Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox.
Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
71–80 of 169 posts
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#72Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Ru…
Rust is slower than C++. Firefox got faster because it got optimized, not because of Rust.
This is a common misconception. In key benchmarks, it is the same speed (a few still lag, but not due to inherent weaknesses in the language). Earlier versions of rust were slower because the compiler didn't have the insane optimizations that many C++ compilers have.
In fact, it may be easier for developers to write code that runs faster with rust than C++, thanks to much error and exception handling code that you simply do not need in Rust.
Most importantly, however, is finding Rust developers who are experienced enough to write high-performance Rust. I would imagine that it's a lot easier to find C++ devs.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#73Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Ru…
Footnote in pg's article makes me wonder what the stats are today. I'd guess Windows down, Mac way up, Linux/FreeBSD about flat [maybe slightly up], but I have no idea.
[2] Y Combinator is (we hope) visited mostly by hackers. The proportions of OSes are: Windows 66.4%, Macintosh 18.8%, Linux 11.4%, and FreeBSD 1.5%. The Mac number is a big change from what it would have been five years ago.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#74Who cares? I use safari on my phone and have been slowly switching away from google creepiness to Firefox.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#75Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Ru…
Agree!! I used to find his claims amusing but I’m paying the price now.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#76They've done nothing of the sort. The ZDNet article quotes: > "Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3," said Chrome engineer Devlin Cronin [emphasis his]. But the full quote shows what he's talking about: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no pla…
Actually that's the API feature that current ad blockers were using.
No, what they're doing is nerfing webRequest so that the ad blockers cannot use it to block ads anymore.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#77Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox.
That was the original reason, yes. Now Chrome is installed by default on tons of new laptops etc because Google makes so much money by tracking users via Chrome that they can pay serious $$ to manufacturers to tweak their base build.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#78Google did NOT backtrack on ANYTHING. From the new thread:
> Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API.
"We are still narrowing down proposed changes" means they still plan on removing the part of webRequest that everyone cares about, the feature that lets it block requests.
There was an initial thread about these changes: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom.... Lots of people made great comments about why the proposed change was a bad idea. What did Google do? Ignore the thread and post another about how they are "iterating" on Manifest V3. Google's strategy is clear: wait for the outrage to subside, keep making new threads to divert discussion if you have to, then go ahead and make the changes you were planning on anyway.
Keep in mind that their story about performance has been shown to be a complete lie. There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this. This is about removing sophisticated ad blockers in order to defend Google's revenue stream, plain and simple.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#79Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides). From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme. Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages t…
> Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages that users browse; a potentially huge privacy hole. I hate that argument if it's used to cripple the users ability to have full control of their own devices. It is NOT a privacy hole when you install software that has access to your data. If you don't want that, don't install that software. If you don't trust that software, don't install it.
Google isn't removing any ability to observe, log, and forward information about requests, in any way.
So the privacy angle is pure bullshit.
They are removing, among other things, the ability to dynamically cancel requests, and replacing it with a declarative API. That limits how well an adblocker can function.
Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point, new ads the system can't block will surface. The adblocker will become less and less useful, and Google will have no incentive to improve it. There is already a big difference between even existing adblockers. E.G: some show youtube ads. And I'm much more worry about the privacy concern from many random ads poping unexpectedly, than from one extension that the entire community get to vet.
At some point adblockers will run a browser in a headless mode and use ML algorithms to show ad-filteret result to the user.
Good news, you can uninstall an extension.