A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store • Hacker News Board

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#111

Post by tyingq » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

bureaucrat wrote: post #72

ignoramous wrote: post #49

If you have to use Chromium, at this point it is clear that Brave is a better Chromium than Chrome [0][1] despite its BAT shenanigans. The UX is super nice, and adblocking just works without having to install any extensions. Hopefully Brave doesn't buy into the whole PrivacySandbox thing Google proposed [2]. For everything else, Firefox should be the default [3][4]. It'd be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker…

I’d rather trust Google than Brave.

Whenever Google pushes out the manifest v3 changes, ad blocking on Chrome will be hobbled. uBlock Origin already stated they are dead on Chrome whenever that happens.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#112

Post by yorwba » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

SimeVidas wrote: post #86

Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower. I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn't workable. Still using Firefox on all desktop/laptop devices, though.

Have you tried Firefox Preview? It’s a new, revamped version of Firefox for Android.

Firefox Preview is a preview and does not yet support installing uBlock Origin: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/5630

I plan to switch from regular Firefox Mobile as soon as WebExtensions are supported.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#113

Post by dictum » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

simfoo wrote: post #55

dustingetz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox scroll lags like 500ms behind my input, on my mbp. How does anyone live like that?

By disabling smooth scrolling (available in settings). Feels much snappier to me

I'm so used to scrolling by keypress (i.e. any of the vim-like extensions), with smooth scrolling disabled and a higher scroll step, that I just recently noticed that this reduces resource usage/heat.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#114

Post by cookie_monsta » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #83

cookie_monsta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it worked pre-2010 when IE had the monopoly. And for all of Chrome (and Google's) faults, it does seem to be reasonably standards- compliant and even open to experimentation. If they want to spend some of their piles of cash developing new features that other browsers can then adopt and then standardise, I don't see the problem. If developers choose to use Chrome-only features and their pages br…

When IE had a monopoly it was bad because Microsoft made a shitty webbrowser and everyone built websites for IE. Even today I have devices which are "best viewed on IE6", thanks to modern browsers they still tend to work somewhat. Chrome will not be bad because it's a shitty browser, it'll be bad because Google can force features into standards and essentially do what they want with no recourse. It's not the develope…

> it'll be bad because Google can force features into standards and essentially do what they want with no recourse.

Again, not the way it worked with IE 1-8

> Everyone who doesn't see that is just a Google-apologist.

Well I don't and I'm not.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#115

Post by zaarn » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #107

zaarn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU having a monopoly doesn't require you to be the only vendor in the market, it's sufficient to be large enough to exert abusive market forces on competitors. Google Chrome definitely fits that definition, so no it's not redefined by random HN posters this week.

And having a monopoly isn’t illegal. Again, despite what all of the wannabe lawyers who post to HN think. How many times have HN users posted that Apple is a “monopoly”?

Google is certainly not a corporation that has ever shown to have an interest in the best for their users. They have already done quite a few things that benefit them or hurt competitors (youtube's UI is slow on firefox, changing the scrolling UI for no reason, trying to kill adblockers and now blocking uBlock from their store).

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#116

Post by adrianN » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #38

fishtacos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...

Firefox scroll lags like 500ms behind my input, on my mbp. How does anyone live like that?

Something must be weird with your machine. My mbp is from 2009 and Firefox scrolls smoothly.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#117

Post by phit_ » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

KuhlMensch wrote: post #20

fishtacos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...

Agreed. Plus it doesnt have Picture-in-picture But I use FF as my main

it does though, at least in beta

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#118

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #41

scarface74 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Windows there is Firefox, and IE Edge. For the Mac their are both of those plus Safari. Not to mention Chromium based browsers.

Google Search can't be a monopoly as Bing exists. Hey guys, remember Bing?

[deleted]

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#119

Post by cookie_monsta » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #98

cookie_monsta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it worked pre-2010 when IE had the monopoly. And for all of Chrome (and Google's) faults, it does seem to be reasonably standards- compliant and even open to experimentation. If they want to spend some of their piles of cash developing new features that other browsers can then adopt and then standardise, I don't see the problem. If developers choose to use Chrome-only features and their pages br…

By 2010, at least in the US, it had to work on mobile. See all of the websites that abandoned Flash.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this. Could you elaborate?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#120

Post by bagacrap » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #18

I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised…

I wouldn't imagine they're impossible to challenge in cases like this. In fact I wager this post amounts to a challenge as it's nearly guaranteed a Chrome extensions developer will see it.