They biggest web advertising company definitely shouldn't control the world's most popular browser. Just like we all knew they would, they're blocking ad blockers, and this problem will only get worse.
Tell your friends to use Firefox, people.
Tell your friends to use Firefox, people.
The hard protocol ban is heavy handed.
Not all do, some do. And it only takes a few to spot something fishy and start reporting problems.
> This also doesn't address the threat model
It actually does, because few extensions need broad permissions. The threat is significantly reduced if a change in required permissions goes up a new dialog pops up which encourages the few users that read the thing to ask "Hey, why is this asking for so many more permissions?"
This model works. It works so well that the security model of pretty much every app store is exactly the same. The risks are also identical.
Fine-grained permissions are a good thing, even though they do unfortunately make things more challenging for developers.
I've tried uBlock Origin Lite on Chrome and it works... perfectly. I haven't noticed a single ad get through.
And isn't it supposed to be a lot more performant?
Before, I assumed Chrome really was trying to gradually stop ad-blocking. But now that I see it's had literally zero impact, at least on the sites I visit, I'm starting to wonder what all the fuss was about. Was manifest v3 really about performance and security all along, and not about eliminating ad blockers?
Meanwhile, you can't install adblocking on iOS Safari as an extension at all. But I never hear anybody bringing that up.
There are a bunch of safari ad blockers in the app store that work the same way manifest v3 blockers work.
Remember, Chrome is not installed by default on Windows PCs; Edge is. People are using Chrome because they want to. They could just as easily download Firefox and uBO, like more-savvy users do. Unfortunately, too many can't be bothered. Should they be saved from excessive and intrusive ads? Again, they can easily install uBOL on their Chrome instance, or they can download and install FF+uBO. Or use something else like Brave.
>Tell your friends to use Firefox, people.
Absolutely, yes. Just don't be too surprised when you visit them later and they're still using Chrome (or Edge) with no ad-blocker at all. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Whenever this is brought up, the silence is deafening.
Edge is a good browser, and users are notoriously lazy; most won't read a dialog box before clicking it away. And yet... ~everyone on Windows still downloads Chrome.
Because it's a bad faith argument meant to dismiss all context surrounding the situation to be a reductive 'gotcha' point. Anti consumer practices are still harmful even if people willingly opt into them, and there's no cute soliloquy for you to publicly muse onto us here that would be able to suggest otherwise to dissipate the sentiment.
Your parent poster commented on the nature of learned helplessness to an obvious problem by framing it as leading a horse to water. They were talking about people like you.
Interestingly, making such an accusation when it is unwarranted, as is the case here, is itself a bad-faith argument.
But I suppose this is just another cute soliloquy that I am "musing onto" you.
Mozilla is pretty much entirely funded by Google