481–490 of 1001 posts
I hear so many people IRL complaining about this. I tell them to switch to firefox, that the adblockers still work there, and they still won't switch to it because they are "used to chrome". I really feel like google won this battle. People will through a lot of abuse just to maintain their habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many Chromium-based browsers will keep Manifest v2 support for a while. But eventually the upstream Chromium codebase will diverge enough that it becomes too much work to keep it and they will be forced to drop it as well.
The manifest situation simply doesn't apply to Brave in relation to adblockers specifically. That is, Brave will function like uBlock without having to install uBlock as an extension - that's kinda the whole point of Brave (blocking ads / making them opt in only). That said, it is true extensions one may use that are affected by the manifest version change may be affected in Brave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is Mozilla contracted its footprint substantially to remain sustainable in a future without Google's monetary contribution.
Then they wouldn't be throwing money into open firepits on trash like a VPN service or how to comply with Google's advertising decisions. Then they would let people contribute money to the browser (instead of to Mozilla Foundation which goes to enabling aforementioned trash fires) and to the salary of a multi-million dollar CEO after laying off developer staff and hiring more C-suite assistants. Mozilla is a bad orga…
People keep saying things like this, but the truth is that direct contributions to any ad-supported system contribute more like 1%-10% (at best) of their income.
You are not the majority you think you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. Does Google guarantee it won't spy on me if i pay for Premium? ... no, didn't think so. Besides not everyone uses youtube to the point where paying for it is worth it. > The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. Does it? Or that's what the mozilla organization wastes on harebrained initiatives ove…
YouTube is a 1st party service for Google, so you can't ad-block their tracking. And you aren't ad-blocking YouTube due to the spying, so don't be disingenuous. Yes, it really costs that much. Given Chrome's vast market share, I'm pretty sure its users like it. And you know what? Most users won't mind switching to uBlock Origin Lite, and the elephant in the room is that “manifest v3” also increases security, with Chr…
I don't watch YouTube. If all those influencers want to reach me, they should give me a written summary, I don't have time to listen to talking heads for hours.
However, if I ever follow an youtube link, it will be ad blocked because i run firefox with uBlock Origin, for as long as uBlock Origin blocks youtube ads by default.
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, unlike the locked-down and hobbled Chromium ecosystem. I suspect they do realize this because they've been really leaning into extensions recently, but over the years I've worried that Mozilla's committment to Firefox isn't as serious as I would like. Regardless, I'd love to s…
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions Don't worry, they won't. They have more important endeavors like funding some new bullshit virtue signalling campaign and paying huge CEO bonuses.
But what's the story of cause and effect here such that if they'd invested 1% of their revenue differently, they would jump from 3% market share back to 30% or wherever they were previously? Once you ask these questions out loud, it's clear that people aren't thinking through the steps of the argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is coming from an Apple antagonist, but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? This does vindicate Apple (but doesn't help in the other legitimate scenarios that this API is needed, which I have been told do exist).
> but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? No, content blockers are specific to Safari. Third party apps can show ads just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBO Lite exists and I can't see any visible difference in how well it works. So, it's not a price you need to pay at all.
In my testing, UBO Lite is not working as well on YouTube. It blocks the ad, but you still have to skip it. Original UBO didn't require this.
I don't understand why they ads are not spliced into the stream. It would be undetectable by extensions at all.
Fortunately, at least so far, uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine on Chrome. I know people have made a lot of arguments as to why it might not be as good in theory, or why things might change in the future. But so far, ever since I was forced to switch, I have seen exactly zero difference. Lists are updated often enough that I haven't seen anything get through. Adblocking works on YouTube. If anything, pages seem…
I saw significant difference using the Lite version, enough that I switched to Firefox with Origin instead. I expected it to be good enough and was surprised to see the difference.
whatever_class:has-text(/YouTube Shorts/)
Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... I migrated off Chrome as soon as this BS story about improving privacy, a joke coming from Google. Then the excuse was "well it improves performance", which they could easily do by marking extensions as low performance. If Google wanted to improve this they have an entire search engine where they could re-ran…