So ... can we like finally dismiss Google Chrome as the obviously awful idea it is and which should never have made it this far and remind all of the web devs married to it that they're doing bad things and are the reason why we can't have nice things?
Hmmm ... a web browser owned by a monopolistic advertising company ... how could that possibly go wrong??!!
Do you remember the Internet Explorer days? This, unfortunately, is still much better.
Pretty good reason to switch the Firefox, now. Nearly everything will work, unlike the Internet Explorer days.
Firefox User
I think some people overestimate how many will migrate to Firefox in the near future over this.
High switching cost compared to finding another extension (e.g. uBO Lite), even if the resulting experience is worse.
Just as many Firefox users like Firefox, lots of Chrome users enjoy what they have too. They don't want to lose that.
The kind of tech-aware person who'd switch over this is much more likely to have seen the news months ago and taken action already.
As fun as it is to imagine an Adpocalypse shocking the masses and pushing them to try out alternatives to big tech, it's also way too optimistic, I feel.
Yeah, same with people here declaring the death of reddit, or Twitter, or any of these massive, mainstream services. People in bubbles (and Lemmy is definitely a bubble) always seem to underestimate how little everyone else cares or even knows about the things that are important to them. The service needs to be extremely bad in a user experience way, not an ethical way, for an extended period of time and there needs to be a big social movement where lots of people migrate to a direct and equivalent competitor within a short space of time. Most people will not do it on their own, they will wait until they see their peers doing it and only then can a migration start to snowball.
"Netflix will die when they ban account sharing!!" - Reddit/Lemmy/Techtubers
Netflix actually went on to have a massive jump in revenue, because most normal people can't be arsed to set up a Plex/Emby/Jellyfin server and buy a shitload of storage.
Even if every uBlock user switched, it’s less than 1% of chrome users.
Yeah, I thought about mentioning that. But the comparison goes both ways. Less than 1% of Chrome users switching to Firefox could still mean an increase in Firefox users of over 10%, if I remember my numbers correctly. That'd be a sweet boost for most products.
Ya, it’d still be huge for Firefox, but what I’m really getting at is that even with this change, Chrome is going nowhere. They’re the big fish, they can afford to make these kinds of changes, because the people who care are a very small minority.
To be fair, nerds will tell their tech-illiterate friends about this change and probably influence them enough to consider it. Especially when it's something as easy as downloading an application.
It's much easier to switch a browser then it is to stop using Google, Facebook, etc.
Depends on their methodology. Sure, a huge proportion of those are users who haven't heard of uBO, but we're forgetting a lot of caveats:
Electron exists and lots of apps are built on top of it and identify as "Chrome". Judging by the numbers most have been weeded out, but some edge cases do visit more sites so they end up in the count.
A lot of workplaces mandate the browser, which is often Chrome. This also gets counted.
A not insignificant amount of Firefox users change their useragent to Chrome.
All of these skew the numbers towards Chrome. Some Chrome users use a different adblocker which lowers the uBO statistic.
I’ve been on Firefox since manifest v3 was announced. Firefox has its own shortcomings but no dealbreakers.
What are some shortcomings in your view?
I don't like the lack of customisability. I've been using Vivaldi for a long time now and nothing comes close to how customisable and feature-packed it is. Everything can be set up and tweaked exactly how I want. My version of Vivaldi would look, feel, and act entirely different to someone else's, because it does what I want, not the other way around.
Unfortunately, it's Chromium-based. But the developers have been working on its native ad blocker in case extensions are impacted. They're quite a brilliant bunch, so I'm hoping it all goes smooth. I really don't want to have to go back to Firefox if I can help it. I can't stand UX for the masses and these guys get it.
There's also other chromium browsers with built-in ad-blocking that still work AFAIK. If all extensions and forked brower's ad-blockers stopped working, I think there would probably be a surge in firefox usage (even if there's not that much change in chromium usage).
Yeah I use Vivaldi as my daily driver and love it. There’s built in ad blocking but it’s not as good as the extension. If the extension stops working there I’ll switch to Firefox in a heartbeat though
As a supporter of Firefox and FOSS, the closed-source, Chromium-based Vivaldi is my guilty pleasure. It has the best UI experience I've found on a browser, and the company behind it doesn't seem to be very evil.
Leaving Vivaldi was a sad moment for me. That UI, that sidebar, the settings, those features...! Goodness. I'm an avid enjoyer of bells and whistles, and Vivaldi's got all of them and then some. I miss that a bit.
The folks working on it seem great, check their blog for their decision track record 123. Did you know they also host a mastodon instance? Literally my only issue with it is the engine, and that just so unluckily happens to be a deal breaker.
Yeah the founders are ex-Opera devs who left after the company was acquired by Qihoo 360, and the power user UI features are leagues ahead of other browsers I’ve tried. I wish Firefox developer edition would embrace of a philosophy of a more customizable UI centered around power users
Is there any other browser that does a right-side vertical tab bar with compact tabs?
There's an extension for Firefox to do it, but it's a bit clunkier than Vivaldi's - definitely something I'd only switch to if I really had to... but every other browser I've seen only offers left-side vertical tabs at best, which is terrible if you want 3 monitors in a left-to-right layout with your browser on the left.
That expands and compacts based on the sidebar state and can be flipped to the right side of the window in the 'customise sidebar' settings.
Vivaldi is cool. I installed it (for those who wanted a chromium browser) and FF on all the work computers where I work. Eventually uninstalled it because people started playing Vivaldia. Disabled Edge, so now they are FF only.
Hopefully it will give Firefox a bit of a boost anyway. Firefox needs a boost.
I haven't watched a single YouTube advertisement in 5 years
If large numbers of people were going to switch browsers over an ad-blocking extension, the whole advertising industry would be significantly less successful than it is.
High switching cost compared to finding another extension (e.g. uBO Lite), even if the resulting experience is worse.
You're not wrong about the high switching cost.
Switching from Chrome to Vivaldi (because of Chrome's whole FLoC thing) to Brave (because I didn't like Vivaldi's layout) to Firefox (because of Brave's whole thing) was a pain.
And I don't mean as a whole. Taking the time each time to change from one browser to another was always a pain. Transferring bookmarks and passwords was easy (Chrome and Firefox are at least compatible in that regard), but transferring extension settings was a whole different beast.
Some extensions had cloud sync support. Others had local export support. Some didn't have either kind, and I'd have to manually copy the settings from one browser over to the other. And that's not even getting into finding replacements for the Chrome-exclusive extensions (of which there were only a few, thankfully).
(because of Brave's whole thing)
Ha.
I'm sorry to hear that, been there (Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Firefox in my case). Hopefully we can stick around for a while.
My friends will stick to chrome, I switched to Firefox months ago. You're right
Not to mention all the people who don't even have an adblocker and for some reason don't seem to care that their web browsing is infested with ads.
A lot of people don't even know it's an option, or have grown to believe that's just how the web is. When was the last time you saw adblockers in mainstream media or news?
This is why I think it's so important to keep raising awareness. If you have people in your life who you believe would be better off using uBlock, consider bringing it up when you have the opportunity.
And then there are Safari users who are watching from the sidelines.
1 year ago I had basically free Spotify Premium because Safari was unable to play ads. That's a kind of ad blocking.
And you ran zero ad blockers in Safari and on your network?
No ad blocker. This bug started to break song playback on Safari (according to Spotify's forums, I faced no such problem) and then it was fixed so I got ads.
I agree folks are overestimating how many will switch. but also maybe you're underestimating too - a lot of browser installations are managed by the "family tech guy". the father, mother, brother, sister, aunt or uncle who sets up everyone's new laptops on Christmas and has the suggestions when you look for a new phone. we all know the type. a lot of us are the type.
setting up granny's laptop? I'll install whatever browser lets me automatically block the most "1000th visitor!" banner ads and change the desktop icon to the old AOL icon because that's all she knows the internet as. she doesn't know of care about the browser options so it's up to me. Chrome used to be fast and simple so it was the right choice. Firefox has caught up a fair bit on UX simplicity and speed and now offers better blocking and general security, so it just stole the crown for these installations imo. I trust it more to not let her mess the computer up, so even if I'm not using it as my main personal browser, it gets use here.
For what it's worth, I hope you're right.
I think probably the single most important thing that nobody is saying is that Google have ALL the numbers on this decision and they are not stupid, so it would be silly to assume this will work against their interests. Not only do they know how many people use chrome, their ad network gives them insight into ALL browsers.
Just as some Firefox users like Firefox, many Chrome users enjoy what they have too. They don't want to lose that.
Do you have some source for that? IIUC, you mean that more Chrome users like Chrome than Firefox users like Firefox, right?
"Some people like things."
SOURCE?!
"Some firefox users like firefox" vs "many chrome users enjoy what they have" sounds to me like something that could have a source. Many sound to me more than some, so this is a comparison, which can be given a better foundation by supplying some numbers.
I thought that might've been the source of your misunderstanding. Sorry, that's just how I write sometimes, no deeper meaning intended. As far as I know there's no public data on what percentage of Firefox and Chrome users like their browsers' features.
No. I simply meant that there exist Chrome users who appreciate what it provides them (features, UI, etc), so for these users to leave they'd have to give up those things. That's always a hard ask.
Meh. They had plenty of time to move to Firefox but they ignored all the warnings.
It’s not like they contracted some sort of terminal illness. Anyone can migrate whenever. It’s not hard.
I believe that some organizations restrict what applications can be installed on work computers, so that might not necessarily be true, at least for work machines.
One more vector of malware for these corporate systems. Sucks for them I suppose.
if they’re restricting apps to that degree you probably can’t install extensions anyway.
My organization has blocked all browsers other than Edge and Chrome - and has also blocked all plugins except for UBlock. For security reasons, of course.
Everyone knows seeing a bunch of uncontrolled JavaScript-powered ads from who knows what server is good for security.
And I mean, there's still time now. Switching browsers isn't that bad. Export+import some bookmarks and adjust some settings, good to go.
I think FF has been a good option for a while. But the second best time is now. I can totally get it if people didn't want to switch until they had more of a concrete problem.
FF still hasn't brought back a tab group API for extensions or native tab groups. Extensions can only do so much given what they have to work with. I still use FF on the side, but it simply isn't a practical as a primary browser for me currently.
But for casual users, many probably have never even touched their browser settings.
Tab groups are coming but in the mean time containers work well enough for me with the added benefit that they’ll also block tracking from the sites that are within them.
Understandable, I'm really looking forward to FF getting tab groups too. I don't know why such a nice feature was left unimplemented for so long. 🫤
For all the firefox fans out there it might be good to note there have consistently been more Safari users than Firefox users since 2014. Hell Safari has been the number two browser by market share since 2015.
Browsers have to get very SHITTY or a new browser has to have a killer app to unseat a dominate one.
I don’t think safari is even remotely comparable given that it’s a default browser on macs.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's not possible to install any other browser on iPhones unless you get root.
Edit: It looks like you can with iOS 15.0
Those are all just skins on safari. Until like 6 months ago you couldn't install any web browser with a renderer other than safari. And that's only in the EU.
As I understand it, any browser on iPhone has to be built on WebKit, so even if you install fire fox or chrome, it’s running on a totally different web engine than the desktop version. Making them more safari re-skins in the same way that stuff like brave or opera are just chrome reskins.
I’ve had iPhone for years and I can’t remember the last time I didn’t use chrome with it
Never rooted my phones either. It’s definitely not blocked
How so ? The default browser on Windows is Edge, people keep installing Chrome? Chrome is available on MacOS, yet people stick with Safari?
some people stick with safari, but no one is replacing chrome, fire fox, or edge with safari. People choose to replace edge because it is obtrusive and annoying to use, safari isn’t.
In that context, safari is not a competitor for Firefox in the same way chrome is. It’s comparing apples to oranges.
Almost like being the default gives you an unfair advantage or something.
"The browser built to be yours"
Hahaha sure thing Google
"The browser built to be piping your data into our hands"
I'm in the process of switching to firefox on all my devices.
I've had enough of Google pushing features like this.
Having ublock on mobile is such a breath of fresh air. I wish I had made the transition sooner. I knew this was coming and completed my transition a few weeks back so I could abandon Chrome on my own time table and not on Google's. Other than a little headache trying to find extension replacements for pc, I'm LOVING it.
I switched from Chrome to Firefox in 2019 because that's when Google adopted Manifest V3 and I never looked back. There were already articles then describing how it'd break ad blockers, and Firefox had at the time just recently released their "Quantum" overhaul which drastically improved responsiveness.
I'm a bit surprised it took five years for Google to drop support for Manifest V2, but the threat has long been there.
I remember the Quantum release. They remade how the browser handled tabs, and with the new release you could handle (almost) unlimited number of tabs. I tried this buy opening as many tabs as I could, it worked flawlessly. I can't even remember how it was before that, except that it was RAM intensive.
I use Firefox as my main on my home pc. I keep running into things that don't work on Firefox. Not by saying they don't, just by throwing errors that make it sound like I put the wrong data in a field. Is there some magic extension to fix that?
"intrusive ads" are the least of the problems, an adblocker is a critical part of any computer's security suite.
The internet advertisement companies wont police their ads from maleware, and untill they accept criminal and financial responsibillity when their ads cause harm to the users being served compromised ads from their networks, I won't even consider disabling my adblocker
as long as data caps exist anywhere on the planet all internet advertisement is theft.
I see your point but disagree with your hard take.
Firefox.
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way.
There's only 34 million uBlock Origin users on Chrome?
So, billions are using Chrome without any ad-blockers? That's crazy and unsafe
Most users are fucking idiots and will continue to raw-dog the internet while visiting the most malicious sites possible.
I feel like you've worked helpdesk at some point.
Worked IT. Can confirm.
Yes. Unfortunately. "a virus? How did I get that? What's an anti-virus? You must be wrong, I just do a little bit of web browsing and downloading music." (this was in the windows xp days that I'm specifically flashing back to)
Lemmy has a really biased idea of what the average computer user can do. Imagine Janet in accounting, who calls help desk to reset her password every morning, and takes 30 minutes to remember how to check her email. Or the late GenZ just entering the workforce, who was surprised that their desktop wasn’t a touchscreen, and doesn’t know how a file structure works, because literally every device they’ve used growing up has been either a tablet or a Chromebook. That’s the average user.
I don't classify them as computer "users" personally, I think of them as computer butcherers
My boss once asked me to take a look at her computer that was super slow and barely functional, and the thing that surprised me the most was that she had been running Chrome without any adblock since ever, and when I asked her about adblock, she answered: "adwhat?". Mind you that she's still a millennial, and only a few years older than me.
I had to use my parents desktop a when I flew home for a bit.
Surfing the internet is fucking stressful if you don't have adblocks.
So overstimulating!!
I'm also on windows and for some reason I had to use Edge.
The Edge home screen is the VERY REASON google killed it back in the 90s. Clean clear search screen.
Allows you to think what you are doing with out getting bombarded with ads and posts and ads and markets.
Reminded me how terrible the search experience was back in Alta Vista and Yahoo days
There are also loads of people using Edge.
A lot of them don't know the difference between ab, abp ublock and ublock origin
There are billions of people on earth who don't have access to a computer.
I miss the "dont be evil" version of google. Its like, large amounts of money ruin everything
It's not just large amounts of money. It's chasing more and more money each quarter, and when it starts slowing down panic sets in and they start trying to find any and every possible avenue to keep profits up. It's how we've ended up in subscription based hell and it'll only get worse.
It deserves mentioning that Firefox on Android supports extensions, so if you uninstall/disable the official YouTube app then add uBlock Origin and Sponsorblock you get a more tolerable experience.
Or just use Revanced or Grayjay, both of which are ad free and support sponsor block. Revanced is still a bit more feature complete imo, but also more buggy on my device, and more of a hassle to update. The browser YouTube experience is so bad, ads or ad free.
Can also use Vinegar (for YouTube) and Baking Soda (for basically every other site with videos) with Safari on iOS. It’s not a perfect solution, but it at least revamps Safari’s built-in video player so watching in the browser is actually tolerable.
You can also patch YouTube in a similar way as revanced on iOS, I use YTLitePlus. And for Adblock I use the Wipr extension and hush for blocking and auto rejecting cookie popups.
No jailbreak needed.
Advertising company makes it harder to block ads on their browser, news at 11.
Or did anyone forget that they made an explicit effort to block another ad blocking extension a while back, including blocking it from the Chrome store, blocking you from installing it manually and even blocking at least some versions of it from being manually installed in developer mode?
Ad nauseam, because it also simulated ad clicks and thus ruined their metrics.
At this point I am seriously wondering why people would like to use Chrome over Firefox for instance.
“What's a browser?” —the general populace
I just install uBlock Origin on every device I come across. Graffiti software.
Because I use chrome for standard use and Firefox for sailing the high seas. And I much prefer just having 2 separate browsers for containerization. I'm just going to have to use librewolf or something when I do get the the mv3 update.
Why not just use something like Fences on Firefox? It allows you to containerize individual tabs. I use it all the time to separate work and personal accounts.
This is also how I have it set up, with "firefox multi-account containers" and "simple tab groups" working together, you can have multiple containerized accounts within one firefox instance. Works great!
Does this allow you enable/disable add-ons on a per container basis? What about bookmarks?
I am using Firefox as of last week I made the switch to the browser a different password manager and so far it is fine but there have been a couple of hiccups but it's not necessarily a Firefox issue but an implementation with Android issue.
For example auto forwarding to an app from a webpage in Firefox has worked half the time for me and the other half not so much.
This is a small example, having Google Chrome and like wise the Google app be native to Android so they move back and forth between one another and are interchangeable while using my phone is much more smooth on my Android device.
Other than that, I am not positive as to why. On Desktop, zero issues. Works like a charm.
Its cool well just message the maintainers of Android to improve it, I'm sure it's a mistake. Lemme go check who who's behind it... /s
Being able to cast seamlessly from Chrome to Chromecast is the only major issue I've had since switching to Firefox. It's possible with Firefox and it works 99% of the time but it feels a little clunky. Completely worth it though overall and not a dealbreaker
How do you cast from Firefox?
Search up the fx_cast extension
Personal preference I guess. I've tried Firefox many times over the years and always ended up going back to other browsers. I find Firefox doesn't render some pages quite right, the user agent stylesheet is odd, and the UI is less streamlined. Performance also used to be a problem although I hear it's caught up now.
I used to be a Chrome user but now I prefer chromium based alternatives like brave and edge (which incidentally, uBO will keep working on). Chrome is still required for work, but uBO change won't be an issue I think, there are plenty of other ad blockers that will work with MV3
I use multiple profiles in chrome for my different logged in usages, for some reason Firefox makes it hard to switch profiles.
Look up the Firefox Containers extension.
"Hard" is a strong word. It's not built into the default interface, granted, but it's not that hard to use FF's command line: firefox -P
They have said they're thinking about rejigging the whole thing though.
Ok, telling people to open a command line and TYPE firefox -P is HARD. In chrome you just click the icon in the upper right and select whatever profile you want.
It makes no sense that you have to either open about:profiles then select "launch in new window" or open the command line to start a new profile, makes NO sense at all.
You can open a firefox private window with a keyboard shortcut, but if you want to be logged into two different accounts in two different profiles, you have to go through a minimum of three non-intuitive steps.
Even the extension that adds the profile switching doesn't work anymore because it's not maintained.
Dude, if that's all-caps HARD, then I don't know how you'd classify, say, compiling things from source and fixing any problems that might crop up along the way. Or fixing missing DLL / OCX hell when trying to get an old Windows game running under Linux, because let me tell you, I've done both of those and had to give up. firefox -P is heaven by comparison.
You could even put it into a shortcut and you wouldn't have to type it any more.
Yes the interface sucks, but HARD is not it.
Sure, but you know most people do not have to do what you just described.
Most people don't need multiple profiles either.
Fair enough
The profile manager is definitely annoying, but it shouldn't be that hard to visit about:profiles to switch / open other profiles. Afaik they do work on a better one though.
it has something like '-no-remote -p name' param on cmd that you can do it seamless like chromium, or u can use the fork of the drop official pwa firefox support, it could be better, i know n i get it, but if u just use chromium base for it, than i got u covered
Use chrome to download Firefox.
That's Edge's job. Though I guess they're basically the same thing...
Equally fkin useless.
I wish I had a 1.0 version of netscape saved somewhere so I could use it.
Back in the day when I still used windows, I did not even use IE to download Firefox. I used the FTP functionality inside the explorer to download Firefox from the Mozilla FTP.
I didn't even need a browser to download another browser, I just git clone it from the AUR :P
Just curl it from Mozilla, they provide an archive file that's distro agnostic.
Used Chrome forever, switched to Firefox back when this stuff first started going down. No ragerts.
No Rugrats!
I just listened to a rugrats song yesterday though.
Which one?
You're a friend to me.
Stallman was right.
It's pronounced GNU Stallman.
I can't listen or look at this man anymore after seeing him scrape shit off his feet and eat it in front of a bunch of people. 🤢
He has went on record multiple times saying having sex with children (even within the family) or family pets is fine. Eating his foot gunk is the least of my issues with him.
That said, when it comes to warning about software, he was pretty bang-on.
How is it that you're so well-versed in all of Stallman's negative quotes (from over a decade ago), yet conveniently omitted the fact that he later retracted those statements?
On September 16, 2019, Stallman announced his resignation from both MIT and FSF, "due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations".[124] In a post on his website, Stallman asserted that his posts to the email lists were not to defend Epstein, stating "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist', and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him—and other inaccurate claims—and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said.
The FSF board on April 12 made a statement re-affirming its decision to bring back Richard Stallman.[133] Following this, Stallman issued a statement explaining his poor social skills and apologizing.[134]
Those issues are ones that it's hard to just walk back with a mea culpa, especially when the apology comes precisely when it starts to impact your career.
Stallman spends decades publicly-championing adult-child sexual relations on his personal blog and using his work email address.
Stallman later comes under fire for strange comments about Epstein's underage girls/clients. Some people say he should step down, as his poor image jeopardises the effectiveness of the FSF.
2 days later, Stallman has a sudden change of heart. Child/adult sexual relations are wrong. Children can't consent.
Some Linux nerds: "see, he's changed his mind, he's a different man!"
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but to me the timing of his epiphany seems rather convenient.
How ready people are to treat celebrities as deity-like figures is scary to me. Just because Stallman has some great FOSS credentials doesn't mean he can't be a total POS in other areas. People bend over backwards to defend him as some saint who can do no wrong, even to the extent of trivialising child rape. It's scary what a bit of celebrity worship can get people to do.
You mean when he had an epiphany and changed his mind 2 days after his job became under fire?
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because it was a clear last-ditch effort to save his job, rather than because he genuinely went from his decades-held (and publicly-championed) view that sex with children is ok to sex with children is rape, by sheer coincidence, 2 days after people started requesting he step down over Epstein comments?
It was about as convincing a statement from Stallman as when Zuckerberg says he cares about privacy.
Do you genuinely believe him when he says he changed his mind? It's an awfully convenient timing, even you would have to admit.
And can I also ask - are you only looking favourably at him because you like him? If Andrew Tate, just before his court case, came out and said that his views on women are wrong and he doesn't believe that stuff anymore, would you believe him? It seems to me that you're likely sweeping Stallman being pro-childrape under the rug, because he happens to have cool ideals when it comes to software.
Post the link to him saying that having sex with children is okay
It's pretty well-known at this point, I thought? Regardless:
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
You can find these on Stallman's blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.
Yeah, necrophilia is fine as long as both parties are consenting.
When one of the parties objects, that is when the fun starts :D
I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?
I did link to his blog... It's stallman.org
I said from there you can go to the dates I provided.
I don't wish to be rude, but do you really need this hand-holding? It took me less than 10 seconds to find a specific link to the first quote, for example:
Stallman being pro-paedophila is not new information.
You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.
Sod off, sealion
I gave a link to the source, his blog, and gave instructions on how to find each statement. I even gave timestamps.
I gave you the source as soon as you asked. The source is Stallman's blog, stallman.org.
Apology accepted, don't worry about it. You just came across as a bit of a sealion, that's all.
Anyway, the point is, yes, Stallman has been a repeated defender of paedophilia and having sex with family pets.
Personally for me that's a mark against him. But that's just my opinion, a lot of people in the Linux don't really mind.
You were the one looking for proof?
Then you do the googling.
That is how this shit works, genius.
You've got the burden of proof backwards, pal.
Lucky this isn't a court of law, buddy.
Online discussions aren't formal debates, bud.
This makes no sense. This person made a claim and I asked what the source was. Shouldn’t they know where their own comment came from?
Mike, you came at this person twice. He gave you a url and since you're on Lemmy we assume you're at least halfway internat savvy.
In my shoes I'd have at least put in a few minutes of effort to look for the information on that site. Or even a general search. ANYTHING to evince my capability for critical thought.
You were given 99% more than most are in this type of exchange and still lazily demanded more. You didn't just ask and you weren't all that polite. I found it lazy. That you appear to feel a keen need to have the last word in this type of situation is also worth a bit of reflection.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. But I'll take that downvote and no reply as a "yes, you were right. Stallman is a disgusting supporter of child rape and bestiality".
Perhaps you can learn from this. Celebrity worship is bad. It blinds you to the faults of people. Stallman doesn't deserve your simping.
You calmed down? You agree he supports paedophilia, yes? The evidence is right there. I provided sources for you a bunch of times.
Ive been testing out ungoogled chrome with uBlock, and it still seems to be working. But I think I'm going to add Waterfox along side of my Firefox to look at that one also.
But I'm also not sure you can install uBlock anymore from the Chrome repository either.
Not sure about the repo route, never went that deep with Chrome. Firefox has always been my mainstay (and Netscape before it.)
I wonder if this leaves Chrome users susceptible to ads that load malware, which has been a problem for the last decade, and a driver of adblocking extension development. You can get spyware and worms from Forbes, for instance.
Adblocking is not just a matter of a cleaner internet experience, but also of good internet hygiene
Oh yeah, I have a feeling we're about to see 2000s level bullshit on computers/phones again.
The majority of people already don't use ad blockers though. The Chrome Web Store says that 34 million people use (used?) uBlock Origin, while it's estimated that around 3.3 billion people use Chrome. If those numbers are correct, only around 1% of Chrome users use uBlock Origin.
I feel sorry for that 3.26 billion people, most of whom have to deal with ads, spyware and malware.
its not just ads and malware, and its not only about beeing sorry for them.
ads are also manipulating how people think.
not only the obvious things like "that product is good", but also that products in general would help (with problems you didn't have).
and the format itself of ads (even without considering its contents) already has a changing effects on the minds of those who watch it.
i am thinking of some parts of neil postmans thoughts about television back then and i guess there is plenty of possibilities to make a realistic conspiracy theory out of it why exactly the most poisonous parts of television are replicated to the internet with massive force even though everyone ignores ads in the net. i like theories
unfortunately, feeling sorry for them does not help society to stability. 😥
What's the alternative to ads, though? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) pay for every site they use.
What’s the alternative to ads, though? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) pay for every site they use.
its not about paying for the site a user uses, its about paying those who run the site (and less to pay for someone only "managing" the site by doing actually nothing)
maybe these could be alternatives:
patreon
flattr
micropayment in general
donations (somafm runs on donations)
link to shopping platforms (musicians on somafm mostly have links to the songs on amazon that you see while playing the song for free)
communities, like FSF, local groups
some small payed supporter part (like lwn.net) while the important stuff that makes the win-win of the site is free to use
maybe the list from this page can help too: https://kinsta.com/de/blog/patreon-alternativen/Kickstarter Indiegogo Podia Sellfy Buy Me a Coffee Memberful Hypage Ko-fi Substack Kajabi Gumroad WooCommerce Mighty Networks MemberPress Uscreen
maybe even a combination of multiple of those *whoa!!!! mindblow!!! could be a good choice to allow usersvto choose how to contribute.
so really only choosing to offer exactly one option that also puts all users at a real risk of real attacks where they can get ripped off of all or lots of their real money and data for the sake if earning 0.003 ¢ per each putting them at high risk is not really what should be done, or do you personally profit from their users high risk and are thus completely okay with it? hope not.
if you have to earn money with your project or whatever, why not offer several options to choose from? why only one?
and while we're at it, offering an ad-free "membership" for 400 times the price of what they would earn by the same visitor with ads like they try here sometimes, does not make any platform look good, but the opposite.
there are many platforms that i would pay for monthly and i would spend much more money alltogether than now on that if their price would not be artificially pushed into astronomically heights per service...
there is one project where i do donate each month a little bit via recurring bank transfer since years. my transfer says the name of the project and "donation" thats pretty easy to setup for both sides, but too complicated for those who pay designers money so they can place the ad layers on top of the 400 other layers of spypixels and navigation controls.. really ? lol*
if those you are talking about cannot afford to have a bank account for some reason, i guess they also cannot receive the revenue of ads on their webpages ;+)
saying there are no alternatives to ads is rather a candidate for the lamest excuse award ;-)
What’s the alternative to ads, though? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) pay for every site they use.
Google says Manifest v3 is being done "for security reasons" but what they don't say is that it's not for your security.
It's a Judge Dredd situation.
Google is vertically integrating the roles of content provider (ads) and content server so that web pages load exactly the way the page's developer expects them to. This necessarily excludes things that selectively filter content, like blockers.
They're essentially taking an open framefork for the web and replacing it with interactive pdfs, that show exactly what the web developer wants, and collects exactly the information the developer wants to know about you.
If you think you should have more control, use Firefox. Anyone using Chrome is complict at this point.
Ublock origin isn't the only ad blocker out there. If you like Ublock origin, use Ublock origin lite. It's fully V3 compliant.
Not so effective against the likes of YouTube allegedly.
We should all probably start donating to Firefox. Isn't Google their main source of income?
There might come a time when they prefer to gut Firefox, forcing Mozilla to either reject uBlock Origin or die (or they could simply pull the plug on funding knowing they'll earn more when people go back to Chrome-based browsers)
If they can pay 5-8 milion the CEO while laying off employees, they do not need donations.
Mozilla still does pretty good without any donations, and your donations will most definitely not be spent on Firefox.
This is what drives me mad about Mozilla. Let me donate to Firefox! I don’t want to donate to another hairbrained idea to “diversify your revenue streams” - I want to donate to Firefox.
As I’ve said many times before, Firefox would be better off as an opencollective-driven, smaller (50-ish) team, with code on Codeberg, than driven by a 600 strong org who needs to compete with SF salaries and fancy offices. They have become Google by another name and it ain’t healthy.
Your money is honestly better spent donating to new efforts like Ladybird or Servo.
Is Servo independent of Mozilla now? It’s instructive how much they swayed when Mozilla cut them away, but seems they’ve found a new team to steward it.
Ladybird I hadn’t heard of so thank you for the suggestion. I’ll check them out.
LibreWolf exists, and is already on Codeberg. If and when push comes to shove, they may stop depending on Firefox altogether.
I like LibreWolf! But while they may be the natural successor to a folded Firefox, they would need to beef up dramatically to actually be the stewards of the codebase. Right now they do a good job at removing stuff, but setting a direction for a browser that zings with users requires a fully fledged product org.
Firefox is caught between those two worlds.
Fair take. I agree 👍
I actually think it's a good thing they are seeking other income sources. After all Google is both their competitor and main income source while being under investigation by the government. Firefox barely manages to keep up with Chrome as-is. Nevermind if they had a team a fraction of its current size. It's just not really practical for a project this size and scope to have a small plucky team. It needs a big organisation of some kind behind it. Ideally one like Google or Microsoft who can pull income from more profitable projects to pay for better browser engineering. It's also needed so they can have a say in web standards. An organisation like that also has more ways to make money from their browser like with ChromeOS and Android. Firefox actually tried to make their own smartphone OS, to be honest I am annoyed they didn't succeed. It would have given us a real alternative to Android while giving them needed income.
I really couldn't agree more.
Mozilla still does pretty good without any donations
because Google pays them so that they keep offering Google as the default search engine. now that Google has been declared a monopoly, they might not be allowed to do that anymore, which means Mozilla loses its funding.
Don't donate to a shitty for-profit that masks itself with their non-profit company. Instead donate to something like Ladybird, whom are currently in early development but have no plans on adding features that actively spy on you (FakeSpot, Pocket), and they don't need $500 fucking million to develop a web browser.
And if you're going to talk about Mozilla's social work, just don't. I've already seen it.
You have zero idea how much engineering it takes to create a standards compliant engine and then maintain it. "And you don't need half a fucking billion just to develop a web browser". Technically this is true if you are willing to use someone else's web engine. Firefox aren't doing that, and it requires huge investment to maintain their own engine. There is a reason only large companies these days (Apple, Google, Mozilla) have their own engines. The actual browser part is tiny compared to the engine. We are talking about something the size of the Linux kernel or bigger, that gets far less contributions from outside sources. It actually makes perfect sense they are looking at starting other projects when you think that all other companies that do this kind of work need those other projects to remain profitable. Web engine development from my understanding does not pay. You get almost the same amount of money using somebody else's engine as you do developing your own, yet one costs way more.
The fact Mozilla manages to maintain a better web engine than Apple's WebKit only from Google's advertising money is actually incredible. Did I mention Apple didn't even start that engine themselves? It's based on KHTML. Chrome is in turn a WebKit derivative. Firefox on the other hand actually comes from Netscape, and was first developed under the name Mozilla based on Netscape's code. So Mozilla has put in more work than Google in modernising their engine.
Thank you. Yes, they are also developing their own web engine, which is a very complicated piece of software because of the current sad state of the web. But it doesn't excuse any of the things I mentioned, and web engine development still doesn't suckle up that much money as we can see from their current revenue and other efforts to make an independent web engine such as Ladybird.
I agree with you on your last paragraph, but there are some things I'm bothered with. Mozilla is (or was) a company that focused on one thing, their web browser. Apple and Google are (and were) different, in that they have a vast range of products to maintain. And Gecko is most definitely inferior to Blink in terms of speed, although I'm not familiar with any of their "modernity".
I've read the one for fakespot. Given what it's designed to do then having your purchase history makes perfect sense. How else are they meant to make recommendations? If you really have a problem just don't use that service. The only real criticism here is the name doesn't imply they also make product recommendations. Nevertheless they explain that on the website.
I have skimmed the pocket one, and as far as I can tell they aren't doing anything dodgy. Keeping information only to provide the service, and some anonymised analytics to see how it's actually being used. The later is needed to direct development effort.
In summary: Not everyone is out to get you. Some information is needed to provide services.
Edit: sorry for there different comments, wanted to come back and do more research before I finished making a statement.
Yeah, no problem at all. This is a lot better than people downvoting and not actually talking about what they disagree on. Felt like r/apple.
Reading it again, Pocket's privacy policy is actually not that bad. Thankfully it was not one of those 100 page ones that are made to confuse the shit out of consumers, but I have a slight problem with it.
"Personalized Advertising: Some Pocket web pages have ads. With your consent, Pocket’s ad partners will place advertising cookies on your device to personalize the ads you see here and on other websites."
How does this consent exactly work? Is it just a simple check you have to tick in your account settings, or is it one of those cookie banners that require you to untick 800 advertising partners to "not give consent"? I'm not exactly a Pocket user so I'm a bit ignorant about it.
Though there doesn't seem to be another privacy concern with Pocket. It seems I had misconceptions about their practices.
The one other problem I have with Pocket though is, it's not a feature that should be in a browser, it should be an extension. They have already made a lot of extensions for features that not all of the userbase might need, even FakeSpot is currently an extension (approximately 40,000 users). I guess this is a whole another argument though.
I will write my thoughts about FakeSpot in another reply.
Okay, what does a sweepstake or a contest have to do with a browser extension, made to spot fake reviews. Trade shows? What?
I did take a look at this privacy policy before to check if the extension was worth installing, but holy fuck I didn't see that.
And they collect a lot of things, supposedly "automatically". I have never developed a browser extension, but does the browser force this information on the extension? Do they just look at their data collection and find the geolocation of their users, how they accessed the extension download page, browser specifics etc.?
They also sell your "automatically collected" geolocation data, "internet or other electronic network activity", "inferences drawn from other personal information to create a profile about a consumer", and "commercial information". I've quoted the three data selling points I really don't understand, since their "descriptions" aren't very descriptive. But if we are to fully trust the lawful descriptions they provided, I hope the extension stays at 40,000 users really.
A lot of this is the same kind of things amazon do to make purchase suggestions. It is fairly invasive but also effective. There are even some customers who appreciate this kind of thing. I will say though that the name is misleading. It dosen't just spot fakes, it seems to be designed as a shopping assitant or search engine who's stand out feature is pointing out fakes. I think there is a place in the market for such a thing, but they need to be careful of how they market that and what data is actually needed to be collected. Ideally they should put in a system where you can opt in to personalised recommendations and collect data for only those people who require that feature. It also needs to be spelled out clearly what this involves in terms of data collected and who sees the data. Regardless I don't think it should be enabled by default in Firefox. Including it in the browser isn't so bad provided they don't get up to microsoft-like shenanigans pushing people to use it.
other efforts to make an independent web engine such as Ladybird.
Notice the word efforts here. No one has actually succeeded yet despite multiple attempts, some even by Mozilla themselves like Servo. Ladybird is not a fully functioning browser yet. Are they anywhere even close yet? Even if they are close it also has to be fast. Google and Mozilla have spent quite a bit of time, money, and effort making their JavaScript engines as fast as possible.
I will have a look at some of the links you have given, but honestly I think most criticism thrown at Mozilla isn't anything close to what the alternatives are guilty of, and is mostly done by conspiracy nuts. The kind of people were Mastodon and Lemmy is their only social media, and refuse to own a modern smartphone that isn't running custom firmware.
Ladybird is fairly new. Just like how Mozilla didn't get Gecko to this point in 1 year, Ladybird will take years of development to become a reliable browser and browser engine.
I pretty much agree with you. The alternatives are far worse. Seeing Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge being literal spyware, other Chromium-based browsers cutting out support for content-blocking extensions Firefox is vastly superior to them in terms of privacy. Although that still doesn't mean Firefox is good, at least if we're past talking about web browser engines etc., using another Firefox-based browser which is less bloated (Firefox Sync off by default, no Pocket, no recommendations in Addons tab), more privacy-friendly (all telemetry off by default, uBlock Origin installed by default, some hardening options from about:config enabled by default) seems to be the best choice currently, since other options like GNOME's Epiphany and KDE's Falkon sucks, if we're being honest.
And I do kind of fit your description, if we exclude being a conspiracy-theorist.
I actually use Firefox sync. In fact I think all of that is quite unnecessary given what the policies you brought up actually state as was discussed in another comment. Everyone should be using AdBlock at this point, and I am planning to setup network wide AdBlock and malware block at my home in the future.
And I do kind of fit your description, if we exclude being a conspiracy-theorist.
Yeah I thought you could be. Nothing wrong with using a de-googled phone. Lemmy while a great idea is full of extremists. The kinds of people who go to that level of effort to cut out Google and social media tend to be uber paranoid. It's a shame that people are divided into three groups regarding piracy: unknowing sheep, people who know but don't care, and conspiracy nuts. The kind of person who hears something vaguely sketchy from someone and immediately jumps to the conclusion they need to boycott that company. Very rarely do you get reasonable, informed people who actually care with regards to online privacy without thinking every single organisation is out to get them (even non-profit like Mozilla or Wikipedia). It's why things like the legislation the EU comes up with is necessary, to protect those who won't or can't protect themselves.
Oh also the devs behind Ladybrid are apparently against anyone who isn't male using their technology. People tried to change masculine pronouns in the documentation to neutral pronouns just to be more grammatically accurate, and it started a whole chain of GitHub arguments arguing the change is "political". Apparently it's political not to imply that every computer user is a man.
There are many software from bigots and shitheads that still get used, being seperated from their creator (e.g. Hyprland, I guess you can put here some social media platforms like Xitter if we're not only talking about open-source software). Although I prefer not using or supporting such software, I've not been able to find what you're talking about. I've tried searching "ladybird pronoun controversy (forgive my search engine skills)" and other similar sentences but nothing really related pops up, so it would be great if you told me your source. Thank you!
The whole Vaxxry controversy is largely bullshit from both sides. The original complaint was something said in his Discord server, and that he didn't police it enough. Not something bigoted he himself said. Vaxxry was right to defend himself given their CoC doesn't apply to his Discord server, and talking about how they are trying to improve the moderation there.
Vaxxry from the little I know of him doesn't seem that bigoted. He certainly isn't progressive by any means. He does espouse tolerance for other political viewpoints, which is more than can be said for a lot of projects.
It's on there GitHub. I would have linked earlier but search engines don't seem to pick it up.
Thank you very much! I guess it makes sense a little bit that the lead developer of an older-style operating system is a conservative, but I was still not expecting it. It's pretty sad that this seems to be the only new web browser engine that has actual support.
Yeah it's really annoying. We need more browser engines and alternatives to the current web standards. The current way these things is not fit for purpose, and is making it easy for google to establish a monopoly on the web. I think wasm helps with this somewhat, but it isn't popular enough yet nor is it a complete solution.
You're absolutely right, ~80% of Mozilla's revenue is from Google's paying to be the default search engine in Firefox - and the US is going after Google for it's anticompetitive behaviors as we speak. Ad blocking aside, Mozilla is going to need help pretty soon anyways if Google gets their monopoly broken up.
Possibly when the US government decides to break Google up next week.
Screw the mozilla foundation. My only hope at this point is that Ladybird or one of the other projects produces something viable one of these days.
Huh... I couldn't tell with all the Firefox I use.
Huh... So you're not using the product the article is referring to?
No I use u-block origin. The very product the article is referring to.
I just use it in Firefox so I am completely unaffected by this.
It's a great feel.
It's about Chrome. Using Firefox is unrelated to the article.
It's about uBlock Origin not working on chrome.
So what does Firefox have anything to do with it then?
Nothing...
Weird. You spent 3 days defending Firefox for an article that has nothing to do with Firefox... You just wanted to say Firefox for some weird reason..
I spent zero time defending anything.
I made a statement relative to the original article.
I am unaffected by the fact that uBlock will no longer function in chrome because I use Firefox.
You keep trying to infer that Firefox has nothing to do with chrome or the article in and of itself. Which I do not contest.
And yet I still made the statement.
So let me repeat myself. "I am unaffected by this because I use Firefox"
I hope that my continued perceived waste of time annoys you further.
cackles in firefox...
It's like the reporter went out of his way to not mention ff at the end of the article:
uBlock Origin will continue to work as usual across other browsers, including Microsoft Edge, Opera, and more.
Edge isn't using manifest v3?
It is, it's deadline is just a little farther out.
I pulled the plug on allowing chrome user agents on my domain.
Granted its tiny but I'm making people switch.
This is the juncture.
P.s. yes I know the cavaets all my services work fine tyvm.
404 Ethics not found.
Go be evil elsewhere.
Has a nice ring to it. Though google deserves their own special fuck-you http status. Maybe we can crack the 600s
1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up
666 doing evil
With Google providing 80% of Mozilla's finding, I think we can all see whats going to happen next.
I feel like this isn’t talked about enough. Sure
just use Firefox
But for how long is it gonna work that way until they too deprecate v2
Don't worry. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Personally I feel like I'm too addicted to Youtube (and Reddit, which is what brought me back here), so if I can't block ads, perhaps I'll be able to quit. To be honest though, even just disabling watch history and reducing subscriptions makes a massive difference to how addictive it is.
I'm more worried that sites will start to demand it for "security purposes".
It will be either of those two.
The effort required to circumvent the restrictions will get increasingly higher.
As someone fittingly said a few days ago.
Let the 1984 commence.
They're the only alternative for now.
The Google payments were never guaranteed for Mozilla. If they didn't have a backup plan in place to reduce spending, that's on them. Let Mozilla return to its garage opensource roots.
LibreWolf.
How long until YouTube blocks Firefox?
Considering they were already declared an illegal monopoly? I'd love to see them do that
They can try. It won't work.
Anti-trust lawyers are rubbing their hands in anticipation.
There's an easy fix for this. 🔥🦊
I imagine most of us here already don't use Google Chrome, but I'll be spending some time proselytizing on the behalf of Mozilla for Firefox with the folks I run across.
It literally took me less than ten minutes to set up firefox. I carried all my bookmarks and passwords from edge and set up a mozilla account and everything is synced across linux, windows and android.
The only thing I'm worried of, is if some websites require chrome to work, as was the case with some government sites that only worked with internet explorer in the old days.
(Does anyone know if the default user agent is chrome? I used to log in a local streaming site from edge and it wouldn't work, as it required chrome, but I used an extension to take care of the user agent. On firefox it works no problem.)
There was another (third-party?) page where you could report websites but I forgot its url.
I used this extension on edge to view one particular site (although I never managed to make it auto load on that page, but meh). As I said firefox seems to work without it for some reason.
Just use Edge on sites that don't support Firefox, if you must use them. Same as how we used IE for government sites back in the day.
Why not use chromium or a hardened version of it? Edge is proprietary software.
Edge is chromium.......
Yes, but Edge comes with a lot more proprietary components added.
I would recommend installing ungoogled-chromium or using another hardened FOSS version of chromium instead.
Orrrrr
Stop using chromium based browsers.
The person was saying they couldn't access a certain site with Firefox, that's why I suggested a chromium based browser.
I'm using the Chrome Mask extension on the few sites that complain
From my experience, most of those websites that want a specific browser require edge these days. Some streaming sites will only give FHD on edge, and HD streams on other browsers if at all (looking at you Vudu).
half of the websites are google-owned
Stop using Chrome, it is adware at this point. Use Firefox or if that's too different, use Brave or Edge or a different chromium offshoot that isn't going to support manifest v3.
Weird that you tell people not to use Chrome because it’s adware but suggest Brave which is a crypto miner.
Brave has built-in wallet support and such, but I don't think it does any mining, does it? It just has its own opt-in ad system to pays out in crypto and is also owned by a turd.
I dumped Brave when it decided to install its VPN as a service without my consent. I had so much trouble ripping out all the traces of that.
I completely forgot about that. Yeah, it's fucked.
Imagine if you bought a Microsoft game, say Forza, and it installed a bunch of candy crush games alongside it without asking you.
It's scummy as fuck.
Being owned by a turd is reason enough not to use it.
I use tons of software developed by people with whom I would probably disagree on politics.
Rejecting a program because one of the developers said something you didn't like is just childish.
That entirely depends on if there's an equivalent developed by not an asshole.
It's not childish it's acting according to principles and being consistent.
Vivaldi is similar but nicer.
Man I just tried to throw out a Chromium fork that didn't use Manifest v3, I didn't realize Brave went off the deep end. Personally I use Firefox and Edge when I need to use Chromium and for work just because I find it's dev tools nicer.
False. Try again.
This was the plan all along
Firefox downloads a spike by 30 million. Will be the next headline.
Although searches for Firefox only ticked up slightly.
One would hope but nothing much will change in reality.
Followed by shocked pikachu face.
I've used Librewolf since the first time Google announced these kinda plans I'm thinking it must be at least 3 years now.
Theres tons of options Librewolf is overkill to be honest Firefox would be fine.
I wonder if the DoJ actually does split up Google if separating Chrome would make any difference with behavior like this?
Chrome on its own does not bring revenue. It would then require donations
I wonder if we could force a world where browsers are purely donation supported.
Chrome is used to get a tighter grip on the www and form it to Google's vision (one that is very anti consumer). If Chrome dies, it would be a net benefit for all.
I wonder if we trained an AI on the entire corpus of articles about how Google is gonna kill adblocking, if we could keep these articles going after most people switch uneventfully over to Lite.
Look like I need to convince my dad to switch now
Would he notice if you just installed Firefox and changed the icon to Chrome?
Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.
This headline is premature. They haven't pulled the plug yet. I still have Chrome installed, fully updated, and all the extensions are still there.
and also ublock origin lite is still in the app store and works fine.
uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest v3 compatible extension and was intended to be the successor of uBlock Origin on Chromium based browsers.
However, it is not at feature parity(and will likely never be due to restrictions in Manifest v3). One restriction is no element picking on websites and then adding them to custom filters.
Which is pretty crazy because I believe that's about to be a built-in feature of a new Safari update.
but for 90% of people, it'll be fine
I glanced at it and from a quick look I didn't see any way of adding custom blocklists.
so long dental plan!
Lisa needs braces!
Those who don't like FF can use brave, it's brave shield works well
Is ublock origin still operable for YouTube? Could this be related?
As long as chromium keeps it I'm fine. I use edge, why should I bother with downloading another browser when the one it comes with is identical?
The reason you're utilizing edge is valid, but why not use Firefox?
The headline is a bit overdramatic. Google hasn't pulled uBlock Origin off its extension webstore. Rather, it's switching from Manifest v2 to Manifest v3, which won't support features the current version of uBlock Origin needs to work. We've known this was in the process of happening for months. It's a good reminder of what's coming eventually (namely, the fact v2 extensions will be entirely disabled by Chrome soon), but this is nothing new.
Do you know if this is at the chrome or chromium level?
Chromium. However other chromium browser's have said they'll either patch it to keep manifest V2 compatibility, or they won't but you can still use their inbuilt ad-blocking.
Brave will continue to support manifest V2.
Awesome. Normies are getting sucker punched left and right. Keep it up, Google!
So ... can we like finally dismiss Google Chrome as the obviously awful idea it is and which should never have made it this far and remind all of the web devs married to it that they're doing bad things and are the reason why we can't have nice things?
Hmmm ... a web browser owned by a monopolistic advertising company ... how could that possibly go wrong??!!
Do you remember the Internet Explorer days? This, unfortunately, is still much better.
Pretty good reason to switch the Firefox, now. Nearly everything will work, unlike the Internet Explorer days.
I think some people overestimate how many will migrate to Firefox in the near future over this.
As fun as it is to imagine an Adpocalypse shocking the masses and pushing them to try out alternatives to big tech, it's also way too optimistic, I feel.
Yeah, same with people here declaring the death of reddit, or Twitter, or any of these massive, mainstream services. People in bubbles (and Lemmy is definitely a bubble) always seem to underestimate how little everyone else cares or even knows about the things that are important to them. The service needs to be extremely bad in a user experience way, not an ethical way, for an extended period of time and there needs to be a big social movement where lots of people migrate to a direct and equivalent competitor within a short space of time. Most people will not do it on their own, they will wait until they see their peers doing it and only then can a migration start to snowball.
"Netflix will die when they ban account sharing!!" - Reddit/Lemmy/Techtubers
Netflix actually went on to have a massive jump in revenue, because most normal people can't be arsed to set up a Plex/Emby/Jellyfin server and buy a shitload of storage.
The uBlock Origin chrome extension
hashad 34 million users. Chrome has 3.45 billion users.Even if every uBlock user switched, it’s less than 1% of chrome users.
Yeah, I thought about mentioning that. But the comparison goes both ways. Less than 1% of Chrome users switching to Firefox could still mean an increase in Firefox users of over 10%, if I remember my numbers correctly. That'd be a sweet boost for most products.
Ya, it’d still be huge for Firefox, but what I’m really getting at is that even with this change, Chrome is going nowhere. They’re the big fish, they can afford to make these kinds of changes, because the people who care are a very small minority.
To be fair, nerds will tell their tech-illiterate friends about this change and probably influence them enough to consider it. Especially when it's something as easy as downloading an application.
It's much easier to switch a browser then it is to stop using Google, Facebook, etc.
Depends on their methodology. Sure, a huge proportion of those are users who haven't heard of uBO, but we're forgetting a lot of caveats:
All of these skew the numbers towards Chrome. Some Chrome users use a different adblocker which lowers the uBO statistic.
I’ve been on Firefox since manifest v3 was announced. Firefox has its own shortcomings but no dealbreakers.
What are some shortcomings in your view?
I don't like the lack of customisability. I've been using Vivaldi for a long time now and nothing comes close to how customisable and feature-packed it is. Everything can be set up and tweaked exactly how I want. My version of Vivaldi would look, feel, and act entirely different to someone else's, because it does what I want, not the other way around.
Unfortunately, it's Chromium-based. But the developers have been working on its native ad blocker in case extensions are impacted. They're quite a brilliant bunch, so I'm hoping it all goes smooth. I really don't want to have to go back to Firefox if I can help it. I can't stand UX for the masses and these guys get it.
There's also other chromium browsers with built-in ad-blocking that still work AFAIK. If all extensions and forked brower's ad-blockers stopped working, I think there would probably be a surge in firefox usage (even if there's not that much change in chromium usage).
Yeah I use Vivaldi as my daily driver and love it. There’s built in ad blocking but it’s not as good as the extension. If the extension stops working there I’ll switch to Firefox in a heartbeat though
As a supporter of Firefox and FOSS, the closed-source, Chromium-based Vivaldi is my guilty pleasure. It has the best UI experience I've found on a browser, and the company behind it doesn't seem to be very evil.
Leaving Vivaldi was a sad moment for me. That UI, that sidebar, the settings, those features...! Goodness. I'm an avid enjoyer of bells and whistles, and Vivaldi's got all of them and then some. I miss that a bit.
The folks working on it seem great, check their blog for their decision track record 1 2 3. Did you know they also host a mastodon instance? Literally my only issue with it is the engine, and that just so unluckily happens to be a deal breaker.
Yeah the founders are ex-Opera devs who left after the company was acquired by Qihoo 360, and the power user UI features are leagues ahead of other browsers I’ve tried. I wish Firefox developer edition would embrace of a philosophy of a more customizable UI centered around power users
Is there any other browser that does a right-side vertical tab bar with compact tabs?
There's an extension for Firefox to do it, but it's a bit clunkier than Vivaldi's - definitely something I'd only switch to if I really had to... but every other browser I've seen only offers left-side vertical tabs at best, which is terrible if you want 3 monitors in a left-to-right layout with your browser on the left.
I think what you want is in Firefox nightly right now: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2024/08/07/firefox-sidebar-and-vertical-tabs-try-them-out-in-nightly-firefox-labs-131/
That expands and compacts based on the sidebar state and can be flipped to the right side of the window in the 'customise sidebar' settings.
Vivaldi is cool. I installed it (for those who wanted a chromium browser) and FF on all the work computers where I work. Eventually uninstalled it because people started playing Vivaldia. Disabled Edge, so now they are FF only.
Hopefully it will give Firefox a bit of a boost anyway. Firefox needs a boost.
I haven't watched a single YouTube advertisement in 5 years
If large numbers of people were going to switch browsers over an ad-blocking extension, the whole advertising industry would be significantly less successful than it is.
You're not wrong about the high switching cost.
Switching from Chrome to Vivaldi (because of Chrome's whole FLoC thing) to Brave (because I didn't like Vivaldi's layout) to Firefox (because of Brave's whole thing) was a pain.
And I don't mean as a whole. Taking the time each time to change from one browser to another was always a pain. Transferring bookmarks and passwords was easy (Chrome and Firefox are at least compatible in that regard), but transferring extension settings was a whole different beast.
Some extensions had cloud sync support. Others had local export support. Some didn't have either kind, and I'd have to manually copy the settings from one browser over to the other. And that's not even getting into finding replacements for the Chrome-exclusive extensions (of which there were only a few, thankfully).
Ha.
I'm sorry to hear that, been there (Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Firefox in my case). Hopefully we can stick around for a while.
My friends will stick to chrome, I switched to Firefox months ago. You're right
Not to mention all the people who don't even have an adblocker and for some reason don't seem to care that their web browsing is infested with ads.
A lot of people don't even know it's an option, or have grown to believe that's just how the web is. When was the last time you saw adblockers in mainstream media or news?
This is why I think it's so important to keep raising awareness. If you have people in your life who you believe would be better off using uBlock, consider bringing it up when you have the opportunity.
And then there are Safari users who are watching from the sidelines.
1 year ago I had basically free Spotify Premium because Safari was unable to play ads. That's a kind of ad blocking.
And you ran zero ad blockers in Safari and on your network?
No ad blocker. This bug started to break song playback on Safari (according to Spotify's forums, I faced no such problem) and then it was fixed so I got ads.
I agree folks are overestimating how many will switch. but also maybe you're underestimating too - a lot of browser installations are managed by the "family tech guy". the father, mother, brother, sister, aunt or uncle who sets up everyone's new laptops on Christmas and has the suggestions when you look for a new phone. we all know the type. a lot of us are the type.
setting up granny's laptop? I'll install whatever browser lets me automatically block the most "1000th visitor!" banner ads and change the desktop icon to the old AOL icon because that's all she knows the internet as. she doesn't know of care about the browser options so it's up to me. Chrome used to be fast and simple so it was the right choice. Firefox has caught up a fair bit on UX simplicity and speed and now offers better blocking and general security, so it just stole the crown for these installations imo. I trust it more to not let her mess the computer up, so even if I'm not using it as my main personal browser, it gets use here.
For what it's worth, I hope you're right.
I think probably the single most important thing that nobody is saying is that Google have ALL the numbers on this decision and they are not stupid, so it would be silly to assume this will work against their interests. Not only do they know how many people use chrome, their ad network gives them insight into ALL browsers.
Do you have some source for that? IIUC, you mean that more Chrome users like Chrome than Firefox users like Firefox, right?
"Some people like things."
SOURCE?!
"Some firefox users like firefox" vs "many chrome users enjoy what they have" sounds to me like something that could have a source. Many sound to me more than some, so this is a comparison, which can be given a better foundation by supplying some numbers.
I thought that might've been the source of your misunderstanding. Sorry, that's just how I write sometimes, no deeper meaning intended. As far as I know there's no public data on what percentage of Firefox and Chrome users like their browsers' features.
No. I simply meant that there exist Chrome users who appreciate what it provides them (features, UI, etc), so for these users to leave they'd have to give up those things. That's always a hard ask.
Meh. They had plenty of time to move to Firefox but they ignored all the warnings.
It’s not like they contracted some sort of terminal illness. Anyone can migrate whenever. It’s not hard.
I believe that some organizations restrict what applications can be installed on work computers, so that might not necessarily be true, at least for work machines.
One more vector of malware for these corporate systems. Sucks for them I suppose.
if they’re restricting apps to that degree you probably can’t install extensions anyway.
My organization has blocked all browsers other than Edge and Chrome - and has also blocked all plugins except for UBlock. For security reasons, of course.
Everyone knows seeing a bunch of uncontrolled JavaScript-powered ads from who knows what server is good for security.
And I mean, there's still time now. Switching browsers isn't that bad. Export+import some bookmarks and adjust some settings, good to go.
I think FF has been a good option for a while. But the second best time is now. I can totally get it if people didn't want to switch until they had more of a concrete problem.
FF still hasn't brought back a tab group API for extensions or native tab groups. Extensions can only do so much given what they have to work with. I still use FF on the side, but it simply isn't a practical as a primary browser for me currently.
But for casual users, many probably have never even touched their browser settings.
Tab groups are coming but in the mean time containers work well enough for me with the added benefit that they’ll also block tracking from the sites that are within them.
Understandable, I'm really looking forward to FF getting tab groups too. I don't know why such a nice feature was left unimplemented for so long. 🫤
For all the firefox fans out there it might be good to note there have consistently been more Safari users than Firefox users since 2014. Hell Safari has been the number two browser by market share since 2015.
Browsers have to get very SHITTY or a new browser has to have a killer app to unseat a dominate one.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-200901-202408
I don’t think safari is even remotely comparable given that it’s a default browser on macs.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's not possible to install any other browser on iPhones unless you get root.
Edit: It looks like you can with iOS 15.0
Those are all just skins on safari. Until like 6 months ago you couldn't install any web browser with a renderer other than safari. And that's only in the EU.
As I understand it, any browser on iPhone has to be built on WebKit, so even if you install fire fox or chrome, it’s running on a totally different web engine than the desktop version. Making them more safari re-skins in the same way that stuff like brave or opera are just chrome reskins.
I’ve had iPhone for years and I can’t remember the last time I didn’t use chrome with it
Never rooted my phones either. It’s definitely not blocked
How so ? The default browser on Windows is Edge, people keep installing Chrome? Chrome is available on MacOS, yet people stick with Safari?
some people stick with safari, but no one is replacing chrome, fire fox, or edge with safari. People choose to replace edge because it is obtrusive and annoying to use, safari isn’t.
In that context, safari is not a competitor for Firefox in the same way chrome is. It’s comparing apples to oranges.
Almost like being the default gives you an unfair advantage or something.
"The browser built to be yours"
Hahaha sure thing Google
"The browser built to be piping your data into our hands"
There, fixed.
In case anyone here needs this
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/switching-chrome-firefox
I'm in the process of switching to firefox on all my devices.
I've had enough of Google pushing features like this.
Having ublock on mobile is such a breath of fresh air. I wish I had made the transition sooner. I knew this was coming and completed my transition a few weeks back so I could abandon Chrome on my own time table and not on Google's. Other than a little headache trying to find extension replacements for pc, I'm LOVING it.
I switched from Chrome to Firefox in 2019 because that's when Google adopted Manifest V3 and I never looked back. There were already articles then describing how it'd break ad blockers, and Firefox had at the time just recently released their "Quantum" overhaul which drastically improved responsiveness.
I'm a bit surprised it took five years for Google to drop support for Manifest V2, but the threat has long been there.
I remember the Quantum release. They remade how the browser handled tabs, and with the new release you could handle (almost) unlimited number of tabs. I tried this buy opening as many tabs as I could, it worked flawlessly. I can't even remember how it was before that, except that it was RAM intensive.
I use Firefox as my main on my home pc. I keep running into things that don't work on Firefox. Not by saying they don't, just by throwing errors that make it sound like I put the wrong data in a field. Is there some magic extension to fix that?
"intrusive ads" are the least of the problems, an adblocker is a critical part of any computer's security suite.
The internet advertisement companies wont police their ads from maleware, and untill they accept criminal and financial responsibillity when their ads cause harm to the users being served compromised ads from their networks, I won't even consider disabling my adblocker
as long as data caps exist anywhere on the planet all internet advertisement is theft.
I see your point but disagree with your hard take.
Firefox.
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way.
There's only 34 million uBlock Origin users on Chrome? So, billions are using Chrome without any ad-blockers? That's crazy and unsafe
Most users are fucking idiots and will continue to raw-dog the internet while visiting the most malicious sites possible.
I feel like you've worked helpdesk at some point.
Worked IT. Can confirm.
Yes. Unfortunately. "a virus? How did I get that? What's an anti-virus? You must be wrong, I just do a little bit of web browsing and downloading music." (this was in the windows xp days that I'm specifically flashing back to)
Lemmy has a really biased idea of what the average computer user can do. Imagine Janet in accounting, who calls help desk to reset her password every morning, and takes 30 minutes to remember how to check her email. Or the late GenZ just entering the workforce, who was surprised that their desktop wasn’t a touchscreen, and doesn’t know how a file structure works, because literally every device they’ve used growing up has been either a tablet or a Chromebook. That’s the average user.
I don't classify them as computer "users" personally, I think of them as computer butcherers
My boss once asked me to take a look at her computer that was super slow and barely functional, and the thing that surprised me the most was that she had been running Chrome without any adblock since ever, and when I asked her about adblock, she answered: "adwhat?". Mind you that she's still a millennial, and only a few years older than me.
I had to use my parents desktop a when I flew home for a bit.
Surfing the internet is fucking stressful if you don't have adblocks. So overstimulating!!
I'm also on windows and for some reason I had to use Edge.
The Edge home screen is the VERY REASON google killed it back in the 90s. Clean clear search screen. Allows you to think what you are doing with out getting bombarded with ads and posts and ads and markets. Reminded me how terrible the search experience was back in Alta Vista and Yahoo days
There are also loads of people using Edge.
A lot of them don't know the difference between ab, abp ublock and ublock origin
There are billions of people on earth who don't have access to a computer.
I miss the "dont be evil" version of google. Its like, large amounts of money ruin everything
It's not just large amounts of money. It's chasing more and more money each quarter, and when it starts slowing down panic sets in and they start trying to find any and every possible avenue to keep profits up. It's how we've ended up in subscription based hell and it'll only get worse.
It deserves mentioning that Firefox on Android supports extensions, so if you uninstall/disable the official YouTube app then add uBlock Origin and Sponsorblock you get a more tolerable experience.
Or just use Revanced or Grayjay, both of which are ad free and support sponsor block. Revanced is still a bit more feature complete imo, but also more buggy on my device, and more of a hassle to update. The browser YouTube experience is so bad, ads or ad free.
Can also use Vinegar (for YouTube) and Baking Soda (for basically every other site with videos) with Safari on iOS. It’s not a perfect solution, but it at least revamps Safari’s built-in video player so watching in the browser is actually tolerable.
You can also patch YouTube in a similar way as revanced on iOS, I use YTLitePlus. And for Adblock I use the Wipr extension and hush for blocking and auto rejecting cookie popups. No jailbreak needed.
Advertising company makes it harder to block ads on their browser, news at 11.
Or did anyone forget that they made an explicit effort to block another ad blocking extension a while back, including blocking it from the Chrome store, blocking you from installing it manually and even blocking at least some versions of it from being manually installed in developer mode?
Ad nauseam, because it also simulated ad clicks and thus ruined their metrics.
EDIT: Fucking phone autocorrect. "as clocks" -> "ad clicks".
At this point I am seriously wondering why people would like to use Chrome over Firefox for instance.
“What's a browser?” —the general populace
I just install uBlock Origin on every device I come across. Graffiti software.
Because I use chrome for standard use and Firefox for sailing the high seas. And I much prefer just having 2 separate browsers for containerization. I'm just going to have to use librewolf or something when I do get the the mv3 update.
Why not just use something like Fences on Firefox? It allows you to containerize individual tabs. I use it all the time to separate work and personal accounts.
This is also how I have it set up, with "firefox multi-account containers" and "simple tab groups" working together, you can have multiple containerized accounts within one firefox instance. Works great!
Does this allow you enable/disable add-ons on a per container basis? What about bookmarks?
I am using Firefox as of last week I made the switch to the browser a different password manager and so far it is fine but there have been a couple of hiccups but it's not necessarily a Firefox issue but an implementation with Android issue.
For example auto forwarding to an app from a webpage in Firefox has worked half the time for me and the other half not so much.
This is a small example, having Google Chrome and like wise the Google app be native to Android so they move back and forth between one another and are interchangeable while using my phone is much more smooth on my Android device.
Other than that, I am not positive as to why. On Desktop, zero issues. Works like a charm.
Its cool well just message the maintainers of Android to improve it, I'm sure it's a mistake. Lemme go check who who's behind it... /s
Being able to cast seamlessly from Chrome to Chromecast is the only major issue I've had since switching to Firefox. It's possible with Firefox and it works 99% of the time but it feels a little clunky. Completely worth it though overall and not a dealbreaker
How do you cast from Firefox?
Search up the fx_cast extension
Personal preference I guess. I've tried Firefox many times over the years and always ended up going back to other browsers. I find Firefox doesn't render some pages quite right, the user agent stylesheet is odd, and the UI is less streamlined. Performance also used to be a problem although I hear it's caught up now.
I used to be a Chrome user but now I prefer chromium based alternatives like brave and edge (which incidentally, uBO will keep working on). Chrome is still required for work, but uBO change won't be an issue I think, there are plenty of other ad blockers that will work with MV3
I use multiple profiles in chrome for my different logged in usages, for some reason Firefox makes it hard to switch profiles.
Look up the Firefox Containers extension.
"Hard" is a strong word. It's not built into the default interface, granted, but it's not that hard to use FF's command line:
firefox -PThey have said they're thinking about rejigging the whole thing though.
Ok, telling people to open a command line and TYPE firefox -P is HARD. In chrome you just click the icon in the upper right and select whatever profile you want.
It makes no sense that you have to either open about:profiles then select "launch in new window" or open the command line to start a new profile, makes NO sense at all.
You can open a firefox private window with a keyboard shortcut, but if you want to be logged into two different accounts in two different profiles, you have to go through a minimum of three non-intuitive steps.
Even the extension that adds the profile switching doesn't work anymore because it's not maintained.
Dude, if that's all-caps HARD, then I don't know how you'd classify, say, compiling things from source and fixing any problems that might crop up along the way. Or fixing missing DLL / OCX hell when trying to get an old Windows game running under Linux, because let me tell you, I've done both of those and had to give up.
firefox -Pis heaven by comparison.You could even put it into a shortcut and you wouldn't have to type it any more.
Yes the interface sucks, but HARD is not it.
Sure, but you know most people do not have to do what you just described.
Most people don't need multiple profiles either.
Fair enough
The profile manager is definitely annoying, but it shouldn't be that hard to visit about:profiles to switch / open other profiles. Afaik they do work on a better one though.
it has something like '-no-remote -p name' param on cmd that you can do it seamless like chromium, or u can use the fork of the drop official pwa firefox support, it could be better, i know n i get it, but if u just use chromium base for it, than i got u covered
Use chrome to download Firefox.
That's Edge's job. Though I guess they're basically the same thing...
Equally fkin useless.
I wish I had a 1.0 version of netscape saved somewhere so I could use it.
Back in the day when I still used windows, I did not even use IE to download Firefox. I used the FTP functionality inside the explorer to download Firefox from the Mozilla FTP.
I didn't even need a browser to download another browser, I just git clone it from the AUR :P
Just curl it from Mozilla, they provide an archive file that's distro agnostic.
Used Chrome forever, switched to Firefox back when this stuff first started going down. No ragerts.
No Rugrats!
I just listened to a rugrats song yesterday though.
Which one?
You're a friend to me.
Stallman was right.
It's pronounced GNU Stallman.
I can't listen or look at this man anymore after seeing him scrape shit off his feet and eat it in front of a bunch of people. 🤢
He has went on record multiple times saying having sex with children (even within the family) or family pets is fine. Eating his foot gunk is the least of my issues with him.
That said, when it comes to warning about software, he was pretty bang-on.
How is it that you're so well-versed in all of Stallman's negative quotes (from over a decade ago), yet conveniently omitted the fact that he later retracted those statements?
Those issues are ones that it's hard to just walk back with a mea culpa, especially when the apology comes precisely when it starts to impact your career.
Stallman spends decades publicly-championing adult-child sexual relations on his personal blog and using his work email address.
Stallman later comes under fire for strange comments about Epstein's underage girls/clients. Some people say he should step down, as his poor image jeopardises the effectiveness of the FSF.
2 days later, Stallman has a sudden change of heart. Child/adult sexual relations are wrong. Children can't consent.
Some Linux nerds: "see, he's changed his mind, he's a different man!"
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but to me the timing of his epiphany seems rather convenient.
How ready people are to treat celebrities as deity-like figures is scary to me. Just because Stallman has some great FOSS credentials doesn't mean he can't be a total POS in other areas. People bend over backwards to defend him as some saint who can do no wrong, even to the extent of trivialising child rape. It's scary what a bit of celebrity worship can get people to do.
You mean when he had an epiphany and changed his mind 2 days after his job became under fire?
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because it was a clear last-ditch effort to save his job, rather than because he genuinely went from his decades-held (and publicly-championed) view that sex with children is ok to sex with children is rape, by sheer coincidence, 2 days after people started requesting he step down over Epstein comments?
It was about as convincing a statement from Stallman as when Zuckerberg says he cares about privacy.
Do you genuinely believe him when he says he changed his mind? It's an awfully convenient timing, even you would have to admit.
And can I also ask - are you only looking favourably at him because you like him? If Andrew Tate, just before his court case, came out and said that his views on women are wrong and he doesn't believe that stuff anymore, would you believe him? It seems to me that you're likely sweeping Stallman being pro-childrape under the rug, because he happens to have cool ideals when it comes to software.
Post the link to him saying that having sex with children is okay
It's pretty well-known at this point, I thought? Regardless:
RMS on June 28th, 2003
RMS on June 5th, 2006
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
You can find these on Stallman's blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.
Yeah, necrophilia is fine as long as both parties are consenting.
When one of the parties objects, that is when the fun starts :D
I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?
I did link to his blog... It's stallman.org
I said from there you can go to the dates I provided.
I don't wish to be rude, but do you really need this hand-holding? It took me less than 10 seconds to find a specific link to the first quote, for example:
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
Did you really look?
Stallman being pro-paedophila is not new information.
You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.
Sod off, sealion
I gave a link to the source, his blog, and gave instructions on how to find each statement. I even gave timestamps.
I gave you the source as soon as you asked. The source is Stallman's blog, stallman.org.
Apology accepted, don't worry about it. You just came across as a bit of a sealion, that's all.
Anyway, the point is, yes, Stallman has been a repeated defender of paedophilia and having sex with family pets.
Personally for me that's a mark against him. But that's just my opinion, a lot of people in the Linux don't really mind.
You were the one looking for proof? Then you do the googling.
That is how this shit works, genius.
You've got the burden of proof backwards, pal.
Lucky this isn't a court of law, buddy.
Online discussions aren't formal debates, bud.
This makes no sense. This person made a claim and I asked what the source was. Shouldn’t they know where their own comment came from?
Mike, you came at this person twice. He gave you a url and since you're on Lemmy we assume you're at least halfway internat savvy.
In my shoes I'd have at least put in a few minutes of effort to look for the information on that site. Or even a general search. ANYTHING to evince my capability for critical thought.
You were given 99% more than most are in this type of exchange and still lazily demanded more. You didn't just ask and you weren't all that polite. I found it lazy. That you appear to feel a keen need to have the last word in this type of situation is also worth a bit of reflection.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. But I'll take that downvote and no reply as a "yes, you were right. Stallman is a disgusting supporter of child rape and bestiality".
Perhaps you can learn from this. Celebrity worship is bad. It blinds you to the faults of people. Stallman doesn't deserve your simping.
You calmed down? You agree he supports paedophilia, yes? The evidence is right there. I provided sources for you a bunch of times.
Too bad he spent all his energy getting Linux users to say GNU/Linux instead of talking about the real issues
Just because that's all you ever listened to doesn't mean that's all he ever said.
who
It's a very searchable name
Simple solution. Don't use Chrome.
Ive been testing out ungoogled chrome with uBlock, and it still seems to be working. But I think I'm going to add Waterfox along side of my Firefox to look at that one also.
But I'm also not sure you can install uBlock anymore from the Chrome repository either.
Not sure about the repo route, never went that deep with Chrome. Firefox has always been my mainstay (and Netscape before it.)
I wonder if this leaves Chrome users susceptible to ads that load malware, which has been a problem for the last decade, and a driver of adblocking extension development. You can get spyware and worms from Forbes, for instance.
Adblocking is not just a matter of a cleaner internet experience, but also of good internet hygiene
Oh yeah, I have a feeling we're about to see 2000s level bullshit on computers/phones again.
The majority of people already don't use ad blockers though. The Chrome Web Store says that 34 million people use (used?) uBlock Origin, while it's estimated that around 3.3 billion people use Chrome. If those numbers are correct, only around 1% of Chrome users use uBlock Origin.
I feel sorry for that 3.26 billion people, most of whom have to deal with ads, spyware and malware.
its not just ads and malware, and its not only about beeing sorry for them. ads are also manipulating how people think. not only the obvious things like "that product is good", but also that products in general would help (with problems you didn't have). and the format itself of ads (even without considering its contents) already has a changing effects on the minds of those who watch it. i am thinking of some parts of neil postmans thoughts about television back then and i guess there is plenty of possibilities to make a realistic conspiracy theory out of it why exactly the most poisonous parts of television are replicated to the internet with massive force even though everyone ignores ads in the net. i like theories
unfortunately, feeling sorry for them does not help society to stability. 😥
What's the alternative to ads, though? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) pay for every site they use.
its not about paying for the site a user uses, its about paying those who run the site (and less to pay for someone only "managing" the site by doing actually nothing)
maybe these could be alternatives:
flattrKickstarter Indiegogo Podia Sellfy Buy Me a Coffee Memberful Hypage Ko-fi Substack Kajabi Gumroad WooCommerce Mighty Networks MemberPress Uscreenmaybe even a combination of multiple of those *whoa!!!! mindblow!!! could be a good choice to allow usersvto choose how to contribute.
so really only choosing to offer exactly one option that also puts all users at a real risk of real attacks where they can get ripped off of all or lots of their real money and data for the sake if earning 0.003 ¢ per each putting them at high risk is not really what should be done, or do you personally profit from their users high risk and are thus completely okay with it? hope not.
if you have to earn money with your project or whatever, why not offer several options to choose from? why only one? and while we're at it, offering an ad-free "membership" for 400 times the price of what they would earn by the same visitor with ads like they try here sometimes, does not make any platform look good, but the opposite.
there are many platforms that i would pay for monthly and i would spend much more money alltogether than now on that if their price would not be artificially pushed into astronomically heights per service...
there is one project where i do donate each month a little bit via recurring bank transfer since years. my transfer says the name of the project and "donation" thats pretty easy to setup for both sides, but too complicated for those who pay designers money so they can place the ad layers on top of the 400 other layers of spypixels and navigation controls.. really ? lol*
if those you are talking about cannot afford to have a bank account for some reason, i guess they also cannot receive the revenue of ads on their webpages ;+)
saying there are no alternatives to ads is rather a candidate for the lamest excuse award ;-)
What’s the alternative to ads, though? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) pay for every site they use.
Google says Manifest v3 is being done "for security reasons" but what they don't say is that it's not for your security.
It's a Judge Dredd situation.
Google is vertically integrating the roles of content provider (ads) and content server so that web pages load exactly the way the page's developer expects them to. This necessarily excludes things that selectively filter content, like blockers.
They're essentially taking an open framefork for the web and replacing it with interactive pdfs, that show exactly what the web developer wants, and collects exactly the information the developer wants to know about you.
If you think you should have more control, use Firefox. Anyone using Chrome is complict at this point.
Ublock origin isn't the only ad blocker out there. If you like Ublock origin, use Ublock origin lite. It's fully V3 compliant.
Not so effective against the likes of YouTube allegedly.
We should all probably start donating to Firefox. Isn't Google their main source of income?
There might come a time when they prefer to gut Firefox, forcing Mozilla to either reject uBlock Origin or die (or they could simply pull the plug on funding knowing they'll earn more when people go back to Chrome-based browsers)
If they can pay 5-8 milion the CEO while laying off employees, they do not need donations.
Mozilla still does pretty good without any donations, and your donations will most definitely not be spent on Firefox.
This is what drives me mad about Mozilla. Let me donate to Firefox! I don’t want to donate to another hairbrained idea to “diversify your revenue streams” - I want to donate to Firefox.
As I’ve said many times before, Firefox would be better off as an opencollective-driven, smaller (50-ish) team, with code on Codeberg, than driven by a 600 strong org who needs to compete with SF salaries and fancy offices. They have become Google by another name and it ain’t healthy.
Your money is honestly better spent donating to new efforts like Ladybird or Servo.
Is Servo independent of Mozilla now? It’s instructive how much they swayed when Mozilla cut them away, but seems they’ve found a new team to steward it.
Ladybird I hadn’t heard of so thank you for the suggestion. I’ll check them out.
LibreWolf exists, and is already on Codeberg. If and when push comes to shove, they may stop depending on Firefox altogether.
I like LibreWolf! But while they may be the natural successor to a folded Firefox, they would need to beef up dramatically to actually be the stewards of the codebase. Right now they do a good job at removing stuff, but setting a direction for a browser that zings with users requires a fully fledged product org.
Firefox is caught between those two worlds.
Fair take. I agree 👍
I actually think it's a good thing they are seeking other income sources. After all Google is both their competitor and main income source while being under investigation by the government. Firefox barely manages to keep up with Chrome as-is. Nevermind if they had a team a fraction of its current size. It's just not really practical for a project this size and scope to have a small plucky team. It needs a big organisation of some kind behind it. Ideally one like Google or Microsoft who can pull income from more profitable projects to pay for better browser engineering. It's also needed so they can have a say in web standards. An organisation like that also has more ways to make money from their browser like with ChromeOS and Android. Firefox actually tried to make their own smartphone OS, to be honest I am annoyed they didn't succeed. It would have given us a real alternative to Android while giving them needed income.
I really couldn't agree more.
because Google pays them so that they keep offering Google as the default search engine. now that Google has been declared a monopoly, they might not be allowed to do that anymore, which means Mozilla loses its funding.
Mozilla's funding did mostly consist of the Google partnership (86%), but as you can see, it's not their only source of income. And you really don't need half a fucking billion just to develop a web browser, which is open source, which also gets community contributions. This is made pretty obvious by their current revenue (>$1,000,000,000) and their CEO's whopping $5.6 million salary.
Don't donate to a shitty for-profit that masks itself with their non-profit company. Instead donate to something like Ladybird, whom are currently in early development but have no plans on adding features that actively spy on you (FakeSpot, Pocket), and they don't need $500 fucking million to develop a web browser.
And if you're going to talk about Mozilla's social work, just don't. I've already seen it.
You have zero idea how much engineering it takes to create a standards compliant engine and then maintain it. "And you don't need half a fucking billion just to develop a web browser". Technically this is true if you are willing to use someone else's web engine. Firefox aren't doing that, and it requires huge investment to maintain their own engine. There is a reason only large companies these days (Apple, Google, Mozilla) have their own engines. The actual browser part is tiny compared to the engine. We are talking about something the size of the Linux kernel or bigger, that gets far less contributions from outside sources. It actually makes perfect sense they are looking at starting other projects when you think that all other companies that do this kind of work need those other projects to remain profitable. Web engine development from my understanding does not pay. You get almost the same amount of money using somebody else's engine as you do developing your own, yet one costs way more.
The fact Mozilla manages to maintain a better web engine than Apple's WebKit only from Google's advertising money is actually incredible. Did I mention Apple didn't even start that engine themselves? It's based on KHTML. Chrome is in turn a WebKit derivative. Firefox on the other hand actually comes from Netscape, and was first developed under the name Mozilla based on Netscape's code. So Mozilla has put in more work than Google in modernising their engine.
Thank you. Yes, they are also developing their own web engine, which is a very complicated piece of software because of the current sad state of the web. But it doesn't excuse any of the things I mentioned, and web engine development still doesn't suckle up that much money as we can see from their current revenue and other efforts to make an independent web engine such as Ladybird.
I do not mind Mozilla starting other projects, but if you're talking about FakeSpot or Pocket which are getting integrated into the "more private alternative to browsers like Internet Explorer, and now Chrome" by the "non-profit" whom "prioritize people and their privacy over profits", I think you need to take a look at those privacy policies I linked in my previous comment.
I agree with you on your last paragraph, but there are some things I'm bothered with. Mozilla is (or was) a company that focused on one thing, their web browser. Apple and Google are (and were) different, in that they have a vast range of products to maintain. And Gecko is most definitely inferior to Blink in terms of speed, although I'm not familiar with any of their "modernity".
I've read the one for fakespot. Given what it's designed to do then having your purchase history makes perfect sense. How else are they meant to make recommendations? If you really have a problem just don't use that service. The only real criticism here is the name doesn't imply they also make product recommendations. Nevertheless they explain that on the website.
I have skimmed the pocket one, and as far as I can tell they aren't doing anything dodgy. Keeping information only to provide the service, and some anonymised analytics to see how it's actually being used. The later is needed to direct development effort.
In summary: Not everyone is out to get you. Some information is needed to provide services.
Edit: sorry for there different comments, wanted to come back and do more research before I finished making a statement.
Yeah, no problem at all. This is a lot better than people downvoting and not actually talking about what they disagree on. Felt like r/apple.
Reading it again, Pocket's privacy policy is actually not that bad. Thankfully it was not one of those 100 page ones that are made to confuse the shit out of consumers, but I have a slight problem with it.
"Personalized Advertising: Some Pocket web pages have ads. With your consent, Pocket’s ad partners will place advertising cookies on your device to personalize the ads you see here and on other websites."
How does this consent exactly work? Is it just a simple check you have to tick in your account settings, or is it one of those cookie banners that require you to untick 800 advertising partners to "not give consent"? I'm not exactly a Pocket user so I'm a bit ignorant about it.
Though there doesn't seem to be another privacy concern with Pocket. It seems I had misconceptions about their practices.
The one other problem I have with Pocket though is, it's not a feature that should be in a browser, it should be an extension. They have already made a lot of extensions for features that not all of the userbase might need, even FakeSpot is currently an extension (approximately 40,000 users). I guess this is a whole another argument though.
I will write my thoughts about FakeSpot in another reply.
Okay, what does a sweepstake or a contest have to do with a browser extension, made to spot fake reviews. Trade shows? What?
I did take a look at this privacy policy before to check if the extension was worth installing, but holy fuck I didn't see that.
And they collect a lot of things, supposedly "automatically". I have never developed a browser extension, but does the browser force this information on the extension? Do they just look at their data collection and find the geolocation of their users, how they accessed the extension download page, browser specifics etc.?
They also sell your "automatically collected" geolocation data, "internet or other electronic network activity", "inferences drawn from other personal information to create a profile about a consumer", and "commercial information". I've quoted the three data selling points I really don't understand, since their "descriptions" aren't very descriptive. But if we are to fully trust the lawful descriptions they provided, I hope the extension stays at 40,000 users really.
FakeSpot's privacy policy
A lot of this is the same kind of things amazon do to make purchase suggestions. It is fairly invasive but also effective. There are even some customers who appreciate this kind of thing. I will say though that the name is misleading. It dosen't just spot fakes, it seems to be designed as a shopping assitant or search engine who's stand out feature is pointing out fakes. I think there is a place in the market for such a thing, but they need to be careful of how they market that and what data is actually needed to be collected. Ideally they should put in a system where you can opt in to personalised recommendations and collect data for only those people who require that feature. It also needs to be spelled out clearly what this involves in terms of data collected and who sees the data. Regardless I don't think it should be enabled by default in Firefox. Including it in the browser isn't so bad provided they don't get up to microsoft-like shenanigans pushing people to use it.
Notice the word efforts here. No one has actually succeeded yet despite multiple attempts, some even by Mozilla themselves like Servo. Ladybird is not a fully functioning browser yet. Are they anywhere even close yet? Even if they are close it also has to be fast. Google and Mozilla have spent quite a bit of time, money, and effort making their JavaScript engines as fast as possible.
I will have a look at some of the links you have given, but honestly I think most criticism thrown at Mozilla isn't anything close to what the alternatives are guilty of, and is mostly done by conspiracy nuts. The kind of people were Mastodon and Lemmy is their only social media, and refuse to own a modern smartphone that isn't running custom firmware.
Ladybird is fairly new. Just like how Mozilla didn't get Gecko to this point in 1 year, Ladybird will take years of development to become a reliable browser and browser engine.
I pretty much agree with you. The alternatives are far worse. Seeing Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge being literal spyware, other Chromium-based browsers cutting out support for content-blocking extensions Firefox is vastly superior to them in terms of privacy. Although that still doesn't mean Firefox is good, at least if we're past talking about web browser engines etc., using another Firefox-based browser which is less bloated (Firefox Sync off by default, no Pocket, no recommendations in Addons tab), more privacy-friendly (all telemetry off by default, uBlock Origin installed by default, some hardening options from about:config enabled by default) seems to be the best choice currently, since other options like GNOME's Epiphany and KDE's Falkon sucks, if we're being honest.
And I do kind of fit your description, if we exclude being a conspiracy-theorist.
I actually use Firefox sync. In fact I think all of that is quite unnecessary given what the policies you brought up actually state as was discussed in another comment. Everyone should be using AdBlock at this point, and I am planning to setup network wide AdBlock and malware block at my home in the future.
Yeah I thought you could be. Nothing wrong with using a de-googled phone. Lemmy while a great idea is full of extremists. The kinds of people who go to that level of effort to cut out Google and social media tend to be uber paranoid. It's a shame that people are divided into three groups regarding piracy: unknowing sheep, people who know but don't care, and conspiracy nuts. The kind of person who hears something vaguely sketchy from someone and immediately jumps to the conclusion they need to boycott that company. Very rarely do you get reasonable, informed people who actually care with regards to online privacy without thinking every single organisation is out to get them (even non-profit like Mozilla or Wikipedia). It's why things like the legislation the EU comes up with is necessary, to protect those who won't or can't protect themselves.
Oh also the devs behind Ladybrid are apparently against anyone who isn't male using their technology. People tried to change masculine pronouns in the documentation to neutral pronouns just to be more grammatically accurate, and it started a whole chain of GitHub arguments arguing the change is "political". Apparently it's political not to imply that every computer user is a man.
There are many software from bigots and shitheads that still get used, being seperated from their creator (e.g. Hyprland, I guess you can put here some social media platforms like Xitter if we're not only talking about open-source software). Although I prefer not using or supporting such software, I've not been able to find what you're talking about. I've tried searching "ladybird pronoun controversy (forgive my search engine skills)" and other similar sentences but nothing really related pops up, so it would be great if you told me your source. Thank you!
The whole Vaxxry controversy is largely bullshit from both sides. The original complaint was something said in his Discord server, and that he didn't police it enough. Not something bigoted he himself said. Vaxxry was right to defend himself given their CoC doesn't apply to his Discord server, and talking about how they are trying to improve the moderation there.
Vaxxry from the little I know of him doesn't seem that bigoted. He certainly isn't progressive by any means. He does espouse tolerance for other political viewpoints, which is more than can be said for a lot of projects.
It's on there GitHub. I would have linked earlier but search engines don't seem to pick it up.
https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814
https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/8046
Thank you very much! I guess it makes sense a little bit that the lead developer of an older-style operating system is a conservative, but I was still not expecting it. It's pretty sad that this seems to be the only new web browser engine that has actual support.
Yeah it's really annoying. We need more browser engines and alternatives to the current web standards. The current way these things is not fit for purpose, and is making it easy for google to establish a monopoly on the web. I think wasm helps with this somewhat, but it isn't popular enough yet nor is it a complete solution.
You're absolutely right, ~80% of Mozilla's revenue is from Google's paying to be the default search engine in Firefox - and the US is going after Google for it's anticompetitive behaviors as we speak. Ad blocking aside, Mozilla is going to need help pretty soon anyways if Google gets their monopoly broken up.
Possibly when the US government decides to break Google up next week.
Screw the mozilla foundation. My only hope at this point is that Ladybird or one of the other projects produces something viable one of these days.
Huh... I couldn't tell with all the Firefox I use.
Huh... So you're not using the product the article is referring to?
No I use u-block origin. The very product the article is referring to.
I just use it in Firefox so I am completely unaffected by this.
It's a great feel.
It's about Chrome. Using Firefox is unrelated to the article.
It's about uBlock Origin not working on chrome.
So what does Firefox have anything to do with it then?
Nothing...
Weird. You spent 3 days defending Firefox for an article that has nothing to do with Firefox... You just wanted to say Firefox for some weird reason..
I spent zero time defending anything.
I made a statement relative to the original article.
I am unaffected by the fact that uBlock will no longer function in chrome because I use Firefox.
You keep trying to infer that Firefox has nothing to do with chrome or the article in and of itself. Which I do not contest.
And yet I still made the statement.
So let me repeat myself. "I am unaffected by this because I use Firefox"
I hope that my continued perceived waste of time annoys you further.
cackles in firefox...
It's like the reporter went out of his way to not mention ff at the end of the article:
Edge isn't using manifest v3?
It is, it's deadline is just a little farther out.
I pulled the plug on allowing chrome user agents on my domain.
Granted its tiny but I'm making people switch.
This is the juncture.
P.s. yes I know the cavaets all my services work fine tyvm.
404 Ethics not found. Go be evil elsewhere.
Has a nice ring to it. Though google deserves their own special fuck-you http status. Maybe we can crack the 600s
1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up
666 doing evil
With Google providing 80% of Mozilla's finding, I think we can all see whats going to happen next.
I feel like this isn’t talked about enough. Sure
But for how long is it gonna work that way until they too deprecate v2
Don't worry. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Personally I feel like I'm too addicted to Youtube (and Reddit, which is what brought me back here), so if I can't block ads, perhaps I'll be able to quit. To be honest though, even just disabling watch history and reducing subscriptions makes a massive difference to how addictive it is.
I'm more worried that sites will start to demand it for "security purposes".
It will be either of those two. The effort required to circumvent the restrictions will get increasingly higher. As someone fittingly said a few days ago. Let the 1984 commence.
They're the only alternative for now.
The Google payments were never guaranteed for Mozilla. If they didn't have a backup plan in place to reduce spending, that's on them. Let Mozilla return to its garage opensource roots.
LibreWolf.
How long until YouTube blocks Firefox?
Considering they were already declared an illegal monopoly? I'd love to see them do that
They can try. It won't work.
Anti-trust lawyers are rubbing their hands in anticipation.
There's an easy fix for this. 🔥🦊
I imagine most of us here already don't use Google Chrome, but I'll be spending some time proselytizing on the behalf of Mozilla for Firefox with the folks I run across.
It literally took me less than ten minutes to set up firefox. I carried all my bookmarks and passwords from edge and set up a mozilla account and everything is synced across linux, windows and android.
The only thing I'm worried of, is if some websites require chrome to work, as was the case with some government sites that only worked with internet explorer in the old days.
(Does anyone know if the default user agent is chrome? I used to log in a local streaming site from edge and it wouldn't work, as it required chrome, but I used an extension to take care of the user agent. On firefox it works no problem.)
I recommend the User-Agent Switcher and Manager Firefox addon for those struggling with some sites.
You can also report a broken site to Mozilla directly via the browser menu.
There was another (third-party?) page where you could report websites but I forgot its url.
I used this extension on edge to view one particular site (although I never managed to make it auto load on that page, but meh). As I said firefox seems to work without it for some reason.
Just use Edge on sites that don't support Firefox, if you must use them. Same as how we used IE for government sites back in the day.
Why not use chromium or a hardened version of it? Edge is proprietary software.
Edge is chromium.......
Yes, but Edge comes with a lot more proprietary components added.
I would recommend installing ungoogled-chromium or using another hardened FOSS version of chromium instead.
Orrrrr
Stop using chromium based browsers.
The person was saying they couldn't access a certain site with Firefox, that's why I suggested a chromium based browser.
I'm using the Chrome Mask extension on the few sites that complain
From my experience, most of those websites that want a specific browser require edge these days. Some streaming sites will only give FHD on edge, and HD streams on other browsers if at all (looking at you Vudu).
half of the websites are google-owned
Stop using Chrome, it is adware at this point. Use Firefox or if that's too different, use
Braveor Edge or a different chromium offshoot that isn't going to support manifest v3.Weird that you tell people not to use Chrome because it’s adware but suggest Brave which is a crypto miner.
Brave has built-in wallet support and such, but I don't think it does any mining, does it? It just has its own opt-in ad system to pays out in crypto and is also owned by a turd.
I dumped Brave when it decided to install its VPN as a service without my consent. I had so much trouble ripping out all the traces of that.
I completely forgot about that. Yeah, it's fucked.
Imagine if you bought a Microsoft game, say Forza, and it installed a bunch of candy crush games alongside it without asking you.
It's scummy as fuck.
Being owned by a turd is reason enough not to use it.
I use tons of software developed by people with whom I would probably disagree on politics.
Rejecting a program because one of the developers said something you didn't like is just childish.
That entirely depends on if there's an equivalent developed by not an asshole.
It's not childish it's acting according to principles and being consistent.
Vivaldi is similar but nicer.
Man I just tried to throw out a Chromium fork that didn't use Manifest v3, I didn't realize Brave went off the deep end. Personally I use Firefox and Edge when I need to use Chromium and for work just because I find it's dev tools nicer.
False. Try again.
This was the plan all along
Firefox downloads a spike by 30 million. Will be the next headline.
Although searches for Firefox only ticked up slightly.
One would hope but nothing much will change in reality.
Followed by shocked pikachu face.
I've used Librewolf since the first time Google announced these kinda plans I'm thinking it must be at least 3 years now.
Theres tons of options Librewolf is overkill to be honest Firefox would be fine.
I wonder if the DoJ actually does split up Google if separating Chrome would make any difference with behavior like this?
Chrome on its own does not bring revenue. It would then require donations
I wonder if we could force a world where browsers are purely donation supported.
Chrome is used to get a tighter grip on the www and form it to Google's vision (one that is very anti consumer). If Chrome dies, it would be a net benefit for all.
I wonder if we trained an AI on the entire corpus of articles about how Google is gonna kill adblocking, if we could keep these articles going after most people switch uneventfully over to Lite.
Look like I need to convince my dad to switch now
Would he notice if you just installed Firefox and changed the icon to Chrome?
Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.
This headline is premature. They haven't pulled the plug yet. I still have Chrome installed, fully updated, and all the extensions are still there.
and also ublock origin lite is still in the app store and works fine.
uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest v3 compatible extension and was intended to be the successor of uBlock Origin on Chromium based browsers.
However, it is not at feature parity(and will likely never be due to restrictions in Manifest v3). One restriction is no element picking on websites and then adding them to custom filters.
Which is pretty crazy because I believe that's about to be a built-in feature of a new Safari update.
but for 90% of people, it'll be fine
I glanced at it and from a quick look I didn't see any way of adding custom blocklists.
so long dental plan!
Lisa needs braces!
Those who don't like FF can use brave, it's brave shield works well
Is ublock origin still operable for YouTube? Could this be related?
The blocking of YouTube ads is related to the decision to limit ad-blocking in Chrome, yes.
That is a choice thumbnail.
As long as chromium keeps it I'm fine. I use edge, why should I bother with downloading another browser when the one it comes with is identical?
The reason you're utilizing edge is valid, but why not use Firefox?
The headline is a bit overdramatic. Google hasn't pulled uBlock Origin off its extension webstore. Rather, it's switching from Manifest v2 to Manifest v3, which won't support features the current version of uBlock Origin needs to work. We've known this was in the process of happening for months. It's a good reminder of what's coming eventually (namely, the fact v2 extensions will be entirely disabled by Chrome soon), but this is nothing new.
Do you know if this is at the chrome or chromium level?
Chromium. However other chromium browser's have said they'll either patch it to keep manifest V2 compatibility, or they won't but you can still use their inbuilt ad-blocking.
Brave will continue to support manifest V2.
Awesome. Normies are getting sucker punched left and right. Keep it up, Google!
Sensationalist and inaccurate title