser patch (issue 147)
All ads must be blocked.
AP News served me malware in an ad.
I whitelist good reporting and cool/niche sites, but things worth whitelisting are increasingly rare. Whatever discomfort I felt using an adblocker before is long gone.