Live data from Hacker News

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

331–340 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#331

Not only is this enough to get me switching back to firefox, it's enough that my next laptop purchase won't be another chromebook the internet without an adblocker is simply not usable for me.

Manifest V3 still supports ad blocking. I don't know why so many in this thread think it doesn't.

Rule-based ad blocking limited to 30k, as stated in the article. That's why people are upset.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#332

I don't get it. I've used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?

Google Chrome (desktop) does not contain ads/"suggested content" on the New Tab page. For that reason alone I'll continue using Chromium on desktop until they actually pull the trigger and remove/neuter uBO.

I, too, find that the simple new-tab ads that I can easily disable with one option are the worst of all possible ads.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just switched to Firefox today after a few years hiatus, and I agree that it is hugely improved, and rendering speed is at least on part with Chrome if not faster. They've done a great job with it, and the dev tools seem greatly improved in the developer edition as well. The issue I have with firefox on both Linux and Windows is not speed, but stability. I think it's the process model. Windows freeze if I open too…

How many tabs do you consider to be too many tabs? Most of the time I open up to 10 tabs, and Firefox is performing fine. But I have also seen people opening 40 tabs.

At home I have like 60+ tabs open. And at work I have > 100. Firefox is pretty rock solid now with many tabs on windows. Chrome can’t cope with that. Or it couldn’t a year ago when I switched to Firefox. The tabs are mostly blogs and things I’m slowly reading or such. I just open more than I close :(

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#334
post #307

I see a lot of comments saying to switch to Firefox, or people saying they're already using Firefox. This is fine, but I don't think people should be totally comfortable with this. Switching to the one other choice still leaves us in danger of the whole web being controlled by a few programs. We should encourage other browser projects as well. I've seen some cool browser projects, but mostly they use webkit still. I'…

Also, Mozilla is largely dependent on Google via their default-search arrangement, so even if it's not Webkit/Blink based, Google still has significant influence.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#337
post #44
post #5

Here are browsers that aren't just 'not Chrome,' they are better. Brave: https://brave.com/ Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

Does the webRequest API deprecation also impact Chromium, and therefore Brave as well? Brave seems like it's willing to backfill in changes to Chromium, but I'm wondering how this impacts the browser overall. I use Brave as my daily driver (with Shields Up and uBlock Origin), but I'm not sure what the actual impact will be when it comes.

It won't effect Brave. Brave is a Chromium fork, not an extension, so have full control over the browser/APIs.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's largely proven by decades of experience at this point that you cannot make the average software user care about ideological concerns. Especially if you use terms like libre that don't makes any sense to people that haven't drunk the FOSS koolaid.

Ok, then it could be played a little harder, for example by introducing a (small) performance penality for visitors that use chrome.

Ignore the "proven by experience" pessimist comment.

Yes we can, go ahead and do it. This is a "Do not do X" nudge not a "Do Y" command.

It is proven by thousands of years of history that humans are best served by negative commandments.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#339
post #311

Slightly off topic, I'm finding it very disingenuous that people in this thread(and any other threads that come up about Firefox) have actually had significant performance issues with Firefox. No bugs that are noteworthy, sans that fiasco with the expired certificate that disabled addons briefly. I've been using Firefox since "quantum" on both my MacBooks(one of which is old AF) and on Linux. I've yet to have problem…

My issue with Firefox is essentially one bug where they refuse to fix. In private mode, previously closed tabs are, for some reasons, restorable. This doesn't happen for Safari or Chrome.

Can confirm. Though it doesn't really bother me personally - I think I actually prefer this behavior and don't consider it a bug.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#340
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the benchmark results, aggressively stripping ads and tracking can result in pages loading twice as fast and hours of extra battery life. I'm happy to pay money to view your website, but modern web ads are a ridiculous and punitive payment scheme.

What you're doing is the equivalent of walking into a store, picking up $100 of merchandise, slapping $10 on the counter and walking out because "I'm happy to buy your products, but your prices are ridiculous". It's not a very moral position to take.

No, it's the equivalent of walking into a store wearing a baseball cap when that store has plastered its ceiling with paid advertisements.
Post reply on HN