561–570 of 909 posts
Google is essentially saying that Chrome will still have the capability to block unwanted content, but this will be restricted to only paid, enterprise users of Chrome. Never heard of a paid version of Chrome before! Can anyone elaborate on this? I gotta say I'm kind of glad Google is doing this. It will force me to finally abandon Chrome, something I should have done awhile ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it doesn't work in Firefox I don't use it. I've been using Firefox for as long as I can remember, probably shortly after it was made and Netscape died. And would never use Chrome. Chrome users are now going to be betrayed and just didn't see it coming. I look forward to Firefox' upcoming rebound which I have every faith this news will spur on.
But doesn't Firefox require that godawful add-on signing?
In that regard, Firefox is not a worse option, just equally suboptimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on what this is and why you think it’s so great?
It's a fork of Chromium, the core layer of Chrome, with Google integrations removed (and other privacy-conscious feature removals/additions). https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ditched Chrome and came back to Firefox, next step is to donate to Mozilla.
Yep, I'm about to ditch Chrome altogether now. I gritted my teeth and just handled a few of the more bone-headed changes the Chrome team made, but this latest change is a deal breaker. The truth is, I actually don't need Chrome for anything. Firefox is faster now, gives me more freedom and has less corporate affiliations. I'll stick with Mozilla.
I keep seeing people write stuff like this, and I just don’t get it.
What’s keeping you? Why haven’t you switched already? I mean... it takes minutes at most.
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.
This is fully intended to give Google the ability to use sophisticated scripts to serve ads and track you despite blocking. Everything else Google says about this is bull!
They probably already have the tech set up. And that real blocking still works for Enterprisr customers is the nail in thr coffin.
If you care about a usable Web, STOP USING CHROME.
Google is has become the #1 anti user and anti freedom company. They want to make money from Ads and tracking, so dont think they will allow you to block ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or don't consume DRMed content?
So, all commercial video content on the web?
You can also enjoy lots of high-quality, DRM-free content on YouTube, Vimeo, peertube, fosdem and god knows where.
There’s more to internet video than Netflix, Hulu and Prime.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> smaller players to come together and form an open-source working group based on a chromium fork Google can and does use DRM to block even this from happening: https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked... Even Mozilla needed to license Widevine from Google to support modern video: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm Based on the policy evidenced in Maddock's post, it seems impossible t…
Use an open-source DRM solution?
Will this affect just Chrome or will browsers built on top of chromium also get manifest V3? If so, I assume they can implement the old web request API themselves to keep as blockers working?