Discussion moved here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/chr...
So glad I’m not a google user. How much more does google have to do before people stop seeing them as the freedom option?
Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
641–650 of 779 posts
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#642Well, highly recommend Firefox. Works great after the updates last year and even use it on mobile. It bothers me that iOS doesn’t support addons to Firefox mobile. But on Android you can even install ublock origin
The only problem with Firefox is the UI when they redesign a great slick Ui like chrome this browser game will change
That's an interesting comment considering how Chrome has recently changed its UI to look more like Firefox to the point I often mistake people for running Firefox when they are actually running Chrome.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#643To 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…
So Google is going to help me have more privacy by preventing me from letting extensions I want to run from having access to data I want that extension to have, so it can do a job I want it to do. Meanwhile, Google's software will of course have full access to everything I do online, and most of my data will live on Google servers. And the extension that I want to have access is also downloaded from Google servers. A…
This change isn't about one open source extension. It's about all extensions and protecting users who blindly click through permission prompts.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what do you use instead?
I do use Chrome. I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. I don't trust Google much but I trust them more than I trust a random third party, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
> I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know.
How can you be so sure about that?
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#645To 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…
Do you need to shill your product every gosh darn time this comes up?
NO, your product is not a good replacement. You do not have custom rules, you can not block annoying elements, no it is not faster than Ublock and no, it is not even close to the feature set of Umatrix. And you can not do these things, because your product basically ships an ad-blocking list, and is not a fully featured ad blocker that gives control to the user over what to block.
You have just added white lists of websites. As Beta. For Pro subscribers. That doesn't even remotely compare to the permission feature set - in the hand of the USER - of UMatrix or Ublock. Your Adblocker would not even be functional for someone visiting non-English pages.
YOUR extension will be caught by anti-adblocking scripts all the time.
Please stop. Every time this comes up you post the same thing. Stop deceiving people.
You CAN NOT build an equivalent product with the Apple API, and you have certainly not done. No Matter how often you claim this!
By the way, Ublock, a product vastly superior to yours, is free.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#646Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the a…
> I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser
Chrome was originally based on WebKit and many other open source libraries, and some parts still are. The only major initial investment was V8.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.
I care about my privacy, that's why I don't use Firefox, because the Mozilla Corporation was caught red-handed sending user data to an advertisement company, Cliqz.
reference:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whi...
ugh.. why mozilla, why??
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#648The design doc — the part quoted in the note linked here even — explicitly notes that it will probably be required to retain some degree of the existing functionality slated for eventually removal until the new API and other replacements cover all use cases; the response linked here appears to (not improperly, in the context of making a case for why much of the functionality is needed) ignoring that and treating the…
It also spells out that the new API can consist solely of static, known ahead-of-time rules[1]. The rules are json, so that kills any logic beyond pattern matching. We already know that approach severely limits the effectiveness and usability of an ad blocker. It's pretty much the same as ad blocking with a hosts file, other than being able to also statically provide path info. Imagine a list of "bad sites" and/or "bad uris". Limited to 30k entries to cover the entire internet.
The fact that the plan ends with extensions still able to see all web requests, record all web requests, forward a log of all web requests to any arbitrary endpoint, etc...means the "privacy" angle is pure bullshit. I suppose the "performance" angle is somewhat true, but the net performance gain of NOT downloading all the ads makes up for any performance loss of processing/filtering requests. Sites with ads are faster when you load an adblocker.
The only thing being taken away is the ability to dynamically observe a web request and cancel it. Who uses that functionality outside of ad-blockers? Not many. There's no hyperbole in the headline.
[1] https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReque...
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do use Chrome. I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. I don't trust Google much but I trust them more than I trust a random third party, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
> I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. How can you be so sure about that?
I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube runs noticably slower on Firefox for me, regularly climbing up to 30-40% cpu and activating the fan, while Chrome handles it with 15-20 cpu.
It's the same for Gmail, but this isn't Firefox at fault. It's Google doing this on purpose by using the old, experimental, non-standard ShadowDOM V0 API, which only Chrome supports, and then using that across its products to break non-Chrome based browsers. Please don't reward them by using Chrome just because of this. That only shows them that such abusive behavior works.
That is very interesting, thanks for sharing that information. I never did use Chrome other than testing it out for less than a day, finding issues with various sites and uninstalling it. Firefox instead since it was in beta (Phoenix) and never left. Never had a real problem with it.
I do use Gmail, and don't have any but have long planned to move to Outlook.com.. perhaps knowing about this ShadowDOM issue will spur me on to make the move.
Google only has one product that's truly best-of-breed (Maps) and I don't mind using it, but don't want to be entirely in any one vendor's ecosystem. I would say Youtube is the best of its kind, but it's really held up by its community, not functionality as Maps is. Outlook may not be the absolute best for privacy either (it's also no-charge), but it at least gets me to a place where I'm well diversified.
Google Maps, Youtube, InoReader, Outlook, DuckDuckGo all on Firefox with containers is a good enough of a spread for me.