- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
its funny watching google do the very thing they used to make fun of microsoft for doing…
that is the big EEE… Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
Possibly one more? Enshitification.
I think you mean Earnings
This is the final stage of EEE.
They enshittify, because it’s profitable.
People forget that the next step of Google will be the inconvenience. Meaning they’ll make Firefox work badly on YouTube and other google websites. Have a video not play here, bad css layout there. Subtle stuff that will make people hate to use Firefox and because Google is dictating the Web standards, they will do so, in fact they actually already do. I’ve already had a few websites using some kind of PWA framework, that was horribly slow on Firefox compared to Chromium based browser.
Would that not violate net neutrality laws?
Do we still have those?
And even if you did, would they matter?
They just put them back in place, at least some of them.
Yeah I don’t give a flying fuck how much inconveniences they create, I rather would push a hoop with a stick and never use YouTube or the Internet again then using chrome.
I’ve been using Firefox since its debut and I never had any issues, slowdowns or problems with it, same with DuckDuckGo so Google can stick it somewhere where the light doesn’t shine.
FreeTube and other front-end replacements exist. Could they turn them off? Sure, with a bit of work.
Though so long as it is a public service (responds to the public) that does not require an account to watch videos … they will only ever be able to annoy people. It’s the same problem as piracy. It’s a question of convenience, and if they make the main road a less good experience than the stripped down one… They’re only hurting themselves.
If Google had half a brain, they would’ve embedded the ads in the video streams years ago. Instead, they “innovate” by making the entire internet worse.
(yes I know ublock blocks A LOT more than YouTube ads, and Google’s revenue is all their ads, but YouTube is a perfect microcosm of why Google is the wrong company to solve this problem)
oh no, if only there were other browsers!
BuT fIrEfoX iS [flimsy excuse for just honestly being lazy]!!!1 /s
It works with virtually everything. If, for some reason it doesn’t, use Edge or something for that single website. No more YouTube ads, no account, just a browser.
I’m a hardcore ff user. I’m mocking the people in every thread like this who pretend chrome is actually better in some way
I just want to be able to drag a tab straight into a snap zone with Firefox (like can be done w chromium browsers). Instead I have to drag the tab out, then click the new window and drag that where I want. And with the frequency of tab shuffling I do, even this minor inconvenience is pretty annoying. Oh, and it’s been in the bug tracker/feature request for 15 years.
I’m taking a shot at fixing it myself but this is not my forte.
I can understand wanting that feature but I also get deprioritizing it. I feel like I shuffle tabs and windows quite a bit as I have multiple monitors, and even I have rarely even thought about that as a lacking feature (I have indeed noticed it). It’s just one extra drag, takes half a second.
Maybe its just my ADHD, but sometimes that half a second is enough to well, this. A week ago, I was feeling kinda fed up with it, and tried to track down some history on it, found this 14 year old bugzilla report decided, if someone just needed to do it, I might as well give it a shot, I’m a programmer after all (inexperienced as I may be). So I made the necessary accounts, cloned the firefox repo, setup a dev environment and spent the day digging through code, poking and prodding at it to figure out how the relevant parts worked. Also bc of adhd, I haven’t been back to it in a week, but it really derailed my day.
I feel ya on a lot of this. I hope you circle back to it some time! It could be really fun. I read an article about a student fixing a many year old FF bug in tooltips and it sounded really satisfying! I need to play around with the FF source code. Would be awesome to get a pr merged into the production branch!
Opera probably getting excited.
Got to thank Google, they’ve reallybeen helping Firefox gain market share
Title is misleading. Manifest V2 will be disabled starting in June 2024 for new versions of Chrome. uBlock Origin will only be disabled if they cannot update to Manifest V3.
There is an implication that Manifest V3 is designed to prevent ad blocking, but if you actually click through the links and read the articles, you’ll find:
Improving content filtering support by providing more generous limits in the declarativeNetRequest API for static rulesets and dynamic rules
EDIT: Source
I’m no adblocking expert, and maybe this won’t be enough for adblocking to fully work, but it’s sounding like it will be, since they conferenced with adblock devs to decide.
Feel free to contradict me, especially if you have evidence. Though I would not appreciate getting downvoted and yelled at for the sole reason of not taking headlines at face value just because they say Google is evil.
Manifest v3 is designed to make ad-blocking much harder. First off the filter lists will be distributed as part of the extension itself, which means that updates will be much less frequent (review can take multiple days, even multiple weeks) and certain types of blocking (e.g. YouTube ad blocking) will be completely impossible.
This gives ad networks a big leg up - they can either use techniques like Google does for YouTube ads to circumvent your ad blocker, or rotate domains etc. fast enough that extension updates are too slow.
I see. Poking around a bit more, it looks like the User Scripts API might still be usable to pull in filter lists, as long as users turn on developer mode. What do you think?
Effectively the end goal is to make adblocking in chrome hard/complex enough that the masses don’t use it. What Google doesn’t want is what is effectively a one click solution to adblocking. Anything else is unrealistic and unobtainable and they know it.
So by forcing users to use a version that can’t be updated daily/hourly you’re already making it so you can’t block YouTube ads which as of recent require regular list updates.
Or by forcing users to have two extensions or an extension and an external process to download lists you’re adding a step that most users won’t bother trying to do.
If Google can cut adblocking to 30% of the current user base then that’s a huge win for them.
What I’m trying to say is that it’s not entirely correct that Google is trying to “end adblocking” but rather their effort is to reduce it significantly within the products they control.
Honestly I don’t blame them but I don’t think we can be blamed for switching browsers either.
If that’s the goal, I don’t really mind. Adblocking always used to be a thing that most people don’t bother with, so companies didn’t mind all that much when a few of us did. If we’re just going back to that point, and we adblock enthusiasts don’t have to jump through ridiculous hoops to keep doing what we’re doing, I see that as a win-win.
Can UserScripts actually intercept requests? I thought this wasn’t possible at all with Manifest v3. If so, nothing useful can be done with the lists.
I meant user scripts might be able to populate filter lists for the main extension to do.
Based on the conversation so far, I’m pretty sure extensions can block ads, but the concern was that filter lists would have to be packaged with the extension instead of dynamically updated. User scripts might be a way around that, as they’d allow loading arbitrary code, but I don’t know what the limits on that would be.
I meant user scripts might be able to populate filter lists for the main extension to do.
You’d have to show me the API to do so. I’m reasonably sure the uBlock developers would have thought about this, or somebody else.
Based on the conversation so far, I’m pretty sure extensions can block ads
Not really. The extensions can give Chrome a list of things to block, but they can’t block themselves, and the lists have to be shipped in the extension.
but the concern was that filter lists would have to be packaged with the extension instead of dynamically updated. User scripts might be a way around that, as they’d allow loading arbitrary code
Arbitrary code only helps you if there is an API to call.
Have the uBlock developers been talking about this? I’d like to read up on that if so.
There is this resource: https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-Google-s-Manifest-V3-What-it-is-and-what-it-means-for-uBlock-Users-
Here is a summary of a contributor in a Github issue about Manifest v3: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1507539114
uBO Lite:
- Filter lists update only when the extension updates (no fetching up to date lists from servers)
- Many filters are dropped at conversion time due to MV3’s limited filter syntax
- No crafting your own filters (thus no element picker)
- No strict-blocked pages
- No per-site switches
- No dynamic filtering -No importing external lists
So it really is a shadow of its former self.
Thanks for the very thorough explanation!
deleted by creator
Of Google Chrome? No
Of Chromium? Yes, but if you’re the kind of person who prefers open source, you’d probably prefer Firefox anyway
NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. 🤦
Google confirms they will disable MV2 extensions including uBlock Origin in mid 2024
MV2 extensions.
Ublock Origin Lite is MV3 based: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh
Yes, it’s not exactly the same, in how filters are embedded instead of updated separately.
In any case, this is part of Google’s long (long, since 2018 or earlier?) transition to MV3.
- https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to-mv3/
- https://9to5google.com/2023/11/16/chrome-extensions-disabled/
So let’s put down the pitchforks and Monster energy drinks for the moment. This isn’t the attack on adblockers you think it is.
So it’s ok because they will still allow a shittier version of ubo? … No.
A) title is still misleading
B) “allow”? 🙄
A) no it isn’t, some shitty stripped down extension is not the same B) not sure what you’re getting at. It’s pretty clear and should be an uncontroversial way of putting that. They specifically sought a way to make ad blockers harder to build, so if they left a way to use them at all, that would be ALLOWing it
Google chose to make MV3 neutered in comparison to MV2. They could’ve found a way to allow the capabilities required for runtime adblocking. They chose not to.
Live free or die.
Ever since the early days of Google excitement (early naughties), everyone missed the point. You don’t need a big corporation with good intentions to save you. They’ll sooner round on you when it suits them simply because they can.
Everyone excitedly using and in turn relying on Gmail and Google maps like they were healing the tech world simply let the vampire into their home. We need sustainable systems and cultures with values and no “too big to fail” monopolistic companies dictating the landscape.
Fuck google
What about Chromium, specifically ungoogled chromium?
First question how TF do you have -1 down votes?
Secondly last stop for the Mozilla train
I’m on Firefox already. Using Chrome just for work.
I wonder if edge will also be affected being on chromium
Why the HN post is a link to Reddit? Why people still use Reddit? I downvoted this and the HN post
Like that time they disabled those reddit plugins that were used to fight trolls/nazis on the site, a change which unsurprisingly caused a huge surge of far right trolling on the platform until people found out how to get around it. Evil company.
Will this affect chromium forks?
