Hacker News Reader

Comment by yakz | Hacker News Reader

A problem is that the platform owners argue that this kind of stuff is why they need to put up a security gate that prevents you from installing whatever you want on your own device while also allowing you to install the malware from the ads (... maybe because they want to control what you can install more than they care about the malware?)

View on HN

> On goes Firefox, uBlock Origin, and a couple other extensions. They don't care what browser they use.

I did the same with my mom, but then her broker and doctor's websites started complaining that they will only run on a supported browser, i.e., Chrome.

I've gotten her to still use Firefox for most other things, but it's not easy.

You can try Brave, it's Chromium under the hood so it's usually accepted and has built in ad blocking, and a one click way to turn it off for a specific site if you have an issue.

Did you try spoofing the User-Agent?

A user-agent spoofer like Chrome Mask is helpful here:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/

It's off by default and has to be turned on per site, but will automatically stay on for subsequent visits. Test the site with it to be sure it works for your mom. Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox. I've encountered a few that run even better on Firefox than they do on Chrome.

"Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox."

I have never encountered a site that requires a Chrome user-agent string

Some sites require a string that either (a) is in a list of acceptable strings (that includes non-Chrome strings) or (b) follows a certain format

FWIW, most websites submitted to HN, including many high traffic sites, do not require a user-agent header at all

What are some examples of these alleged "Chrome-only" sites

Reply on news.ycombinator.com