Technology

59989 readers

2757 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1160

Google looks to be fully shutting down unsupported extensions and ad blockers in Chrome, such as uBlock Origin – which might push some folks to switch to Firefox (www.techradar.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

296 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

https://gist.github.com/velzie/053ffedeaecea1a801a2769ab86ab376

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 48 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Just stop destroying the www by supporting this toxic monopoly. How in the hell are all of those coping tweaks easier than just switching the freaking browser?! It's like Windows users claiming superiority when they have to have like 10 tools to tweak their operating system, with each year another new one being needed. At what point do you people realize how much you're getting duped and how you are part of the problem that makes this possible in the first place?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I relate to your Windows comment. There was a point where I was that person with a bunch of different tools to modify my OS exactly how I like it, and then I realize I’m just doing more work. If I’m willing to do that work anyway, I might as well have an OS that is more malleable.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yes, same here. After turning off a bunch of services I noticed update stopped working, but I forgot how I turned off the firewall in the first place to make it work again... Never booted windows again except for that one time to change the polling rate of my mouse (windows only app)

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How dare anyone suggest that there's a way to accomplish something!

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's better to just use another browser that's not looking to exploit you

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah from one of those companies that pour tons of money into developing and maintaining a web browser without any way to recoup that expense.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They recoup it through shipping a default search engine that's Google in 90% of the world

[–] Nougat@fedia.io -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So they’re just subcontracting the exploitation?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I thought the complaint is that they couldn't recoup development expenses

[–] LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org -1 points 2 months ago

I've seen countless of those tweaks throughout the years. You can harangue the people using them all you want, but at the end of the day they're hooked on a powerful drug. And they'll do anything to keep their supply.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For those who may not want to click the link, this appears to show a workaround that enterprises might use to bypass the change.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, enterprises would use the Google admin console as described here.

The above is for a single machine, applied locally.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It looks like it’s the same flag to me. I mean, it’s entirely possible that administration could use a different path to applying the setting, but it has the same name.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

Sure, it's the same flag, but using the admin console would apply it to a group of computers. The methods in the github link are to apply it to a single computer.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 9 points 2 months ago

Only until June 2025 apparently, leave chromium behind already guys.