501–510 of 752 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can the browser tell the difference between a random thing you want and a random thing you don't want?
The permissions mechanism.
Ladybird planned to release alpha this year. Unfortunately extensions are unsupported, but maybe soon: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/issues/976
You can have my ad blocker when you take it from my cold dead fingers. I will literally move to a shack in the woods rather than go back to late 90s level of bullshit advertising.
We need our own browsers. Relying on corporations does not work - they constantly betray and abuse us. Evidently Google is the number #1 troublemaker here, due to the addiction to adRevenue into adChromium, but you can replace this with any other private company and the basic problem will be the same. We need a variant of the world wide web that can not be abused and controlled like Google shows right now. Firefox wi…
Would you do something using their engine?
Something like Ladybird?
Or 1 fully from scratch like Medici on GitHub?
I fear that more and more sites increasingly serve different experiences based on things such as the presence of Adblock etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, huge difference - MV2 version has sophisticated scripts to not only block ads but prevent tracking. With the lite version you might not be seeing most ads but you are certainly being tracked more - MV3 version might "hide" ads but the MV2 version is blocking requests from every being made. All those stats you hear about improved battery and reduced bandwidth usage with an adblocker are only true for the MV2 vers…
Like I've said in earlier posts: tracking cannot be solved through technological means. It has to be solved through legislation. The only thing you get is an arms race which Big Tech will always win because they have infinite budgets to keep the music playing.
Imagine believing the only way to change the world is voting and politics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The permissions mechanism.
this is not a solution. Running an untrusted software will always be a security drawback. Permissions/sandbox/etc can decrease risk, but not eliminate it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way uBO works already provides a layer of plausible deniability. It's just a content blocker that loads filter lists maintained by other people.
I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but the gpp was suggesting building it in by default. If Firefox included it by default then it would remove a layer of deniability.
I don't know why with LLMs we can't just add MV2/blocking web request support to Chromium in a fork. The argument against was always that it's "too hard to keep a fork in sync". Now it's easier.
That's basically exactly what Brave (the only Chromium browser still supporting uBO) is doing to support uBlock Origin. But it's flimsy and likely has an expiration date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but the gpp was suggesting building it in by default. If Firefox included it by default then it would remove a layer of deniability.
What do they need to deny? Ad blocking is clearly a feature many users want. It’s often the only extension people install. If I were Firefox, I’d build it right into the core of the engine. Turn it on with a checkbox and/or custom blocklist sources.