I’ve been happy with Orion on macOS. I get it’s WebKit but at least it’s not Chrome. Brave was also good if you must have chromium.
Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
281–290 of 962 posts
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure they exist, I've just never seen them. I use banking and websites like Netflix, too. And, if I had to wager, you could bypass a lot of this "doesn't work on Firefox" by just changing your user agent. I think it's a case of yes, it does work, but web developers don't think so, so they implement checks just for kicks.
> And, if I had to wager, you could bypass a lot of this "doesn't work on Firefox" by just changing your user agent. Indeed, even in the codebase at $JOB that I'm responsible for, we have had some instances where we randomly check if people are in Chrome before blocking a browser API that has existed for 2 decades and been baseline widely available. These days 99% of features that users actually care about are pretty…
Where did "check feature, not browser name" go?
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2. > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO ca…
I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit. I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot…
> super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details
Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? It's a feature I use, a user-facing setting, not an under-the-hood technicality. (Budding web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance and being interested in the actual text on the webpage was not their job description)
I'm less familiar with the other things. Clicking one experimentally, it mentions:
>> The primary purpose of dynamic URL filtering [is] to fix web page breakage
Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently. I'm not a blocklist developer so I can't say how useful this particular function is, but I'm also not going to assume that, just because I don't know the technical details, that it's just handwavey technical details nobody needs to care about and everything will be the same regardless of what the most qualified person on the topic is saying
> I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing
Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing. Sometimes that means that finding out information requires reading source code, or in this case, it's probably data files that contain these dynamic thingies so you could see the list of what mitigations will stop being possible and on what kinds of sites those are. If you (or someone else) do a writeup that fills the information gap you are looking for, I'm sure a lot of other people also appreciate that existing
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).…
Somewhat related - is Microsoft Edge a set of patches on top of the latest Chromium release or is Microsoft running a hard fork from a X years old version?
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There are definitely website that do not support Firefox, especially in the US. Whole portions of the Verizon website, for example. Or the website of a well known kindergarden I was researching recently.
There are definitely sites which block firefox, even though they work fine in firefox. Most of the time, the block can be bypassed with simple user-agent spoofing.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.
Multi-account containers are brilliant. I recommend the following extensions: * uBlock Origin * Privacy Badger * Multi-Account Containers * Flagfox * Cookie Autodelete
I also love Multi-Account containers, but the UI is a bit of a mess. I get annoyed each time I have to futz with it.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#287Earlier 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…
"memory leaks related to Youtube"
News to me.
If this is even true, in the end it's still "so what?" Meaning, the alternative is even worse so, let's say granted there is this problem. Where is the better alternative that does not have this problem? Chrome doesn't have other equivalent or worse memory problems? Even if not leaking, it simply uses so much it's the same end result.
I've never consciously noticed a problem with youtube so if there is a problem, it's not one that necessarily matters.
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#288So what’s the conclusion? Can we use a different Chrome based browser and avoid MV3? What’s the decision for privacy after this has happened?
Microsoft supposedly aligned with deprecating MV2 back when Google announced it but they've indefinitely postponed it. The KB about it still says "TBD", and there's zero mention of it around the actual browser. IMO it's a good alternative, if you trust Microsoft (I do).
Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#289Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is awful. Both as a browser itself and as a base for other browsers. Such a shame that Zen didn't use Chromium :(
Weird, Firefox blows Chrome out of the water. What do you smoke?
The smoke on the water!
More seriously, I'm a Firefox user since ~2006 but I'm about equally surprised by the statement that Firefox should blow Chrome/ium out of the water as that Firefox supposedly sucks. They're both browsers. I think Chromium is a bit faster in page rendering, whereas Firefox is more open, privacy-friendly, and customizable. Similar to how I wish consumers would not choose an anti-consumer organization (anyone who values a free market and general computation1 should not choose iOS), I think nobody should choose Chrome but, still, I can understand if someone does choose it because they've gotten used to how it works and they're not willing to change. It's about equal in practical functionality that 95% of people use, wouldn't you say? Or in what way is Firefox blowing Chrome out of the water?
¹ https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/the-coming-war-on-general...