Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
351–360 of 648 posts
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#352I know Firefox's share of browser share has dwindled to almost nothing. I know sooner or later, well within my lifetime, it will be gone. But I will keep using it until they pry it from my hands. And if they do, I'll use forks until those break down too. I can't stand Google, or what Chrome has become. No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information.
Cloudflare with their "checking if the site connection is secure" (while being MITM) is another example.
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
The better thing would be to hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network. If they cannot do that, they should not be in business selling ads then. Yes, that means amending the law (in the US). But the law as it is written facilitates crime.
Idk if apple can validate each and every apps before publishing to appstore, why can't google and facebook validate each and every ads?
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#354Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. Then I'll get called over when the computer starts acting screwy. If Google, MS, etc. had ever gotten together and developed a way to filter malicious ads out of their own ad s…
The better thing would be to hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network. If they cannot do that, they should not be in business selling ads then. Yes, that means amending the law (in the US). But the law as it is written facilitates crime.
If a newspaper took money to advertise blatant, obvious scams, I assume a judge would consider them at least partially responsible for restitution, if not an accessory to the crime. Looking away really hard (and delegating the task of looking away really hard) shouldn't get you out of this.
Hold the publisher responsible, they can then hold the platform responsible, thus creating a market for platforms that actually fight scams. Right now, there is limited incentive to fight scams, as the scams still drive revenue. If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it.
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#355I know Firefox's share of browser share has dwindled to almost nothing. I know sooner or later, well within my lifetime, it will be gone. But I will keep using it until they pry it from my hands. And if they do, I'll use forks until those break down too. I can't stand Google, or what Chrome has become. No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information.
> No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information. Cloudflare with their "checking if the site connection is secure" (while being MITM) is another example.
You may as well say all load-balancers are MITM because you might connect to a different host on each attempt and there's a man in the middle influencing your connection.
What makes it any different if the website executed the same logic cloudflare is on their own box?
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I don’t seem to feel any performance or functionality degradation myself. What ad blocking related feature has been made impossible with MV3?
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... has a few of the more practical concrete examples. Namely content can load without the blocker being ready to filter, CNAME cloaking can't be handled properly (in Chrom* at least), and the filter rules aren't as flexible. Interestingly, the rule count limits themselves do not (currently) seem to be much an issue despite it being one of the more common co…
This isn't an MV3 issue, it's a Chromium design decision that extensions cannot block browser initialization. It was also true with MV2. In fact, MV3 has improved the situation because DNR rules are enforced immediately.
You could certainly argue that Chrome should allow extensions to block browser initialization, or that it should be user configurable - but it seems like an entirely defensible Chrome decision. Regardless, it's nothing to do with MV3.
> the filter rules aren't as flexible.
That's true, but they are still very flexible, and DNR makes some very nice features possible in uBO lite that were not possible in uBO.
For example, did you know that you can change your User-Agent with uBO lite? Go to the Custom DNR rules tab, and enter something like this to pretend to be Lynx on whatever.com:
id: 5
priority: 100
action:
type: modifyHeaders
requestHeaders:
- header: User-Agent
operation: set
value: Lynx/2.9.2 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/3.5.7
condition:
requestDomains:
- whatever.com
resourceTypes:
- main_frame
I don't think that's possible in uBO, so clearly there are some benefits to switching. I have a ton of custom dnr rules, and love this feature.Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had a glimpse of that antitrust future on the horizon with the previous admin. This spooked all the big tech weirdos so much that they put their weight behind the other guy and, well, they won. Antitrust is dead for another generation. Yay.
If only the DNC was interested in promoting candidates that work for the people and aren't just interested in lip service while mostly maintaining the status quo. Things could have been different. Imagine what 8 years of Bernie and a functioning Congress might have accomplished.
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
The better thing would be to hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network. If they cannot do that, they should not be in business selling ads then. Yes, that means amending the law (in the US). But the law as it is written facilitates crime.
How would one hold Google accountable? By fining them $1bn? $10bn? $100bn? To them it is just the cost of doing business. We're beyond holding huge companies accountable. The only way they could be held accountable is if there was personal risk involved for the CEOs. There isn't.
If they are caught doing it repeatedly without taking adequate measures to stop it, treat them as an accessory to the crime.
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#359I know Firefox's share of browser share has dwindled to almost nothing. I know sooner or later, well within my lifetime, it will be gone. But I will keep using it until they pry it from my hands. And if they do, I'll use forks until those break down too. I can't stand Google, or what Chrome has become. No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information.
> No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information. Cloudflare with their "checking if the site connection is secure" (while being MITM) is another example.
I am convinced all their metrics saying they reduce bot traffic are mistaken for the fact that they reduce all traffic by annoying users away.
Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO
#360Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. Then I'll get called over when the computer starts acting screwy. If Google, MS, etc. had ever gotten together and developed a way to filter malicious ads out of their own ad s…
> If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. This has been solved on iOS. It’s not an ads problem.