Good thing there are better browsers out there. As long as they don’t mess with the transport we should be good
[deleted]
Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
81–90 of 250 posts
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#82Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.
"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.
Safari's share is capped to a specific hardware. Firefox can grow by converting people without needing to wait for them to buy new devices.
That said, I'm not really holding my breath for FF to grow again.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#83Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.
Which phone do you use?
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#84Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.
Email still working for you without a FAANG host?
Fastmail and Protonmail are fine.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#85in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.
No, it’s not “people” on both sides. Google isn’t “people”. It’s one of the biggest corporations in the world. I’m not a big fan of the EU, mostly because their rulings tend to be a bit …clueless. The specific decision of getting in the way of big corp here is totally ok. They’ll probably do it badly and in an ineffective way, sure, but the problem is the implementation, not the idea.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#86Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.
"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.
Firefox works very well on iPhone, by the way. It’s my daily browser there.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#87Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers. I suspect this will be good for Firefox.
Occasionally I use a computer that's not my own (I've been using Firefox and UBO for years, and have PiHole here). I can't believe how AWFUL it is. It's just not worth bothering with any more for the most part... it's like I live in this quiet backwater town where everyone walks everywhere, and then I get teleported to the middle of rush-hour Tokyo.
Rush-hour Tokyo is not too bad by big city standards. Rush hour in Atlanta, now… that’s hell.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#88in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.
I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a security issue.
This is my sticking point. I understand that building and running websites isn’t free, and if ads were 468x60 PNGs I’d be willing to live with them. I’m not willing to live with you selling the ability to run arbitrary untrusted javascript on my computer to the highest bidder.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#89I'd like clarification on something. I've spent an hour or two trying to figure this out to no avail, so I suspect many other people might be wondering the same thing I am.
Examining the Manifest V3 changes more closely (https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...), and comparing/contrasting to what uBlock Origin themselves say about it (https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-...), I can understand the cause of one of uBO's problems with V3... but not the other.
The cause of "Allow List Limits" is clear: uBO Lite will be forced to use declarativeNetRequest; and declarativeNetRequest imposes limits on the size of the ruleset you can "declare".
But I'm confused about uBO's point on "Ad Blocking Quality". It seems that Manifest V3 only restricts 1. the use of eval(), and 2. the loading of remote-origin scripts into the DOM and/or as service-worker modules. It doesn't restrict the use of remote-origin-loaded data files generally; which I would presume means that uBO would still be able to use its service-worker to periodically fetch and update its filter lists.
Is there some part of the way uBO uses these filter lists, that requires arbitrary remote code execution (and for which the only true substitute is burning in the lists locally?) If so: why, exactly? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm not doubting that they do need it. I just can't figure out where the need comes from, and I'd like to know!)
It might seem at first blush that the literal answer is this feature: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#... ... but it actually isn't, as you don't write actual JS to be eval()ed in these rules, but rather just name a function that's already burned into the extension locally as part of its "scriptlet resource library".
Is it instead, just the way that these rules get "baked down" into in-page logic? Does uBO compile the lists into a bunch of Javascript source-code, and then have the page evalScript() that code?
And if that is the blocking issue — and I'm still not clear that it is — then wouldn't there be other workarounds for this?
For example, sticking the generated JS code into a data: URL and then dropping it into the page as a tag. Or even, at worst, swapping out feeding the page "JS source code", for feeding the page a (static!) interpreter, and then having that interpreter receive instructions as regular ol' data from the uBO service-worker? (Maybe that'd violate uBO's performance goals, I suppose? But it wouldn't have to do it on every page; only on pages that it knows from the ruleset can't be blocked entirely declaratively.)
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#90in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.
I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a security issue.
Even the FBI recommends blocking ads for security reasons. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-...