Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

webiterate.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 648 posts

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#491

Post by dartharva »

BeetleB wrote: post #124
xandrius wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was just less of everything than Chrome. First install experience for an average user was much better in terms of speed and snappiness. That was one of the keys to its success.

> It was just less of everything than Chrome. This is insane. As a power FF user, I don't think Chrome ever "got ahead". There were 2 reasons for its success (in order): 1. Made by a respected company that was killing everything in those days. 2. It was occasionally faster, and more stable. Feature-wise - it was always worse.

3. For a significant period of time (that continues to this day) websites were made using only Chrome as the target platform, turning Firefox into an eternal second fiddle that would occasionally break important/work websites.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#492

Post by beloch »

hackernud3s wrote: post #392
jolmg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being at an age" can include having age-related illnesses.

Right but an age-related illness that affects cognition is generally just called dementia.

Normal cognitive decline comes gradually with age to most people. Dementia is more severe, often more sudden, and can be caused by a host of things, from Alzheimer's to brain injury. Regardless, you're not going to take away somebody's computer because their brain isn't quite as sharp as it once was.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#493

Post by dartharva »

Lovesong wrote: post #11

Few years ago when google announced their MV2 plan I moved to Firefox. I don't think in all this time I ever missed Chrome for anything in particular outside of maybe 1 or 2 websites that didn't have proper support. Switch to Firefox if you haven't already really.

Most office IT actively blocks it.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#494

Post by dartharva »

judge2020 wrote: post #235
rickette wrote: post #21

I'm fairly happy with uBlock Origin Lite. Sure the original was better but this one does the job as well. uBlock Origin Lite is a MV3 extension, by the same author.

Yeah I don’t seem to feel any performance or functionality degradation myself. What ad blocking related feature has been made impossible with MV3?

Severe limits on additional filters, which is bad for people who want it to add more annoyances than it does by default.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#495

Post by dartharva »

abroszka33 wrote: post #160
63stack wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No search, no making space in an existing page, no moving text around, cumbersome to take it with you everywhere, unlike a phone.

You don't really need most of this, or it can be solved simply by thinking and remembering.

By that logic you don't really need paper notes either.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#496

Post by dartharva »

sanp wrote: post #115

How about Brave? Any thoughts?

I used to be interested in it but ever since they launched Brave Orion it has become clear they intend to actively monetize the free public versions they have been releasing, and the path they're taking with crypto and add-on bloat just feels ickier than most of its competition including Chrome.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#497

Post by anticensor »

sroussey wrote: post #315
cute_boi wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if apple can validate each and every apps before publishing to appstore, why can't google and facebook validate each and every ads?

But they don’t. Google and others do vet ads, but when they don’t host them, the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!). Google didn’t have this issue until they bought DoubleClick (text ads and they hosted). And they had pretty good privacy as they didn’t want to share shit. After DC it all went to hell.

> the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!).

How is that even allowed?

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#498

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

transcriptase wrote: post #460
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viruses were common on FTP sites and BBSs. They weren't all benign. DOS in particular had zero protections against damaging code. Bot armies hadn't been developed yet so malicious destruction was just as likely an outcome.

Yes, and what did the damaging code and viruses actually do in that era? Software, OSs, and the internet at large were comically unsafe from a safety perspective. There was also a very high barrier of entry in terms of the skills required to take advantage of that, and very little incentive to do so compared to today or even 20 years ago.

If you got lucky, they just self-replicated onto floppies. Not so lucky, they would corrupt your hard drive.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#499

Post by BLKNSLVR »

panarky wrote: post #388
cwnyth wrote: post #198

Earlier 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.

Generalize this. Every landlord should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their tenants. Every telco should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their customers. Meta should pay damages when their users stalk and harass people.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're saying it terribly.

If Ad Platforms don't want to be held responsible for the fraud that their platform literally delivered to the victim, then they should have KYC for all of their Customers that pay them money to deliver advertising to their victims. That way, shock fucking horror, someone or something might actually be able to be held responsible.

And if the argument is that there are many ways that scapegoats can be used and shell companies setup to avoid actual responsibility, then we'll know more about the next layer of regulation that's required.

Or we just give up and say that fraud is OK (which, I believe, is the current thinking in the US).

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#500

Post by kibwen »

dylan604 wrote: post #271
bogzz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alphabet needs to be broken up. Chrome, Search, Android, Youtube need to be separate companies. It's not the only company that needs this treatment.

We've done this in the past. AT&T was broken up into the regional baby bells. Eventually, the baby bells started to get absorbed back into the monolith AT&T again. Nobody stopped it. I assume that the fact that few people use landlines and there are more than one provider of communication services where the AT&T voltron is no longer a monopoly. The point? Not really sure, but as much as I'm all for breaking up Alphab…

Trustbusting is like weeding your garden. It's just a chore that must be done periodically to counteract the natural tendency of markets to degenerate into monopolies. It's not something you do once and then never again, it's something that you have to do regularly, forever, if you want a functioning market.
Post reply on HN