This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):
I didn't recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it's for each person to decide.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/
"uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!" —NeoWin editors, probably.
Sounds about right for any news outlet. "Slams" is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.
How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word "slam" on the daily in headlines?
It's straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.
They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It's clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.
The title is misleading, or false.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox
This document explains why uBO works best in Firefox.
Even better is FF mobile (on Android) supports full list of addons, including uBlock Origin.
The using the web without uBlock Origin is cancer.
I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don't have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I've never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn't make the appointment. I'll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.
Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.
It's the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.
The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask
This addon will work if it's not letting you
Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn't work on other browsers, where they failed to test.
Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.
On the same day Google was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act...
Too bad nothing will come from that.
This has been a long time in the making...hopefully Firefox will see a market share increase. Google is doing this right as they get slapped by an antitrust ruling ironically lol. If you haven't already just go ahead and switch, if you like Lemmy you'll probably like Firefox as well.
Side note: I try not to be negative here, but this would be a great time for Mozilla to get their act together as an organization. Love Firefox and the idea, but Mozilla has been pissing off the FOSS space for a while now with their decisions. If they've improved in recent years, disregard this.
The tricky part is that Google isn’t wrong about Manifest v3 increasing security for some people. Just allowing any extension to access the full URLs from a webpage is honestly pretty sketchy for most things that aren’t adblockers. Think about Beth in accounting who has 27 bloatware toolbar extensions installed on her home PC, which are happily collecting her full browser history and sending it off to gods know where. Manifest v3 is targeted at increasing security for those users, by making it more difficult for extensions to track you.
The issue is that it also makes ad blocking virtually impossible, because the blocker is forced to just trust that the browser is being truthful about what is and isn’t on the page. And when the browser (developed by one of the largest advertisers in the world) has a vested financial interest in displaying ads, there’s very little trust that the browser will actually be honest.
The issue is that there’s not some sort of “yes, I really want this extension to have full access” legacy workaround built in. Yes, it would inevitably be abused by those scummy extensions, which would just nag idiot users to allow them full access. And the idiot users, being idiots, would just do it without understanding the risks. Even if Chrome threw up all kinds of big red “hey make sure this extension actually needs full access and isn’t just tracking your shit” warning flags, there are still plenty of users who would happily give bloatware full access without reading any of the warnings. But it would also allow ad blockers to continue to function.
What the uBlock dev actually said:
Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO -- you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.
Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it's not a choice that will be made for you.
Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.
Why not just recommend not using Chrome...?
So many kids with assigned school Chromebooks are going to get fucked over by this. You can apparently install Firefox on a Chromebook via the Google Play Store, but that was disabled on my daughter's Chromebook. I don't want her exposed to constant advertising while she's doing her schoolwork. It's bad enough that she's exposed to it the rest of the time just being in America.
I think this is something most people rarely talk about but it strikes home to many of us. As a parent, I have a responsibility to defend my children against this persistent cognitive manipulation and experimentation. Just as I would not want a random stranger at the corner have exclusive attention of my kid and sell them insurance or grammarly or mesothelioma, I would also never want them to have that unfiltered access to my kids online. One can then say AdBlocks are a parental obligation.
I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.
The 'block element' picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.
Also included block lists can't update unless the extension itself updates.
If you're not stuck on chrome due to workplace policy or something, now is the time to switch to Firefox
Understatement, I know, but I find this so annoying, and it certainly feels malicious.
I was just commenting the other day how ridiculous it is that google search results literally serve up malware to people via paid ads. My neighbor was running into issues where her computer kept getting "infected" and a full screen scam would take control, blaring out a loud message that her computer was infected with a virus, that it was infecting microsoft's servers, and she had to call them now to fix it.
After investigating, I found out that these types of scams are stored as blobs on Microsoft's cloud service, but the links are spread via ads in google search. When I tried searching for the exact search terms my neighbor was using on my own devices and my own network, I found out that google was serving me the exact same ads, aka sponsored links. They look like legitimate results for things that people search for, like showing what appears to be a link to Amazon when searching for a product, even the links will say "www.amazon.com".
Obviously I told my neighbor not to use Chrome and suggested some browser alternatives. I installed uBlock on all the browsers (including chrome) just to be safe. Then I showed her how to tell when things are ads, even when they are deceiving, and to never click on ads or sponsored links under any circumstances.
But it's definitely infuriating that they are serving up malware in their ads, don't respond to reports in a timely manner, are getting people caught in scams that they allow to advertise on their network but then somehow object to people managing those risks by blocking ads from untrustworthy sources, like google.
The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.
I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome's add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did
They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead
Already switched as soon as I learned of Google’s plans. They can go screw themselves for doing this. Firefox, the land of the free and open source!
ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.
So now we need an adblock blocker blocker to unblock our adblockers
I switched to Firefox last year when talks of chromium manifest V3 First started popping up. I had used Firefox many years ago when Chrome was first coming out. I was blown away at how well it worked compared to old Firefox, plus how easy they made it to switch. I even changed my phone browser and my desktop browser ties in with it seamlessly. Very happy with the switch and I wish I had switched earlier.
Now, I just wish I could use it at work. Not sure how I'm going to block ads on my work browser.
Welcome to Firefox to anyone who is switching. I use a fork for Firefox (Floorp) Becuase I like it's features.
I agree with them. Better switch to Firefox.
