511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to block ads on an entire system DNS level, instead of using browser plugins.
This way you're missing out on specific js patches for sites with hard to block ads (like YouTube)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about their stalling phone, tablet and laptop revenues, that they hope to compensate with "services" revenue, i.e. App Store 30% racketeering and App Store search ads?
>Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about [...] Have you missed the part of my comment of my comment where I specifically mentioned "web advertising presence"? That's relevant, because ublock would only work on web ads. It can't block ads in the app store, or any other app (eg. spotify).
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AuBlockOrigin%2FuAssets+ap...
Thus they also clearly have an incentive to sabotage uBO. It may be a much smaller piece of their revenue than at Google, but it is a huge proportion of their revenue growth. Don't believe Apple's marketing about their caring for privacy, belied by their actions.
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.
The adblockers still work on Chrome though. Pretty sure people are figuring out to switch to uBlock Origin Lite and ads -- including on YouTube -- are still being blocked just fine.
I have moved to Firefox since the announcements that Chrome won't allow must have extensions such as uBlock. That Firefox allows extensions both on desktop and mobile is great. But there are some things that I miss from Chrome, especially for web development. In Chrome it is possible to adjust the CSS of grid and flex containers within the developer window, which can be helpful. Firefox and Firefox Developer Edition…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Same. I use the element picker tool all the time to rid the web of crap I don't care about. Example: whatever_class:has-text(/YouTube Shorts/) On Android you can even do this on your phone in Firefox. The UI is a bit tricky on such a small device, but it's so worth it. I went so far as to uninstall Chrome (well, disable it) on my Android.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/click-to-remove-ele...
For whatever reason, the UBOL creator chose not to include zapper/picker in order to make it as "lite" as possible. It wasn't a Manifest v3 thing, as they've explained.
I have no problem with using a separate extension for zapping.
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…
There was a time in Chrome when it didn't support extensions at all. If Google had release an extension API like manifest v3 then, would that have been abuse of market position? The reason why Chrome waited for so long to add extensions was the danger they posed to users. I was at Google when Sergey often worried about what extensions would do to non technical and older users who get tricked into installing them, the…
I've been running firefox on my laptop for the last year, with Chrome on my desktop, as a way to head-to-head them. For folks contemplating the switch, it hasn't been bad at all. Some better, some worse, but overall I rarely notice major differences except for a very small handful of sites that won't work with FF. And I still have all of my uBlock origin happiness. :)
What sites don't work with FF?
One crap product forcing me to use another crap product! ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't they have a vetting process for extensions? Even if they don't, you, the (power)user should be able to manually turn on whatever you want, should you so desire. What's stunning is that we're moving away from this, for our "security." And by then "use Firefox/something else" won't be helpful when entire websites will refuse to work on anything else but Chrome.
Not really, no. Putting security in scare quotes doesn’t make the actual risk go away. This is a blatant anti ad block move, but you aren’t making reasonable arguments either.
One can find reasonable use cases for every security measure that takes away freedom. That doesn't mean that all such decisions are balanced, and I'm advocating that the user be the one deciding their level of security, knowingly. That's the most important part being taken away, actually. Until there's palpable resistance (or even doubt or endless debate), those taking things away have no reason to stop.
I have moved to Firefox since the announcements that Chrome won't allow must have extensions such as uBlock. That Firefox allows extensions both on desktop and mobile is great. But there are some things that I miss from Chrome, especially for web development. In Chrome it is possible to adjust the CSS of grid and flex containers within the developer window, which can be helpful. Firefox and Firefox Developer Edition…