4 ms·

I've long regarded the calls to switch to Firefox as tinfoil-hatted crankery but Chrome's behaviour with respect to ad-blocking caused me to finally make the sw

I've long regarded the calls to switch to Firefox as tinfoil-hatted crankery but Chrome's behaviour with respect to ad-blocking caused me to finally make the switch. At the time I didn't use ad-blocking at all and didn't have any plans on it but I think this represented unacceptable overreach by Google so I switched to Firefox (and DDG for search). I still miss bits of Chrome, the Chrome UX is still better, especially suggestions for sites you've already visited in the omni-bar and FF's 'Top Sites' logic seems a bit screwy, it includes pages I've visited once and leaves out pages I use every couple of hours but I think it's incumbent upon people to send a message to Google that their behaviour as a virtual monopoly is unacceptable by switching to a non-Chrome browser. (I also started using an ad-blocker once I switched to Firefox, wow the web is a lot better without adverts!)

tssva 7y ago
What Chrome behaviour regarding ad-blocking caused you to make the switch? Installing an ad-blocker with Chrome is just as easy as installing one with FF.
- UglyToad 7y ago
  I believe they've u-turned on it now but I was thinking of this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/... (from Google AMP because I'm on mobile and haven't made the switch on mobile yet) As I say I'm not particularly concerned personally about not being able to use ad-blocking but it points to an abuse of monopoly power.
  - tssva 7y ago
    It points to news sources trying to get clicks using inflammatory headlines. Google has never blocked ad-blockers or announced that they were going to. They announced API changes which will require ad-blockers to change the manner in which they are implemented. What they recently announced is an increase in the number of blocking rules allowed under the new api which some want to call a u-turn by Google. Except Google announced earlier that the preliminary limits were likely to be increased later after performance testing, so what Google has actually recently announced is just in line with their earlier announcement. Of course that take on it doesn't follow the pitchfork mentality on HN regarding Google nor make for clickbait headlines.

tssva 7y ago

What Chrome behaviour regarding ad-blocking caused you to make the switch? Installing an ad-blocker with Chrome is just as easy as installing one with FF.

UglyToad 7y ago
I believe they've u-turned on it now but I was thinking of this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/... (from Google AMP because I'm on mobile and haven't made the switch on mobile yet) As I say I'm not particularly concerned personally about not being able to use ad-blocking but it points to an abuse of monopoly power.
- tssva 7y ago
  It points to news sources trying to get clicks using inflammatory headlines. Google has never blocked ad-blockers or announced that they were going to. They announced API changes which will require ad-blockers to change the manner in which they are implemented. What they recently announced is an increase in the number of blocking rules allowed under the new api which some want to call a u-turn by Google. Except Google announced earlier that the preliminary limits were likely to be increased later after performance testing, so what Google has actually recently announced is just in line with their earlier announcement. Of course that take on it doesn't follow the pitchfork mentality on HN regarding Google nor make for clickbait headlines.