71–80 of 256 posts
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adb…
In other words, to block ads on third party networks but leave Google ads alone. That's a bold move these days, when antitrust regulators are putting big tech under the microscope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On that note, are people switching over to Firefox already? Not sure why power users ever left Firefox as their default browser when surveillance tech came along. I sure didn't. Firefox was always the more competent and customizable browser. Happy to see users returning. Among other things, the current "Welcome Chromium/Chrome users!" megathread in the Firefox subreddit[1] seems to indicate there's something going…
I never understood the appeal of Chrome over Firefox in the beginning.
It took a couple years at least for FF to catch up. I would say for most sites Firefox is now at least as fast while using less RAM.
Now the problem is that Google web apps are tuned for Chrome, so users will complain their gmail is slow on FF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adb…
The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to disappear. In other words, to block ads on third party networks but leave Google ads alone. That's a bold move these days, when antitrust regulators are putting big tech under the microscope.
well, anti-trust these days is just a buzzword, in a legal sense it is defined in a very strict way, and the cost for companies to anticipate an anti-trust ruling is way higher than just pushing their own interests.
With 66% market share and countless other browsers available, the only question for antitrust when it comes to browsers is if users have equal access to browsers, not whether google supports ad blocking.
I think they will make sure that the ad blocking capability does not explicicly favor google ads.
I tried opera a while back, and while it's fast and looks good, it has a new tab page with "recommended" sites that you can't turn off - I tried, but it's protected by DRM (opera will refuse to start if the file doesn't have a valid digital signature). So if I'm going to switch browsers because of privacy/advertising concerns, it's not going to be Opera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adb…
I tried opera a while back, and while it's fast and looks good, it has a new tab page with "recommended" sites that you can't turn off - I tried, but it's protected by DRM (opera will refuse to start if the file doesn't have a valid digital signature). So if I'm going to switch browsers because of privacy/advertising concerns, it's not going to be Opera.
Current Opera doesn't even allow to customize mouse gestures. The browser that once prided itself in its feature richness...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try https://www.startpage.com/ Works as proxy for Google Search. No captchas, very customizable. Could never live with the Bing based crap results of DuckDuckGo.
Whatever DDG does to Bing, it makes it worse. I recently switched from DDG to Bing and the difference is colossal - 95% of the time it’s as good as Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business model. This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business. If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them. They may also want to get rid of paying Adb…
See: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReques...
This is API that ABP can use. But with the new API the rules list will be limited to 30 000 rules vs. for example 42 000 EasyList is using, and an update to the rules will require a full update of the plugin.
See also comments from gorhill: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…
You're making a very big assumption here. Last I checked people who blocked ads counted in the hundreds of millions and the number was growing rapidly.
Some old stats I found with a quick search:
https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/adblockreport/
> 615 million devices now use adblock
11% of the global internet population is blocking ads on the web
Adblock usage grew 30% globally in 2016
Mobile adblock usage grew by 108 million to reach 380 million devices
Desktop adblock usage grew by 34 million to reach 236 million devices