901–910 of 962 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same Blink engine underneath. Talk about lipstick. I'm not aware of a Blink-based browser that isn't dropping manifest V2. That would be a soft fork, and wouldn't survive long.
https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think you’re wrong about Safari itself being the reason chrome isn’t a 90%+ market owner; rather, it’s apple’s requirement that no other browser engine can exist on iOS. It sounds like capitalism has so far saved us from a Chrome monopoly, then.
Capitalism doesn't exist. The fact that trademark, copyright, and patents exist nullify capitalism. There can be no free market if your government intervenes in every transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users. I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more acc…
I trust ublock infinitely more than anything written by Google, a literal spyware company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not pretending. I know most people won't pay. The point is it doesn't matter. They're giving their stuff away for free instead of charging money for it. They gambled on the notion that people would "pay" by watching ads. Unfortunately for them, attention is not currency to pay for services with. We will resist their attempts to monetize our cognitive functions. The blocking of advertising is self defense . They h…
> They have absolutely nobody but themselves and their own greed to blame They’re one of the most profitable media platforms on the planet. They’ll be fine. Nobody is crying. There are just willing participants—as you say, on both sides—in what I consider a pretty silly battle one can opt out of with a small amount of money.
Ad blockers are an existential threat to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony may be much stronger than that; I'd go as far as suggesting that Microsoft went for that business model because of the antitrust case.
It seems like a modern truism: There is no such thing as an anti-war movie, because anti-war imagery is the same imagery that pro-war films use, it’s just the interpretation and meanings are reversed. Might it also be true, that there is no such thing as effective antitrust enforcement, because the one doing the investigating and enforcement is unwilling or unable to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, because thei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism doesn't exist. The fact that trademark, copyright, and patents exist nullify capitalism. There can be no free market if your government intervenes in every transaction.
True capitalism can never exist due to lack of transparency, urgency, monopolies, etc. The best we can have is government controlled capitalism.
There should be a name for this kind of fallacy, where you look at a snapshot of a dynamic system (or worse, at initial conditions), and reason from them as if they were fixed - where even mentally simulating that system a few time steps into the future makes immediately apparent that the conditions mutate and results are vastly different than expected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
I principally agree with you. But in reality, the ad-funded model has failed. It failed a long time ago. There were never any restrictions placed on it, so it became a self-sustaining downward spiral to the current state of things. When I see the internet without an ad-blocker it is completely unusable. Quite frankly, I would most likely stop using most of the internet altogether if I couldn't block ads. So what is t…
Point being, it's not just an ad. It's not just some cereal commercial broadcast to everyone watching cable based on the viewing habits of large swaths of the population - relatively general stuff. It's decades of investment and research weaponized against us to extract as much info about us as possible to use it against us for maximum profit with no concern for how it impacts us or ability to ever opt out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never realized anything was happening as I was on Firefox, until I saw ads as my wife was browsing youtube despite installing ublock for her years ago.
YouTube recently started showing ads through uBO in Firefox.
There was a few times when Youtube try to top me from viewing because I was blocking the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you remove a killer security feature, it kinda destroys everything, so it's blocked (on security grounds).
Why are you avoiding my point? > What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
I wouldn't mind if Google et al. went bankrupt. Only Youtube would be somewhat of a loss.