101–110 of 448 posts
Like so many others on this thread, this is my push to go entirely back onto Firefox. I'll keep Chrome for the diminishing number of sites that don't like Firefox.
So I’ve been a bit ahead of the crowd and gave up on Chrome long ago.
This ad block scandal made me give up on Safari too though. Firefox seems to be the only reasonable option left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is an advertisement company there is nothing conspiratorial about them using their market share to force ads on people. After all whats the point of supporting chrome if it sells no adds.
The point would be 1) avoid being locked out of platforms by not controlling the default search. Apple and Microsoft could either extract a high toll, or crush search engines by controlling what search engines people see by default. On iOS, Apple does extract a toll to be the default, but MS was denied this, by Chrome beating out Windows Mobile and Edge/IE. If your company is wholly a web company, and someone else co…
I disagree that Google is a web company proper. It might have been years ago, but nowadays Google is capable of bending the very rules of the web and internet at their liking. As a result it can now essentially define what the web (okay, the modernish web) is, and that makes your points moot. Also Google's open-source projects are irrelevant to this discussion, much like that using React doesn't void your rights to criticize Facebook.
On mobile i use brave, and when things break I switch to chrome. I tried Firefox multiple times, but I can't help but miss the swipe the address bar to go from tab to tab. I always revert back to chrome. So it's more of a convenience for me. But if I had to choose between adblock or swipe to switch tab, then they made the decision for me. There is no way I can ever browse the web without an adblocker
...But mobile chrome doesn't support extensions anyway? I use Blokada for adblocking on Android btw, and this change wouldn't affect that. Works fine.
hasn't Apple done the same with Safari? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/arti... curiously i haven't noticed any changes on my day to day browsing habits.
If Anything, I am nervious of installing any ad-on that can access the web pages I visit and send god knows what who knows were. It's almost as an accident waiting to happen. The web is only secure when your browser is secure.
I like the natively handled content blocking approach much better.
> Simeon Vincent, a Google Developer Advocate for Chrome Extensions One has to love and admire the use of Newspeak by big companies... How is this Mr Vincent an "advocate"? He's in charge of destroying extensions! On his Twitter bio [1] he also says he likes "helping people" and "the open web". The cognitive dissonance must be hard to bear. [1] https://twitter.com/dotproto
Even if you don't share their opinion, you have to accept that some people honestly believe that advertising is necessary for funding the open Web and keep it open for people who either can't afford tons of subscriptions or hate them for privacy reasons. Realistically, Mr Vincent is not in charge of being an advocate for anything other than Google's corporate interests. But he is not in charge of destroying extension…
That's a minor issue. The bigger issue is the fact that, if adblockers become truly popular, websites will go back to serving opaque binary blobs instead of HTML+CSS+JS.
Remember Flash and 'Flash pages' back in the day? That, except worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you link to the right thing? That isn't a deflection, they're asking permission to sideline the issue on uBlock's issue tracker into a discussion about Chrome/Chromium's extension policies, which incidentally they didn't get a clear answer to. > I also don't want to hijack this without the project's permission. @gorhill & contributors, do you mind having this discussion here or would you prefer if we moved it els…
Would be nice if any hn-reader mediates between the two sides.
In Google's corporate opinion, Google's ads must not be blocked. In everyone else's opinion, all ads must be blockable at a user's option.
That's not a difference that can be mediated.
hasn't Apple done the same with Safari? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/arti... curiously i haven't noticed any changes on my day to day browsing habits.