Google Chrome's plan to limit ad blocking extensions kicks off next week
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
"Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
The message then pops up: "He could have killed them!"
<Right-click Q> -> Boom, console open inspecting the element under the cusrsor.
Chrome requires more clicks.
Almost all of these, for example, have desktop variants:
defaults write com.google.Chrome ExtensionManifestV2Availability -integer 2
When there's no good reason to believe the other party will actually change their ultimate goals, it's better to cut your losses and switch sooner.
If it were that easy, I think you'd have shared it immediately.
I wouldn't even say that it is obvious Spyware-aaS is a lesser problem in society than domestic abuse (even though the individual victim is far worse off, of course), due to ruined social cohesion etc.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/organizations...
I'm also afraid how this usually turns out is the for-profit part takes over the non-profit part. See OpenAI or just about any major national non-profit in the US.
Inclusion of Pocket in Firefox is a representative example - included despite overwhelming community objections for more profit!
After that it's just inertia, it's the head of the pack because it's the head of the pack and people already use it.
To convince people to change generally you can't just offer the same or similar performance and features, it has to be a worthwhile reward for the user to bother. This change which just might be crippling enough for adblockers may be enough to get people to switch.
It really struck a bad chord for me. Rather than update your permissions model or consider how best to implement, being a browser that simply won't do WebUSB or WebMIDI or half the sensor APIs is an awful thing to me. I know a lot of people don't feel like those add value to them personally, but as someone who likes and believes in the web, the hard-line we're-against-it bandwagon-joining stance was disgusting to see, from a company I had until then trusted & thought was able to navigate complex situations.
Firefox has most of these implemented now. Which is great. As a Linux user, I used to never be able to update most of my consumer devices. But because of WebUSB, a good number now have web updaters, and I also am not scared these companies are installing a bunch of spyware/adware just to update the appliance firmware.
I don't get the objection either: Unlike for e.g. notification access (which is frequently abused and which Firefox does implement!), I can't imagine websites demanding USB access in exchange for, I don't know – discount codes?
Filter lists update only when the extension updates (no fetching up to date lists from servers)
Many filters are dropped at conversion time due to MV3's limited filter syntax
No crafting your own filters (thus no element picker) No strict-blocked pages (worse privacy) No per-site switches No dynamic filtering No importing external lists
Source with links: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1067als/comme...
Protecting the users at all cost is not a viable way to operate; if web extensions are to actually create user agency, there must be a possibility of evil. I spit up on the dog shit trashfire Google hath created by outlawing all dynamic code. This is a dark despairing turning point, a place where the browser has truly abandoned a core advantage, under pathetic sad Fear Uncertainty and Doubt pretenses & I want this decision to burn forever.
It'll be interesting to see if any of Google's promises about Declarative Net Request filtering being faster prove true. If the new uBO isn't significantly faster, these people will be majorly Emperor with No Clothes-ing themselves.
On my own computer, I prefer Firefox and the full version, but work doesn't allow "all site access" extensions in Chrome, and I'm really thankful for uBO Lite there.
I could definitely see myself switch on Firefox too, once most extensions move to the v3 security model. A hybrid would probably be ideal: v2-like blocking behavior on an opt-in basis per site for where it's needed, with a better default security posture where it isn't.
(Actually I wish Firefox would backport the v3-like "allow site access only after first extension button click" model that Chrome has backported even for v2 extensions, but that's pretty far down on my wishlist.)
Also seems like we can maybe expect a ublock browser in the future.
This is Google being evil, and proving that they cannot be trusted with the browser.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...
a better question is why does one _need_ chrome; or to use strictly one browser for that matter? bookmarks are literally a text list of urls (many alterneratives to sharing these between browsers/devices); history features (to my useage needs the history features have lacked since the browser was invented). shared sessions, like resuming a video between devices - can be done via logging into many sites. saved passwords? dont save passwords in the browser- - many alternatives exist.
try not to limit yourself in the tools which are available, there are many and they are not hard to learn
tried LibreWolf yet?
edit: some sentense restructering
I'm not sure if that downside of Chrome will be enough to make many people switch – it's too slow a boil for many frogs to notice, I'm afraid.