The spec makes this a bit ambiguous, and I have experienced nothing but frustration in my continual attempts to move to FF (last time was two months ago, spare me the argument), but if uBlock is over then so is my relationship with chrome.
Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
411–420 of 779 posts
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but also less so every day. Google has already figured out that they should serve Youtube ads and content from the same servers to limit the ability of DNS based ad filtering. DNS filtering is a cat-and-mouse game that DNS filtering tools will eventually lose. Don't get me wrong, I love Pihole and have used it for a while, but I know that I'm on the losing side of this battle.
DNS filtering has been on the "losing side" for a few decades now. As long as more than 0.1% of people don't use it, it's not worth solving for most ad companies. Even if places like YouTube DO find ways to stuff ads into my face (likely at great technical and operational expense to them), I make it a point to NEVER EVER buy anything advertised, search for any of it, etc. Because they know so little about me (I go ou…
So you're getting down voted, but I totally agree. I too used to disable javascript using NoScript every where until it was a site that I was okay with. I played the game of only allowing javascript from the same domain, and then looking at the remaining scripts the site wanted to request. CDNs for jQuery, FontAwesome, etc, started to get whitelisted. Anything else, nope. If the site didn't work after that, then the tab was closed. After allowing NoScript to run javascript, I would then lean on uBlock to block the trackers etc that were loaded by anything I missed. It's amazing how difficult surfing the web like this was.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#413So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.
there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in What regulatory bodies have legal standing to step in?
The Federal Trade Commision has that legal standing even if they chose not to exercise it.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tempting to fall into the trap of feeling smug that you've made the right decision so no action should be taken against a company abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Try to resist that temptation, like I have. I too have been using Firefox this entire time, but I don't let that tempt me into apathy towards the state of the industry. You may as well question the purpose of the…
>abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Why is it abuse? No one is being forced to use chromium. Are you abusing your market position when you buy the cheapest toothbrush in a manner that's harmful to other toothbrush companies?
However, due to marketshare, the other browsers do tend to be forced to implement the same features as Chromium/Chrome.
Google can easily force the other browsers to lose the Web Request API, because maintaining it when they're the only ones using it is a net loss of productivity, which will probably be needed elsewhere.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. So you disagree with google deplatforming alex jones?
His primary website is still online. Me might not be allowed on YouTube anymore, but his primary platform still exists. Additionally, I thought his removal from YouTube was as a result of pressure from the Government on hate speech and fake news etc. All the stuff Facebook is also attempting to crack down on.
His website being up is not relevant to the point. Govt didn't ask YouTube to remove it.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why you use DoH from you pihole, not your computer/phone etc.
Of course, but my concern is that DoH makes it easier for apps (Chrome, etc) to handle their own DNS queries internally rather than relying on the device's network libraries. MiTM intercepting HTTP(s) traffic on my Android devices is really difficult due to certificate pinning. The only way to quantify how many unexpected requests apps are making was to watch DNS traffic. If, one day, these apps just make a single DN…
I am not a fan of DNS over HTTPs for similar reasons too.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#417So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.
there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in What regulatory bodies have legal standing to step in?
[deleted]
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't threaten, don't wait, do it now.
Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I value the extension very highly, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Funny, I switched to Firefox because I preferred the UI/UX. I'm happy with my choice.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#419To defend Google a bit, it looks like the change is being put in place so that users would have more privacy – by stopping extensions accessing all active URLs. In essence they are copying what Apple did with Safari and their content blocking APIs. In this model, content blockers provide the browser with a set of blocking rules and the browser executes them against pages during render & load. Ad blocking can occur an…
It doesn't actually provide any privacy at all, it simply removes the possiblity to block and leaves the events to be observable.
> In Manifest V3, we will strive to limit the blocking version
> of webRequest, potentially removing blocking options from most
> events (**making them observational only**)Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#420So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.
Why does a regulatory agency need to be involved? Use Firefox, use Safari, use whatever you want. Nobody forces you or anyone to use Chrome.