So, what they're saying is: Chrome will have severely decreased functionality and users will no longer be able to protect themselves from sketchy ads that contain scams, malware, and other nefarious bullshit (often hosted on Google's own ad networks)?
What are you expecting, a corp to... ah... uh... not be evil, or something? :-P
Thank you very much for summoning Jeff Goldblum's voice into my head.
I... uh, found a way:-D.
Google is primarily an ad company
It did not always used to be this way, though it was always headed here.
Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.
Whew, kinda weird to find a Google employee on lemmy. I would have thought there were rules against that in the would employee handbook.
I don't work for Google. Are you in a cult or an anti-opensource PR firm? Why would that be your first instinct in response to facts? Go read the beginners guide to MV3. Maybe you could learn a thing or two before talking about feelings.
You gave no facts, just opinions.
And if you aren't aware, astroturfing is a thing.
Of course they're aware, they're doing it right now.
I gave you facts about MV3. It is also explained at the beginning of the uBOL GitHub page which even acknowledges MV3 adds protections to users with some filtering tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs can be implemented in other ways but it is more work and would require other software. I am not here saying Google is perfect or that MV3 is perfect, but it does make installing extensions more secure for the average user. If you don't agree then be specific. This vagueness that you keep utilizing without providing any details at all to try to make a point is a clear sign that you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, that's not even how Ublock Origin fucking works, what a hilariously ignorant take.
Did I say that the author of uBlock Origin actually reads your traffic? No I didn't, so stop the bad faith arguments. I said that MV2 exposed users to malicious extensions that were able to do that. Most features of uBO work fine with uBOL. Not everything does though, and I do acknowledge that. I'm just saying MV3 does make a majority of users safer overall.
Nope
Yep. Facts.
You seem to be struggling with the term "facts"
Is your feelings facts to you? Which fact specifically am I struggling with? Do you have anything concrete to say at all or are you just going to keep being vague because of feelings?
Seeing all your traffic is required for an ad blocker to function correctly.
An ad blocker doesn't need to see your traffic to function. That is the point of the declarative APIs. It is supposed to help protect users from malicious extensions and some forms of malicious software.
Yes, it absolutely does.
An adblocker has unconditional complete control of my browser because I want it to have unconditional complete control of my browser, because it cannot do what I want it to any other way. Taking that control away from me is malicious by definition. It's more malicious when every single person on the planet with a shred of tech knowledge knows with certainty that it's for the sole purpose of boosting Google's ad revenue at the expense of their users.
So, what they're saying is: Chrome will have severely decreased functionality and users will no longer be able to protect themselves from sketchy ads that contain scams, malware, and other nefarious bullshit (often hosted on Google's own ad networks)?
What are you expecting, a corp to... ah... uh... not be evil, or something? :-P
Thank you very much for summoning Jeff Goldblum's voice into my head.
I... uh, found a way:-D.
Google is primarily an ad company
It did not always used to be this way, though it was always headed here.
Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.
Whew, kinda weird to find a Google employee on lemmy. I would have thought there were rules against that in the would employee handbook.
I don't work for Google. Are you in a cult or an anti-opensource PR firm? Why would that be your first instinct in response to facts? Go read the beginners guide to MV3. Maybe you could learn a thing or two before talking about feelings.
You gave no facts, just opinions.
And if you aren't aware, astroturfing is a thing.
Of course they're aware, they're doing it right now.
I gave you facts about MV3. It is also explained at the beginning of the uBOL GitHub page which even acknowledges MV3 adds protections to users with some filtering tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs can be implemented in other ways but it is more work and would require other software. I am not here saying Google is perfect or that MV3 is perfect, but it does make installing extensions more secure for the average user. If you don't agree then be specific. This vagueness that you keep utilizing without providing any details at all to try to make a point is a clear sign that you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, that's not even how Ublock Origin fucking works, what a hilariously ignorant take.
Did I say that the author of uBlock Origin actually reads your traffic? No I didn't, so stop the bad faith arguments. I said that MV2 exposed users to malicious extensions that were able to do that. Most features of uBO work fine with uBOL. Not everything does though, and I do acknowledge that. I'm just saying MV3 does make a majority of users safer overall.
Nope
Yep. Facts.
You seem to be struggling with the term "facts"
Is your feelings facts to you? Which fact specifically am I struggling with? Do you have anything concrete to say at all or are you just going to keep being vague because of feelings?
Seeing all your traffic is required for an ad blocker to function correctly.
An ad blocker doesn't need to see your traffic to function. That is the point of the declarative APIs. It is supposed to help protect users from malicious extensions and some forms of malicious software.
Yes, it absolutely does.
An adblocker has unconditional complete control of my browser because I want it to have unconditional complete control of my browser, because it cannot do what I want it to any other way. Taking that control away from me is malicious by definition. It's more malicious when every single person on the planet with a shred of tech knowledge knows with certainty that it's for the sole purpose of boosting Google's ad revenue at the expense of their users.