Microsoft begins turning off uBlock Origin and other extensions in Edge
neowin.net
neowin.net
Just three days ago, Mozilla reiterated [1] that Firefox would continue to support Manifest V2 alongside Manifest V3. So if you want a better web experience with uBlock Origin, Firefox is your only choice (or use Firefox forks that support it). While you're at it, note that "uBlock Origin works best on Firefox". [2]
[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-manifes...
[2]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
https://www.osnews.com/story/141825/mozilla-deletes-promise-...
Promissory estoppel maybe? Stronger case for it if you ever paid them for anything after this promise.
> For years I’ve been warning about this inevitable outcome, and for just as many years people told me I was overreacting, that it wouldn’t happen, that I was crazy.
The removal of that language is important but this person is trying to make it about themselves.
Orion is a WebKit web browser from the folks at Kagi that supports both Firefox and Chromium extensions (including on iPhones and iPads) and has zero telemetry, and I have the Firefox version of uBlock Origin installed.
Firefox is not the only option for people that want alternatives to Chrome that support uBlock Origin.
Quoting from a reply in a discussion on the Orion Feedback site from a few months ago (November 2024):
> " uBO is not supported on iOS due to Apple limitations."
[1]: https://orionfeedback.org/d/9145-ublock-origin-not-existent-...
The problem with support on iOS is that each browser is forced to be a skin for Safari and Safari only supports Safari Web Extensions, which are MV3-like, hence the platform limitation. The EU law may allow a browser to release in that region but Apple placed such heavy requirements and restrictions to do so none have actually been approved. I haven't seen a clear answer if less limited extension access itself would result in not being approved by Apple.
I removed it right away. I just want a browser, not whatever that was.
Now I just use Safari because all I do really is read stuff.
I looked into it, but couldn't get over the pretentiousness. They seem to make plenty of money from either investors or customers because they're not bankrupt yet, so I guess there must be a demographic that likes being treated like that.
There's something funny about a browser pretending it's the best thing since sliced bread telling me to drag the downloaded application to the macOS dock after downloading the Windows setup file.
At some point the issues will become too difficult to fix, but none of these companies need to be doing it alone. Adding a separate upstream with some "fuck off Google" fixes for them to base their proprietary browser on seems like a smart thing to do.
Maybe it's time
It may be an okay-ish browser, but the company behind it _repeatedly_ does shady things (installs VPN without asking, overriding links to insert referral codes, collecting donations for YouTubers without YouTubers even knowing about it, etc, etc), I am honestly not sure why people are OK with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
If Brave works for you, go for it.
Firefox is still my primary work browser because all the anti-tracking stuff Orion does actually breaks some sites I depend on (well, makes them harder to use anyway), but Orion has become my main and I have lost confidence in Mozilla.
If you want to continue using Firefox as a kind of service to the world or weird self-imposed civic duty, that’s on you. I can pay for Orion and know that there is a company with an actual business model behind it and also not worry about misaligned incentives, or fixing all the tracking and telemetry defaults (only to watch my hard work crumble like when a random Firefox update hosed my settings on my personal machine a couple years ago) because there is no telemetry.
And now Firefox has shad the bed so badly with their "we will actually sell your data now" that I don't even care. It can burn in hell.
FF’s legalese may have burned through their last bit of good will, and if that’s the last nail in their coffin let it be a lesson in terminal enshitification and not understanding or caring about your users.
Zen browser would be an almost drop-in replacement for those that like Arc but it uses FF under the hood instead.
Although, if kagi fails, it probably won't matter.
No idea what they plan to do about syncing though since right now they just use iCloud syncing, but it’s a start.
Another browser option is Brave, but you have to disable the altcoins stuff :/
I don't think that's an unreasonable stance, and they're still explicitly saying "We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be". This is reiterated in the linked Privacy FAQ on their official site: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
It sounds more like 'we sell your data, but we do it in a legally protracted way so we could claim up to now that we don't'.
Given this relates to Firefox's central selling proposition, they surely have an essay detailing exactly what data they're selling?
> Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)."
How is sharing data with partners in order to make Firefox commercially viable (i.e. getting money in exchange) not "selling data"? Anonymized or aggregated data is still data, and it's quite disingenuous of them to try to weasel it in by changing the definition.
> We are as close to not selling data as it is legally possible to be.
Normally when you say "as close to X as legally possible", that means you want to do X fully, but you can't because the law forbids you to. X in this case is "not selling data". But "not selling data" is not illegal at all. What are they even trying to say here?
(Also I don't find that sentence on their FAQ page)
It's actually super simple and needs no obfuscation or verbal esoterica. Don't engage in a contract where data Firefox has collected from users is transferred to a third party.
Done. Easy as.
The sister comment on search engine data transfer is FUD -- the browser can of course send queries to a default search engine without needing to pipe any information to Firefox. Firefox would need no usage monitoring whatsoever, just do a firm fixed price contract and the details are settled.
-- Some prominent ad company which happens to run a search engine as a side business and build a web browser to make ad-targeting better for their customers.
I think we may be advancing to another step in that cycle with software development. Strong, principled software companies created good times in the late 2000s and 2010s, now good times have created software company leaders who are less principled, and the hard times are beginning. And eventually, after the hard times have gone on for long enough, principled leaders will hopefully emerge and create good times again.
That being said:
- I really admire the thinking and moral aptitude that resulted in the Oxide Principles page[0]. Oxide and 37signals[1] are two examples of very principled companies that are keeping good times rolling in their respective fields, and both of them do a ton to support open source software.
- And, there is nothing like ad revenue to accelerate corruption of good principles in software companies that handle user data -- to the extent that I wonder if it's in the same moral category as government officials accepting bribes.
If you are a power-user you may well benefit from using Firefox where uBlock Origin has always claimed to work best.
By switching you will also be removing power from an ad-funded near-monopoly that feels (correctly) that they can do whatever they want even if it is universally despised by users because the other choices are quickly going away. Every using using another browser weakens that grip, every user using a Chromium derivative allows them to keep trying to wedge new features that no other browser wants to implement for user privacy reasons and creates website incompatibility.
On other TVs like my Roku i do pay for a few streaming services with ads and get bombarded with ads on that tv. But its a group tv that many use.
Edit: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/try-out-firefox-p...
Stand up against the browser hegemony*, choose WebKit with support for UBlock Origin:
---
* Tongue in cheek, of course. Long live Firefox.
- integrated screen shot, which includes a “full webpage” option that handles scrolling for you
- Split View, which lets you open two webpages side by side within a single tab
I use both of these daily and get a decent productivity boost from them.
Never used it since because of data privacy concerns. But in the context of working for that company where the assumption was that I would have zero privacy it was fine
https://github.com/pl4nty/msedge/commit/96aa52634072b12fa175...
Too bad a lot of websites just don't work with Firefox. It seems web devs are not testing with Firefox anymore.
I see people complaining, I don't see concrete examples, only panic
The size of blacklists has gone from unlimited to a limited size. The blocking ability has been limited. And the worst of all, blocklists have to be bundled in extension updates and not downloaded. While they have increased the limited blocklist size for V3 overtime, I don't know if they ever changed the other limits.
I wonder how long they’ll maintain manifest v2 compatibility. Once they throw in the towel, Firefox will truly be the last stand.
https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
They are going to keep it enabled until google removes the code from chromium in June. Then it sounds like they are going to try to use other means to offer "limited MV2 support" but there are some issues, including the fact that they don't have their own extension store (and presumably the chrome one won't allow mv2 extensions to be updated) so I'm not sure to what degree that will actually work.
They implement compatible features in the browser itself.
As in, suppose your daily browsing generates about $3 of monthly ad revenue [0]. Instead, you have a (digital) wallet linked to your browser, which could be pre-loaded with credit each month. For each website you visit you may decide to opt-out of ads by paying a fraction of your credits.
You could even have a system where you could pay for a model with light-ads (i.e. at most 1 ad per page, 10 seconds of ads per 30min of video), or pay more for zero ads.
I understand it's a difficult system to organize and is dependent on a strong network. But I'd expect there to be a solid small market by now.
Lots of individual websites have this option (e.g. Netflix, newspapers, Spotify, Youtube Premium) but there's nothing overarching.
[0] https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-go...
For more general pay-to-browse, it needs to have the friction of the user deciding to pay, or you still incentivize spam (maybe even worse than with ads). As long as you keep that friction, you don't really change much because most sites on the Internet aren't worth anything, especially the commercially motivated ones. The ones that are worth something already charge money (and people pay because it's valuable) or they're not trying to monetize (academia, free culture groups, hobby discussion groups, etc).
"How do we get people to pay fractions of a cent" is the wrong problem to solve. The correct related problem is "how do we filter out all the cruft that isn't even worth 1 cent?" Blocking ads removes the financial incentive for spam, and is therefore a socially positive action in addition to being prudent security posture. Assuming ads have an effect on your psychology (and we ought to believe they do), it also helps you to remain a more moral person by preventing you from receiving and internalizing constant messages to consume frivolously. With climate change being one of the most important issues of our time, cutting out such consumption is imperative.
Friction. The vast majority of people are not going to go through the effort of setting up a digital wallet to browse, when the existing system allows them to do it for free.
Some people would for sure, but then you also need websites and creators to agree to participate in the scheme (or don't, and just unethically redirect ad revenue to yourself, like Brave used to).
1. Free competition and lots of it.
2. No widely adopted standard for micropayment
3. Transaction processing fees often left very little for the site.
So, instead, we get companies like the New York Times thinking they're worth, what, $20/mo, per person, all by themselves?
1) Consume more content -> More revenue -> Means more bloated content, esp. with LLM
2) They will simply re-introduce ads even though you're paying
I really don't mind ads, and I don't really mind ad-targeting, except for 'sensitive' topics.
But I despise animated ads, big walls of ads, interstitial ads, popovers, etc, etc, etc. Just be like google in the early '00s: I want content, and I'd be very happy to have non obtrusive relevant-to-the-current-topic ads on the side.
Although I wish more browsers made it easier to selectively enable it per site, like Orion.
You mean you’d like to use a web browser as a document viewer instead of an operating system? This ship has sailed a decade ago, at least.
Heck, stuff sometimes breaks without me even trying to disable anything, like airbnb login via facebook popup stopped working suddenly few months ago (biggest internet mistake I ever done many years ago, as a host I am locked to specific well-rated account and airbnb support told me they can't migrate my account to another form of auth).
Edit: just saw its 'per site' - that would work for me, but not for my parents who live far. But damn I don't want to do this active fight of cat and mouse with whole internet. Firefox/ublock origin user here, on both desktop and phone for many years. Internet looks utterly horrible when I open it somewhere without those, hell youtube with all those ads is absolutely ridiculous shit service. Apple devices I've seen aren't that good either, shame that would be a great selling point for me.
JS is a core part of the modern web experience. 10 years go MAYBE Noscript would work, I never bothered, you end up having to whitelist a bunch of sites anyway even 10 years ago.
I mostly use Edge for accessing the big streaming websites and Firefox for everything else. Video runs somewhat better on Edge for me.
E.g., DNS-level blocking will not block the sponsored links in Google's Search or the ads on YouTube. And while my NextDNS has blocked ads on my Samsung TV, it was unable to block ads on the new Max streaming service (former HBO).
I guess it depends on why we're ad-blocking. If it's for privacy, I guess it's fine, but 1st party requests can and do share your data with first parties, with just one more level of indirection.
I, for one, block ads because ads can be dangerous for my family and even for myself. I don't want ads because I don't want behavior modification, or malware. I also don't want my son to watch ads for services that should be illegal, such as gambling services. And don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people that actually pays for subscriptions to avoid ads, I'm against freeloading as well.
So, DNS-level blocking is just not enough, unless you're happy that you're at least blocking some ads on the scum of the Internet, but then I'm personally not interested in those websites anyway.
I use NextDNS on both my phone and laptop. Much easier setup, and much more portable (e.g. it'll work on cafe wifi).
Firefox is debatably less bearable than a Chromium based browser with uBlock Lite at least on Windows.
I'm slowly thinking that this might be the correct way forward. It's difficult, at least for me, because I am addicted to the internet, but recently I realized that I need to be more mindful about my internet time, simply because it became shit, and using it actually has hugely negative impact on my life. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it's not "ah yeah I'll do that someday", but rather "ok, things are getting serious, I am making a decision and starting to follow though right now".
Essentially, if I open 2-3 pages with these types of ads, I run out of RAM (16 GB) and the whole laptop slows down. I simply can't browse the web while working (which may be a good thing!).
Of course, part of the problem is Outlook and Teams and some other apps using a lot of RAM, but Chrome is the real bottleneck.
So no, not "just bearable". I couldn't even read this article. It's the norm that I just close the tabs without reading because I don't want a laggy PC.
My understanding is that adblockers: 1. block requests from certain domains 2. block elements matching certain criteria
Does this change just affect #1?
The current situation looks more like a deprecation brownout than a chance at continued support.
Huh? uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine.
I've seen absolutely no difference after switching.
I would encourage you to read their explanation.
Oh please. Change your DNS to AdGuard or NextDNS and job done.
I really have no clue, but as far as I can see the answer is never better. More centralized, more bloated, more invasive, less choice, and less freedom.
I've always held AOL fondly. You paid per month, and get access to a giant ecosystem including forums, chat, email, news, zines, games, etc. Mostly ad free as I remember.
In fact, when NetZero became a thing, people mostly weren't interested. They were turned off by the stupid permanent ad bar, and the lack of community.
I wish something like AOL would come back around. Charge me $20 a month, give me a community, email, etc. Don't dare show me an ad.
We're just now getting back to pay for no ads, but its 5 dollars here or there for disparate services.
Man, AOL was ahead of its time. All it needs today that it didn't have was the 'wall', 'profile', whatever. And of course vid/pic sharing.
I remember when moving off AOL to broadband, my family hated it despite the speed. They thought it was clunky and stupid to have to download separate programs or visit different websites to do one thing at a time, in what was in AOL an integration.
FB is probably closest to that experience today, but of course is ad and data driven, and somehow still doesn't feel very community like.
I'd love to see a new, electron based AOL type service come about today. It'd cost a crapton to get the network and content up to attract any user base, else I'd try it myself.
I remember being blown away by discovering people would randomly make private chats and trying to guess at what the chat name would be for things I was interested in as a kid. Then I remember having my mind blown that AOL had a built in browser where someone had built a website, not a keyword, that actually had my niche interest that no one in real life did. Then I discovered you could download a much better version of that experience called a browser.
Your idea is just Facebook where you can't link out and is fully corporate controlled. Which I guess is actually Twitter.
I think you long for the Internet where people had hobbies and interest because they enjoyed them, not because they thought they could make money by talking about them.
I was reminded of this recently by comparing an old 90s Toyota to the latest models. The 90s cars were over-engineered and 30 years later, had more breathing room to keep going. Meanwhile the latest stuff is all plastic pieces that have been engineered to perform many tasks using just one piece. The idea was that they could focus on making that one piece as robust as possible and still save money on reducing parts and making the operators life easier during assembly (no one cares about the plight of the repairman). All in the name of saving costs to keep the product competitive in the face of the declining value of fiat money.
Well even though its supposed to be better, the new stuff still sucks. People are holding onto their old cars, we lost so many wonderful 2000s cars due to cash for clunkers. The designs and colors are also more boring.
How do you fight this?
Well as software people we have an out: Homemade software and open source. Homemade software allows us to cut the cruft out of products that companies add. We pay for in our time but if it is important enough to us then it has to be done.
This applies to everything: You can make your own food instead of accepting the declining garbage from takeout/restaurants, you can buy raw materials and do your own woodwork/electronics/metalworking.
Even something like cars can be somewhat pushed back on. Communities form around popular cars to document and better understand the issues prevalent with certain models. Use this info to self select on a vehicle that has a large community and to help anticipate problems that can be coming down the pike with that particular model.
Again, no one has infinite time so you have to decide for yourself what things are important to you and take back control while trying your best to minimize nonsense in other areas.
Ootb VSCode is already a superior experience to Emacs, which I only begrudgingly move away from because of subpar TypeScript + JSX support like 6 years ago. However, after I started using VSCode for work there was just no going back. I use VSCode a lot for text manipulations. I find its regex search replace much easier than using sed in the terminal. Multiple cursors, Git integration, beautiful diffs, command palette is just like Emacs M-x.
Without its proprietary plugins it's still a great gift to the public and forks like Cursor is a good showcase of that. Thanks to monaco almost every web editor nowaways have great usability, syntax highlighting and the keybindings that I'm familiar with.
I think the bigger joke of the century are open source beneficiaries that only take and give nothing back, but still have the audacity to demand for things and hound open source developers to implement what they want. You can't have your cake and eat it too
I switched to Edge on my Windows machine for a while, because that meant that I didn’t need the disk space for an additional browser (same as when just using Safari on Mac) and it was reasonably pleasant and worked well. Guess that’s ending, I liked the DevTools in Firefox a bit more anyways.
Is that even a consideration nowadays? That's wild!
On Linux, you typically can install whatever browser and uninstall the default one that came with the OS if you want.
Not going to be a big deal once I install the new 1 TB SSD, though I’ll probably also need to move to Windows 11 in the process, because of the EOL (will still dual boot with Linux).
Chromium devtools has more features but more cluttered and more annoying to work with.For the common devtools tasks Firefox works better IMHO. But that can be my bias after using Firefox/Firebug devtools for over 15 years.
I think this is heading to a point where lot of power users are simply not updating their browsers any more.
Personally I'll take the miniscule chance of being infected with malware due to a security bug on an older version of Firefox over the inability to run uBlock Origin any day. I can recover from malware installation. I can not use the web without an ad blocker.
What I'll probably do is use an isolated sandbox environment for any web browsing I need absolute security (e.g. online banking/shopping).
I've used Firefox on android for a while as android chrome hasn't had adblocking for a long time.
Am pretty anti-google these days but it'll take some time to untangle myself from the ecosystem.
Anyway, I've largely moved back to Firefox on the desktop too, swapped a few icons about so my muscle memory now opens Firefox instead of Chrome and it's been totally painless. An easy win.
The next step is start paying for Kagi...
It feels a bit like ~25 years ago when Yahoo was this bloated do everything company with a bad search engine and someone showed me this simple website with just a search bar that was super quick with clean results...
Shame that Microsoft just chose to no longer have a real browser. Oh well, long live MSIE I guess.
They haven't been the Windows company for... Oh Christ, I'm getting old, since 2014. The day Sataya became CEO they officially became a cloud company.
If it wouldn't literally fuck over the entire world, they'd just stop Windows entirely.
[1]: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
> Injecting content scripts in a non-declarative way is unreliable in MV3 due to fact that extensions are really service workers which can be suspended at any time.
[1]: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
[2]: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
Every time this conversation comes up here and elsewhere, you get a huge swath of comments decrying Mozilla or suggesting Brave instead, which is Chrome in a trenchcoat last I checked. I've used all sorts of browsers over the years, and I keep returning to Firefox, at this point being able to configure it for good level of privacy in less than a minute with each install on a new machine.
My experience is perhaps skewed, but I view Google and Microsoft as modern enemies of the Web I want to see happen, perhaps having started off the hero, but living long enough to see themselves become the villain. Their products seem actively and aggressively hostile to users and compliant with websites that demand we use them for "best experience" which, by now we should all know means harvesting our data.
Again, I have some ignorance here that needs to be rectified, but where are the true apples to apples comparisons of all browsers so that users can use to evaluate which is best? I don't mean just surface level features and marketing woo, but what's happening at the code level that allows the developer or websites we visit to treat us like data thralls. Where are the resources to learn about that in these discussions?
I'm a fan of Brave and Arc. The LadyBird announcement is great.
Somehow Chrome has fried my brain and I can't stand the UX of other browsers. I understand you may be asking "how bad can it be? Its just a browser?" but when I use other things (even Safari) it just doesn't cut the mustard.
Same goes for, eh, everything else actually: from political parties to non-profits, any time something isn't executed perfectly or some compromise needs to be made, people pull the rug by moving away (votes, donations, spreading the word, whatnot) and we're more in the hands of the orgs we wanted to oppose than before. Bathwater baby sports. We should hold olympics for them
FWIW I use Firefox with Google Docs/Sheets extensively, with no issues.
I have more issues with Mozilla management and more reasons to do so than almost anyone on HN, and yet I still use Firefox as my predominant browser, as I have done so since 2003. I worked at Mozilla and then quit over some of my concerns, yet at the same time it's blatantly obvious that Firefox very much empowers you as a user to configure anything you like in `about:config` regardless of what the default settings may be.
I predict this will only get worse as the iPad Kids in Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha come of age and accept the soulless shitheap that is modern corporate software without question. You're on the right path, all you can do is make your own individual choice and continue pointing out the sheer laziness and hypocrisy of those who complain but do nothing about it, including in their own lives.
I appreciate your recommendation, I'm just frustrated with the level of discourse I see in these discussions.
Sadly they chose not.
I'm curious as to why you suspect this. Have they stated so?
The reality is that no business likes ad-blockers so why go through that trouble only to get less money?
Together with the recent FF news, this is terrible news for the open, user-controlled web.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
It's funny how Chrome became practically my new Internet Explorer.
For iDevices relying on Orion Browser paired with Ublock Origin and NextDNS set up. As good as Safari but without the annoyances of Plugins. Their compatablity mode seems to work on sites where Safari seems to have issues.
Ungoggled Chromium for sites that seem to break on both Firefox and Orion, unfortunately there are loads out there. It's a shame that Firefox isn't as effecient with Battery Consumption as Orion is.
Brave/Edge just never cut it for me.
Edge has all the user-hostile stuff much more in your face. Like the shopping bar that keeps popping up with coupons or tries to get you to buy at a shop that pays more for advertising. And it tries to trick the user into getting bogged down with loans by offering buy now pay later schemes.
All the sneaky tracking stuff from chrome also happens. So why would you bother?
The only reason it's still popular is that companies love it because they can lock it down in full BOFH mode. At my work I can't even choose to reopen the last tabs anymore on launch. That and pretty much every other setting is "managed by your organisation"
(I've only very briefly worked with restrictive Windows, and it was years ago.)
Check it out here: https://nextdns.io/
This is a cat and mouse game. The overarching issue here is the web embraced the monoculture of Chromium as the basis for browsers. Can we really expect any less?
I've had good success with Violent Monkey and scripts from Greasy Fork on every browser I run, which is Edge (work becoz SSO), Chrome, and Firefox. They have never been detected.
This is from manifest v3 google page. Is this declarativeNetRequest API not able to provide any filtration ? Proxying traffic does affect privacy, I agree, but that also means that Google is trusting all traffic by default which is another privacy concern. So the privacy concern seems to not make sense except that in one of the two, google loses money because of ads being blocked.
It'll still block some ads, but anti-ad-blocker tech will have an easier time.
Don't want to use Firefox, too many rendering bugs and performance issues we've run into.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201096
There really isn't a trustworthy Web browser anymore.
It's good to call Mozilla out for doing something shitty, but it always feels chicken little at best when people yell about switching to any Chromium varient. Usually it just feels kind of like Astro turfing,
The best version of ublock origin is the one that is banned by Google but allowed in Firefox, Ad Nauseum
Sadly, I still cannot add custom filters to uBlock Lite.
[1]: https://browsernative.com/kiwi-browser-discontinued-7097/
We DO have an ace up our sleeves should we choose to use it:
Stop using any of it
next: kernel code deployment _MUST_ go thru them, namely internet or offline storage for clients paying more (A LOT more).
next: app installation _MUST_ go thru their store (or the ones from their big tech friends).
next: "validated" hardware will have to have _NOT_ "secure boot" you can disable.
And now we have a "MicrosoftStation", the new video game console.
After 21 years of Firefox, that was rather bitter goodbye moment.
I use Firefox for everything else :)
"uBlock Origin was turned off. This extension is no longer supported. Edge recommends that you remove it."
I have a few decades of experience with the Internet, and even I understood the dialog box as saying that Ublock didn't work anymore. In reality, as the text says, it still works if you click "Manage Extension" and turn it back on.
This infuriates me.
I sincerely think Microsoft can't be trusted.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2595287/ublock-origin-is-off...
But by all means, keep the EEE story.
The only other option is to keep v2 in chromium itself and have Chrome disable it... While still paying the cost of supporting it in all new feature dev.
There's no world where Microsoft spins up a new engineering team solely to deal with the extra cost of keeping v2 around.
That said this sucks. I got my first internship on the Internet Explorer team by talking about how hard it was to install an ad blocker in IE, compared to Chrome.