I was able to bypass the chrome changes by installing firefox. Honestly it's better than I thought it would be, and I have no serious complaints, or broken sites. Yay web standards.
Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
231–240 of 962 posts
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome I find this notion completely baffling. I use Chrome, Firefox and Safari more or less daily cause I test in all 3, and other than Safari feeling clunkier and in general less power-user friendly, I can barely tell the difference between the 3, especially between chrome and FF (well, other than uBlock working better in FF a…
Firefox has multiple, user-affecting, memory leaks related to Youtube (unconfirmed if just youtube), going back at least 7 years. Tab scrollbar as no option to be disabled, so I had to write CSS to get tabs into a form close to what I would like similar to chrome. Tab mute icon has no (working) option to disable the click event, so I had to write CSS to remove it. I made some other changes, but I forget what. At leas…
Just bite the bullet and use Tree Style Tabs or Sideberry.
I didn't, for decades, but it was a mistake.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s quite a stretch. I loathe ads as much as anyone else here, but I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind (is my mind even sacrosanct, such that it could be violated?) it’s just something I don’t like. And yes, attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things. Like any other voluntary transaction, no one is entitled to my attention unless we both voluntaril…
> I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind I do. I think it's a form of mind rape. You're trying to read something and suddenly you've got corporations inserting their brands and jingles and taglines into your mind without your consent. That's unacceptable. > attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things No. Attention is a cognitive function. It has none of t…
Not mind rape, actual rape.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?
The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. " This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it. Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.
> This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it
uBO Lite is missing plenty of features: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege. At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table…
You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do. If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.
It is still my right to murder to uphold your lack of morals
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#236Haven't missed Chrome once since switching to https://brave.com/
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get an ad-free YouTube experience for $0 with software. Why do you pay for it?
Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.
Then subscribe to their Patreon instead of paying YouTube.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the exact argument behind the Serenity project? I legitimately feel there is a grave issue with the internet if one wallet controls all of the actual development of our browsers. Control over virtually all media consumption mustn't be in the hands of a corporation.
The argument just doesn't hold water, though. That's like saying Y Combinator shouldn't be the only company paying for our tech forum. It's perfectly fine unless Y Combinator decides to ruin HN it somehow. And, if they did, wouldn't people just switch to one of the many HN clones overnight? That's what's known as FUD - "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". FUD is often spread about the present, but it's often just as usefu…
The HN comparison doesn’t really hold water. There are a lot of options for tech news and forums. Lots of platforms, self-hosting options, with many business models, or simply self-funded.
That is very different than a world where every browser relies on Google for the core of their browser… and those who don’t rely on Google for funding (as they pay a lot of money to be the default search option in major browsers). Even Microsoft gave up on making their own browser, and now depends on Google. They used to own the entire market not so long ago.
People are saying this is a psyop, but I’m not sure what Google stands to gain from giving off the impression that they are seeking to control the entire market so they can steer the direction of the web for their own profit. That doesn’t make them look like the good guy, and should keep them neck deep in anti-trust filing from various governments. Where’s the upside? People feeling like they don’t have an option, so they give up and settle like Microsoft? Is that the angle?
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#239So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.
I don't agree with this conclusion. Google is fully responsible for MV3 and its' restrictions. There's no reason to shift blame away from them. Let's do a thought experiment: if OP hasn't reported it, what do you think would happen then? Even if different ad blockers would find it later and use it, Google would have still removed this. Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.
> Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.
So now it's abuse to make the user's browser do what the user wants, for the user's benefit, to protect the user from, you know, actual abuse.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome I find this notion completely baffling. I use Chrome, Firefox and Safari more or less daily cause I test in all 3, and other than Safari feeling clunkier and in general less power-user friendly, I can barely tell the difference between the 3, especially between chrome and FF (well, other than uBlock working better in FF a…
I agree, there's little to no friction in switching to Firefox and I have never, not even once, noticed a difference with websites. The same is not true for Safari.
I get serious slowdown with multiple (3--5) youtube tabs open in firefox, but not chrome. Seems to happen when tabs are open for a long time (weeks), so probably some leak. Lots of others mention it on forums.