16 ms·

Google Removed ClearURLs Extension from Chrome Web Store

815 points by URfejk 6y ago

elktea 6y ago
anyone using this site that still uses chrome, why?
- oblio 6y ago
  My guess? Better supported by many sites, both on the internet and internal company sites. Faster for some things. And of course, inertia. Studies have shown that people just don't change defaults, as a rule. Only a small minority of people change them.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    > Better supported by many sites Interesting. I haven't had much trouble with Firefox yet, even with uBlock Origin. Any idea what kind of sites?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - input_sh 6y ago
      Useful link where you can see and report browser-specific issues: https://webcompat.com/ https://webcompat.com/ > Webcompat.com is developed by volunteers and supported by Mozilla.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      https://web.skype.com/ https://web.skype.com/ because one of the largest IT companies on the planet cannot support a standard-compliant browser on their web client.
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    > My guess? Better supported by many sites, No difference with real sites. A developer may notice some difference in latest features support (not always in favor of Chrome). > Faster for some things. If your PC is new and fast. Otherwise it's much faster for most of the things.
    - oblio 6y ago
      > No difference with real sites. A developer may notice some difference in latest features support (not always in favor of Chrome). I use Firefox (desktop and mobile/Android). You sound like a Firefox evangelist. There are real site where Firefox is buggy or slow. Youtube is one of them. I know it's not technically their fault, but the average user can't fix the site. They can (and do) change their browser. So they use Chrome.
      - qwerty456127 6y ago
        > I use Firefox (desktop So do I. > and mobile/Android). I found it unbearably slow on my Galaxy Note 3 with uBlock. The only reason I tried it was uBlock. So I rarely do. I've switched to Brave. > You sound like a Firefox evangelist Kind of, but an honest (if not say cruel) one - I always say Firefox is slow. I also use Chrome on slower machines. > There are real site where Firefox is buggy or slow. Youtube is one of them I don't know a single site where Firefox would be buggy but it indeed is slow - on all of them. On YouTube in particular yet still pretty much usable. On a modern PC the difference is easy to ignore. I watch a lot of YouTube in Firefox Every day and I enjoy the "picture in picture" mode. I have hardware decoding enabled and high-FPS and high-res (above 720p) modes disabled as I don't appreciate them.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    My daughter on one of our computers had a problem with firefox being able to launch roblox (which frankly roblox's launching mechanisms seem buggy, I don't know why - I assume it is just an uri scheme doing the launching), as a consequence of which my daughter now tends to use Chrome. Which has the benefit of when I get on that computer she uses chrome I use firefox my browsing experience doesn't get littered with an 11 year old's behaviors.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      There's profiles in browsers these days, and computers usually have multi account support too.
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        and 11 year olds grab the computer when you're not there and use it, actually from the age of 8 I think. But yes, browser profiles and computer multi account support are tools that would solve this problem if they worked for the particular problem description - which fair to say they weren't really designed for that scenario so no reason to expect they would work.
        sundarurfriend 6y ago
        You can have your child use the default profile, and have a shortcut whose target is `firefox -P <adultprofilename> --no-remote` somewhere out of her way. This way, she can just open the browser and use it (on the default profile), and you can click this shortcut to open your profile easily. Just an option to keep in mind in case you decide to get rid of Chrome in the future.
        bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        yeah but the scenario is really, dad is on computer, dad goes in kitchen to make food, child goes gets computer, opens new tab in running browser. It's really a parenting issue, I could stop her doing it but I don't care enough to do so, and if I don't stop her via parenting there will always be ways she slips through the profile guards.
  - square_usual 6y ago
    > Better supported by many sites On that note, here's a regular reminder that Slack still doesn't support calls on Firefox for over 3 years now: https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/958645632620748800 https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/958645632620748800
- demarq 6y ago
  battery life
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  I use Chrome on a slower PC. Although Chrome consumes more RAM than Firefox does, it actually feels noticeably faster on any PC. On old slow PCs (and mobiles) this makes a hell of difference. Firefox became usable again when it abandoned XUL (for some years before that it was pure torment to use so I had no choice but to switch to Chrome) but still isn't as fast as Chrome is. I only use Firefox happily on faster PCs.
- queueworker 6y ago
  better devtools compared to any other browser is what keeps me on Chrome
  - Number157 6y ago
    Have you tried Firefox recently? I switched a few months ago and so far I haven't found myself missing anything.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    I actually much prefer Firefox devtools. The one thing I occasionally go to Chrome for is when stepping through minified JS code - Firefox doesn't fully resolve the variable names in the map files.
- brnt 6y ago
  I use in on some older machines, where video is choppy on Firefox. I also use it for videoconferencing websites on my work laptop, because with Firefox the fans (sometimes?) are out of control.
- aniforprez 6y ago
  As a developer, Chrome's tools are pretty good. As a user, the sync options for history and bookmarks are what keep me in. It's definitely not perfect but it's fine for now. I like Firefox but not enough to switch I was first a Firefox user, switched to Chrome, back to FF and finally to Chrome once I got a smart phone and they added sync
  - _flux 6y ago
    Firefox has sync as well, though, and it can even send tabs to other sessions. I don't think it has history sharing, that sounds useful. Firefox syncing can also be self-hosted if you're into that..
    - brianzelip 6y ago
      FF does indeed have history sharing.
  - mnd999 6y ago
    For web development, it's kinda mandatory as nobody wants a site that doesn't work in the most popular browser. That doesn't mean you have to use it for browsing as well though- I found that having Chrome for testing / debugging and Firefox for browsing was quite a productive setup last time I did web dev.
    - wccrawford 6y ago
      Chrome's dev tools just work better for me, too. For instance, when there's an error in the console, clicking on the filename/line does nothing most of the time in Firefox now. I once fixed it by resetting firefox (per some instructions on the web) but it broken again within days. Chrome's just works, every time. Oddly, it sorta worked for me in FF the other day, but it took me to the minified source, which wasn't terribly helpful in an app that I'm writing. I still use Firefox 99% of the time, but it really pains me that that one feature is so broken.
  - cookiecaper 6y ago
    Firefox's tools are still competitive with Chrome and there are even a few things I miss about them when debugging in Brave. It gives a little joy to know that Mozilla is still competitive in something, but not holding my breath for it to stay that way.
- thitcanh 6y ago
  Because Chrome is objectively the best browser. I left Chrome for Firefox about 2 years ago because Chrome was becoming slow (I was more likely the reason) but Firefox was always “just okay” in many regards. No automatic omnibox search that I enjoyed since probably 2010 in Chrome, for example. That feature alone makes navigation a breeze. Then last summer probably I switched to Safari. Nice browser, but very barebones if not for the beautiful Reader view, reading list and iOS Keychain integration. Generally smooth but extremely sluggish on the new Facebook site. I don’t use Chrome because my dislike for Google grows by the day, but I recognize that Chrome is still the best at what it does, and that’s why many still use it. If Edge supported the keychain I’d probably consider it.
  - llampx 6y ago
    I enjoy Edge and Firefox a lot and never use Chrome. I certainly think that Chrome being Google's browser is grounds enough to look critically at it aside from everything else.
    - thitcanh 6y ago
      I don’t disagree, I don’t see why my comment was downvoted. The browser itself is fine, it’s the company that isn’t — and that’s why I don’t use it myself.
      - ziddoap 6y ago
        If I were to guess, it would be saying something is "objectively the best" followed by personal anecdotes with no objectivity.
- waitwhat 6y ago
  The google translate integration.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    I missed that too, but it turns out I need ot veery rarely. For when I do, I have a userscript that injects the GTranslate widget into the page. It's basically the same, albeit with uglier button. I don't think it's available as an extension since it by definition injects external scripts into a page, but it's available as a userscript for *-Monkey.
- ccmcarey 6y ago
  I used Firefox for years. I recently moved back to a Chromium based browser (Edge). Even on a fairly powerful system (16 logi cores/4GHz) it's just noticeably faster. SPAs are actually usable again. Video decoding is hardware accelerated and I can now play 4k videos without every interaction with the browser lagging like crazy. Firefox is great, theoretically. But even then, Mozilla keep making inane decisions - lately their plans to remove compact mode [0] were in the news. Why?! [0] https://www.ghacks.net/2021/03/14/mozilla-plans-to-remove-the-compact-density-option-from-firefoxs-customize-menu/ https://www.ghacks.net/2021/03/14/mozilla-plans-to-remove-th...
- bb101 6y ago
  Firefox's default scrolling behaviour didn't feel as responsive as Chrome. I changed a few settings below in about:config and now Firefox is a pleasure to use again. With the uBlock Origin, Cookie Autodelete and ClearURLs add-ons, it's better for privacy too. general.smoothScroll: false mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y: 300
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I really wish someone at Mozilla would take the time to document the settings related to scrolling or make a GUI to simulate the behavior you're setting up. Getting it to work "close enough" to how well it works on chrome took a bit of time and was basically looking through forums where people mentioned what had worked for them. It's not the most central thing a browser has to do, but every user does it so often and it's a constant annoyance when it doesn't work the way you like/expect it to.
  - lurtbancaster 6y ago
    For almost 6 years, I've been using general.smoothScroll: false mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount: 60 I'd never given mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y a try. But now with both mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount: 60 and your mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y: 300 it's a little too much for me. But ymmv. mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y and mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount seem identical in function.
    - godshatter 6y ago
      This also helps on Pale Moon, if anyone other than me is still using it.
- stiltzkin 6y ago
  rPI comes with Chromium.
- ungzd 6y ago
  I don't like how mouse scrolling works in Firefox. I can't determine exact details what's wrong (jitter? inertia? delay?), but it feels subtly broken, and after a while it makes me nervous.
phnofive 6y ago
Classic error message as well for the extension page in CWS: > The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know. I suspect suspending an extension could be done with slightly more tact, if that was a goal.
alexf95 6y ago
Can someone further explain "ClearURLs has made it to its mission to prevent tracking via URLs and that's how Google makes money"? How exactly does the tracking via URLs work for Google?
- mcc1ane 6y ago
  https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/README.md
  - alexf95 6y ago
    Hmm, intresting. Didn't think it would be basically "everywhere". Understandable though that i got disabled by Google.
- aequitas 6y ago
  If you search in Google, the links in the results don't directly link to the result page but through a Google redirect. Really annoying if you want to copy/paste a result without visiting. CleanURL fixes this. So that might be what referred here.
  - alexf95 6y ago
    Oh I see what you are saying thanks.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    And more than really annoying if you want to share the link to a pdf with someone else.
- agilob 6y ago
  I use NeatURL where description says: Before: http www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ioquake3-Auto-Updater&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Phoronix+(Phoronix) After: http www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ioquake3-Auto-Updater It removed unnecessary, known tracking code from URL before visiting the URL so origin of click isn't known to advertisers and trackers.
tempaccount98 6y ago
On Firefox it is "recommended" add on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/
- seqizz 6y ago
  Shows who prioritizes what. Installed.
- astura 6y ago
  If you, like me, were wondering what that meant (or if it is an automatic distinction like "Amazon Choice"), this is what they say gets a "Recommend" badge. >Recommended extensions are editorially curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality, and user experience. Firefox staff, along with community participation, selects each extension and manually reviews them for security and policy compliance before they receive Recommended status. These extensions may also qualify for promotions on the AMO homepage and other prominent locations. Developers cannot pay to have their extensions included in this program.
Hendrikto 6y ago
> The reasons for this are ridiculous and probably only pretended because ClearURLs damages Google's business model. […] > Among other things, it was claimed that the description of the addon is too detailed and thus violates the Chrome Web Store rules. The mention of all the people who helped to develop and translate ClearURLs is against Google's rules because it could "confuse" the user. Ridiculous. > Also, Google has criticized that the description of the addon did not mention that there is a badged, an export/import function for the settings, a logging function for debugging, and a donation button. This would be "misleading". > Last but not least, it was criticized that the "clipboardWrite" permission would not be necessary. But that's not true, and I've had a description for each permission in the Chrome Web Store Developer Dashboard for well over a year now. So the "clipboardWrite" permission is needed for writing clean links via the context menu into the clipboard.
- echelon 6y ago
  More fuel for the Google antitrust / breakup fire. Google should not be allowed to develop Chrome or have any say in web standards. Every play they make favors themselves - unsemantic HTML5, AMP, crippled and removed extensions, progressive removal of the URL bar, https everywhere (no more self-hosted blogs unless you understand cert signing and automated renewal - why did the web stop being easy?), cookie standards that favor their moat, "acceptable ads" policies, ReCAPCHA, etc. etc. Here's a laundry list of things they did to YouTube to hamper other, non-Chrome browsers: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-to-google-and-that-should-worry-us-all/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-...
  - jiofih 6y ago
    Don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is absolutely true. Handing web standards over to an advertising company has been of the most damaging things ever done to the internet.
    - yurielt 6y ago
      It seems as if google or is eh moles are monitoring this site because it is not the first time a reasonable anti google comments gets treated like this with no replies explaining why
qwerty456127 6y ago
No problem as long as it's available elsewhere, is it? As to popularity - this mere news will probably bring more new users than Google store did in quite a period of time.
- Mordisquitos 6y ago
  I do not understand what you mean with "No problem as long as it's available elsewhere". Are you implying that we should just treat Google's decisions as inscrutable facts of nature that we must accept with resignation, and just be glad that the extension is still available somewhere?
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    Perhaps. Because Google is not Apple and does not prevent us from side-loading anything, still gives us a great browser and a great OS for free. In fact we, the advanced privacy-concerned users, are not interested in such extensions being on the store front and becoming too popular. Let Google use simple methods to track people who don't care about being tracked (many people who I tell about tracking really don't care, they say I'm a paranoid weirdo complicating things instead of just using them the way everybody does) enough to find a workaround. When AdBlock was only used by a bunch of superusers nobody cared to counter it, everybody was happy.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      If "everybody was happy", its userbase wouldn't have grown.
- franga2000 6y ago
  Discoverability, trust, security, plus what the sibling comment says.
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    Google store contains a lot of bullshit and spyware extensions. The facts an extension is there doesn't add a dime to trust. Discoverability also isn't a thing such extensions should seek. As soon as too many people discover it Google and others will invent a smarter way to spy.
shilgapira 6y ago
Well it turns out that I just installed this addon on Firefox yesterday after hearing about it here or on Reddit. This move does well to reinforce my loyalty to Firefox as my main browser. Hopefully it has the same effect on others.
- 0xfaded 6y ago
  I also just added it to firefox. Thanks Barbara Streisand effect!
  - vertis 6y ago
    At the risk of a me too thread. I've added it to Firefox as well. I think the final nail in the coffin for Chrome for me was the decision to hobble uBlock Origin several year back. Firefox is far from perfect, but at least it's not completely owned by Google.
  - bsdubernerd 6y ago
    Mozilla has been playing a little bit better here, but let's not forget Mozilla could remove the addon on pretty much in the same way. Case in point: Firefox on mobile has a selected _whitelist_ of addons you can install, and that's it.
    - emayljames 6y ago
      True, although you can sign in and add to a collection on the site then add to the browser.
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        Pretty far from user friendly though - not a lot of users will do that, reducing the chance there will be actual demand to fixup the APIs and addons to actually work on mobile.
        iggldiggl 6y ago
g_p 6y ago
It looks like the developer may be in the EU. If they offer the add-on as a business, it may be worth looking at if any of the internet rights legal groups will help take the case up under the 2019 EU platform rules. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... These make various requirements around how Google act, and include requirements around removing products from platforms. As an aside, it seems crazy that we allow platforms to take action when in positions of such clear conflict of interest, but that seems to be the way of the tech sector.
- random5634 6y ago
  God - if remote code execution exploits are an EU right we are screwed!
  - etherealG 6y ago
    Except remote code execution wasn’t the reason google claims to take the add on down... come on, it’s a clear conflict of interest, and they could have easily asked to remove remote code execution possibility instead.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
An extract from the Rules of the Internet, 2021 edition: - don't use Chrome - don't use Google Search
- midasuni 6y ago
  It’s not like it’s difficult. This isn’t the world of IE6, where a bloated Netscape 4.7 which failed to work on many sites was the only alternative. (Kant remember when KHTML - later konqurer - became more usable than Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox)
  - psychstudio 6y ago
    Oh I loved Konq in the olden days. A single tabbed browser for both file system and web. Loved that thing. khtmlview was also an awesome browser component which I made use of in a few QT projects.
    - nottorp 6y ago
      Let's remember that khtml was embraced by Apple and became (forked) the rendering engine in Safari...
  - emayljames 6y ago
    I'd respectfully disagree, Netscape (Gecko) had better, more up to date standards. The issue was always folks not testing on other than Internet Exploder.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      I actually found that the best way in that (horrible) era was to develop Opera-first. That way the amount of fixes for IE and Mozilla was much less than if choosing any of these two as firstm
    - int_19h 6y ago
      It didn't when Netscape 4 (which was pre-Gecko) was a thing. The IE vs NN browser war saw both adopting various incompatible non-standard features - e.g. layers in NN, innerHTML in IE - but the set that IE ended up with was closer to what was eventually standardized as HTML5/CSS/DOM.
baybal2 6y ago
This is what Googlers did to AdNauseam too
- blunte 6y ago
  I think it’s important to be specific. Probably it was not who we think of when we say “googlers”, but rather it was upper management within Google. Frankly, I see two googles: the people who make a lot of decent or great stuff, and the upper decision makers who act against the interests of the other group and the consumers.
  - yifanl 6y ago
    If we, the average user, can only see/use/consume the outputs of one of those halves, then its only worth considering that half as google.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    It's not accurate to blame this on upper management. Someone, somewhere, pressed a button - either a human reviewer (yes, takedowns are often issued by a human) or someone who set up whatever botched ML algorithm decided to nuke this extension. It sounds to me like this was definitely humans. Humans also handle disputes, and Google's staff that handle them are borderline incompetent and don't respect developers or end-users. You can say "upper management sets the policies" but I think that's giving people with some degree of control a pass. A highly-compensated SWE definitely has the option to not just go with the flow.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    "Googlers" are happy to take a stand on politically-relevant topics that can earn them Virtue Points, while at the same time staying perfectly quiet on stuff like this that actually harms the people using their product.
xianwen 6y ago
As an indirect effect of this, I got to know about ClearURLs and installed it on my firefox.
- arkitaip 6y ago
  It's a shame that Firefox Android still hasn't got its shit together wrt add-ons. The current selection is abysmal. It would be nice to have the same addon setup on desktop and mobile and have settings sync across devices.
  - kuschku 6y ago
    You can create a collection on AMO and set that instead of the whitelist. It's been enabled on Firefox Nightly since october. It does happen to break some addons, e.g. Greasemonkey, but most work just fine.
teekert 6y ago
Why are people still on Chrome? Just use a browser whose interests align with yours, like Firefox.
- sneak 6y ago
  Chrome (aside from the ad company spying) has better security than any other browser, Firefox included, by a substantial margin.
  - mpol 6y ago
    And security sells better than privacy. Ah yes, it's a shame.
  - llampx 6y ago
    Could you elaborate on how Chrome has better security?
    - madspindel 6y ago
      Not OP, but Chrome has end-to-end encryption option for Chrome Sync.
      - croes 6y ago
        And how exactly does this feature make browsing safer?
      - astura 6y ago
        Um, so? The question was "[in which way does] Chrome has better security?" Not "Can anyone name a random Chrome feature?" Firefox's Sync appears to be just as secure if not more secure (there's no option to NOT have end to end encryption): https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ I think sync is a pretty niche feature anyway.
      - wubbert 6y ago
        Doesn't Firefox do the same? IIRC Firefox encrypts your data client side and it doesn't get decrypted on their servers.
dessant 6y ago
I'd love to use ClearURLs, though last I checked it had a major flaw: it allows arbitrary code execution by the provider of the filter list. Among other things, it can redirect script URLs to arbitrary sources, and the filter list is periodically updated from a GitLab page, which enables the filter list provider to perform a targeted attack by serving a malicious filter list to a specific device. The only filter list provider is the extension maintainer, so this information should be safe to share. I have not had the time to set up a PoC, but I'm confident that the filter rules are way too powerful. At the very minimum, the current filter list should be included in the extension package rather than periodically updated from a remote URL. That way the filter list can be audited and must pass a review, without having a negative impact on the effectiveness of the extension, since the filter list does not appear to frequently change. https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/wiki/Rules https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/wiki/Rules https://gitlab.com/anti-tracking/ClearURLs/rules https://gitlab.com/anti-tracking/ClearURLs/rules https://kevinroebert.gitlab.io/ClearUrls/data/data.minify.json https://kevinroebert.gitlab.io/ClearUrls/data/data.minify.js...
- cookiengineer 6y ago
  I agree with you there. For my stealth browser I decided to go with a different JSON based format [1] that can rewrite the URL parameters via wildcards (for both * at the start and end of both key and val). It has the idea that you can audit a website and only list the allowed parameters there, so that a website search or sorting order or filters can still work. I built my browser on an allowlist based concept because it seemed too impossible to maintain all bad urls, domains, parameters on the web. Most websites have more tracking than content in them, so I decided on maintaining lists to select the content rather than the ads and trackers. [1] https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth/blob/X0/profile/policies.json https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth/blob/X0/profile/p...
- dessant 6y ago
  I can no longer edit my comment, if someone has the time, please verify this vulnerability and follow up with the maintainer and Firefox reviewers, remote code execution is against add-on guidelines. My impression is that the maintainer is not malicious, though someone could exploit them or the filter list service, and hack the entire userbase of the extension.
qwerty456127 6y ago
If the author is here, please expand the rules database. The rules file seems too humble. Many search engines are not there. Not even Yandex or Yahoo (which are fairly well-known) let alone less-popular search engines.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- daenney 6y ago
  I’m sure they’d appreciate a PR: https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls
KingOfCoders 6y ago
Thanks, installed on Firefox now.
ulrikrasmussen 6y ago
What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. If this is allowed to continue then it seems inevitable than an unhealthy monopoly will form where Chrome and its derivatives are the only browsers that can consume the modern web, and where opting out of tracking is not a possibility for anyone but the most technically inclined (although that's almost already the situation now). Come on EU, step up. Google doesn't need protection here, they'll survive even if they cannot retain control over the development of Chrome, and in particular the authority over the extension store.
- ppf 6y ago
  I thought the accepted solution to these problems was "disrupt!", not regulation. Edit: It seems that not even Silicon Valley likes the monsters it has created.
  - kajecounterhack 6y ago
    Natural monopolies are actually one of the main places regulation helps.
    - passerby1 6y ago
      In EU, maybe. However don't forget the lobbying. Money is actually a power (via buying other people's time and effort to spend on one's problems). The money is also behaves like the mass in Universe: it sticks together in large clots. So the power does too.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      We need a regulation that will automatically deal with such monopolies by ordering companies to split after reaching certain thresholds. This way we would never get companies too big to fail.
      - andrewinardeer 6y ago
        Then what is the incentive to start a company, grow it within the legal and regulatory framework and when it gets to an arbitrary, non-defined size have the legal and regulatory bodies systematically dismantle it by forcing you to sell it off?
anonymousDan 6y ago
I would really like to uninstall chrome from my Android phone but it appears to be impossible. Am I missing something?
- chii 6y ago
  the system webview is chrome based. It cannot be uninstalled as far as i can see. The chrome app may be removable tho? Tho i can only disable it on my phone.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    The system webview which crashed millions of android devices after a bad update yesterday..?
- franga2000 6y ago
  In order to have Google Play Services on an Android device, the vendor has to sign a contract with Google. Part of that contract states that the vendor must pre-install Chrome and a bunch of other Google apps as system apps, making them non-removable. Best you can do is disable it, which should be where the uninstall button usually is.
- mpol 6y ago
  I have heard it should be possible with adb. But if you don't trust Google Chrome, how can you trust Google Android?
- dannyw 6y ago
  Consider buying an iPhone. I'm serious. Google is a spyware company.
  - antattack 6y ago
    Hm, I find Apple crawling through my photos looking for faces pretty creepy. This feature cannot be disabled for some reason.
antman 6y ago
Pretty bad and ofcourse private company etc etc, but unfortunately since I mostly browse on mobile and: Safari no addons, Chrome no addons, FirefoxAndroid killed almost all addons. I had found here on HN that by using Kiwi browser I could import Chrome Desktop addons but now even this is adding more friction for my own good, apparently because obscure, legitimate looking, dark pattern coloured, reasons. All those browser engine speed ups are intetesting but I prefer the mobile web experience customizable as it was a few years back. Btw if anyone here forks FF and enables customization also plz add bookmarklets! Would pay for that...
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Insight Browser supports addons on iOS, btw. I believe they’re coming to Android at some point in the future.
- commoner 6y ago
  You can install any add-ons (including ClearURLs) from addons.mozilla.org onto Firefox Nightly for Android or Fennec F-Droid (a fork of the stable version of Firefox for Android) by following these instructions: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio... Firefox Nightly for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fenix https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fe... Fennec F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ ClearURLs works with no issues. Not all WebExtension APIs are supported in the Android version of Firefox at this time, but the developers are working on the missing features. Tracker: https://github.com/orgs/mozilla-mobile/projects/44 https://github.com/orgs/mozilla-mobile/projects/44
- pmlnr 6y ago
  > Btw if anyone here forks FF and enables customization also plz add bookmarklets! Would pay for that... https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/
- jsinai 6y ago
  I use Firefox Focus on mobile which lets you reset your entire browser and cookie history with one click. It also has some built-in tracking protection and content blocking. While it doesn’t solve the issue of add-ons, it has enough of a privacy focus to make me feel better about reducing my footprint on the mobile. It’s a pity that development is not as active as it used to be, but looks like Firefox are still supporting the project: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-ios https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-ios
neilv 6y ago
This reminded me of a library I released in January 2005. Part of the embedded docs from the 2011 release: ;;; The @b{urlskip} Racket library provides a function that translates some of ;;; the Web URLs that might be used to track a user across sites, by removing ;;; intermediate HTTP redirectors or information that might identify the user. ;;; Such a function might be used as part of a privacy-enhancing Web browser, ;;; or to canonicalize or un-obfuscate URLs for Web analysis projects. ;;; ;;; Note that @b{urlskip} is not intended to remove information used by ;;; ``affiliate'' referral programs to identify site operators that have sent ;;; users to a site. However, in some cases this affiliate ID information ;;; might be lost in the process of removing a intermediary URL that is used by ;;; a third party to track and profile users. It had special-case handlers for various URL server authorities and the paths under them. So, for http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=AAA&creative=111&camp=222\ &link_code=bn1&path=asin/b333 it was coded to preserve only certain query parameters, like: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=AAA&path=asin/b333 A lot of the cases it handled were redirectors, which usually meant only the target URL, which was usually in a query parameter, but might be in the path, and might or might not be URL-escaped. So, for example, http://www.google.com/url?sa=l&q=http://www.shopping.com/xGS-AAA_BBB~NS\ -1~linkin_id-111&ai=REALLYLONGNONSENSESTRING&num=3 would skip the redirector, to be simply: http://www.shopping.com/xGS-AAA_BBB~NS-1~linkin_id-111 I was going to link here to the code of `urlskip`, but it's no longer in the package repository where it used to be. (I added a lot of libraries to that repository, and don't recall whether there was some reason to remove this particular library.) It was a pretty niche library, and in a fringe language, so its impact might've only been as an example, pointing out that this could be done, and some rules for it.
- karlicoss 6y ago
  Sounds like a great idea! I had a similar service in mind to resolve shortlinks like t.co/bit.ly, etc, this could also be a nice feature for web archiving like archive.org
CynicusRex 6y ago
To those looking for alternatives, use uMatrix: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix. It has the option “Block all hyperlink auditing attempts” enabled by default.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  That is a different thing; hyperlink auditing are things like Safe Browsing. ClearURLs remove the tracking part of URLs, eg all the utm= GET parts. uBlock is NOT an alternative to this specific case.
- foepys 6y ago
  Raymond Hill has stopped developing uMatrix and also stopped accepting PRs because it's currently too much work for him [1]. So be aware that bugs will probably not be fixed. That being said, I'm a very happy uMatrix user on Firefox. 1: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#issuecomment-694988696 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#is...
  - CynicusRex 6y ago
    Dang, so it's only a matter of time when websites get the upper hand again? This is seriously disappointing to hear, even though I understand Raymond.
damsta 6y ago
I switched to Firefox almost two years ago, consider doing the same.
stickupkid 6y ago
I didn't know about this plugin and now I do. So more fool them! See how to install manually here - https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/issues/102#issuecomment-805295052 https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/issues/102#issuecomment-8... and I don't mind manually checking for updates from time to time.
retyurt 6y ago
Contrary to other posters here I'm not sure this is a conscious decision on Google's end. I know of plenty of add-ons that got delisted at random and that were promptly re-instated like ublock (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745) or firenvim (https://github.com/glacambre/firenvim/issues/518 https://github.com/glacambre/firenvim/issues/518 ).
- SSLy 6y ago
  First time would be a coincidence, third time is a broken (or working well, depending on your PoV) process/culture.
urthor 6y ago
Did they bother to Google "Streisand effect" before making this unfortunate mistake I wonder.
JamesAdir 6y ago
I'm very worried that this extension can limit the ability of small site owners to earn money from affiliate marketing. Many of this sites rely on links to Amazon and other big stores. They are losing on ads with the ad filters, and now this? How can they be compensated for their work? I'm all in for privacy, but shouldn't there be a more balanced way?
- nottorp 6y ago
  That train has unfortunately left the station long ago. I'd like to see more small sites have a donation (not subscription, unless a decent micropayment solution shows up and they give up on the "it's just the price of a Starbucks coffee" crap) instead.
  - JamesAdir 6y ago
    I'm don't have the number but unless there is a specific cause I think that content sites are not seeing donations as a good revenue stream. Maybe Substack and such tools will be able to be a more sustainable solution.
    - nottorp 6y ago
      Donations as a revenue stream is unpredictable, and they're right to not like it. But from the reader side, how many subscriptions can you have? It may feel good now because there are only a few options and any one person only likes a small percentage of those few options enough to give them money. But what happens when every site you click on on HN asks for a subscription? Will you pay for all of them?
seddin 6y ago
Glad that I have been using Firefox as my main web browser for the last 6 years.
abinaya_rl 6y ago
Found that it's available for Firefox. Happy that I switched my main browser to Firefox a couple of months back.
theseanl 6y ago
I did found that the codebase does not seem to be using any `browser.clipboard` API, so `clipboardWrite` permission seems to be unnecessary. According to [MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/clipboard https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...), `browser.clipboard` API mainly exists to enable extensions to write image contents to clipboards, and all the ClearURL needs is writing texts. Also, [another MDN page on clipboard interactions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Interact_with_the_clipboard#browser-specific_considerations https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...) states that extensions do not need `clipboardWrite` permissions to write to clipboards, e.g. by using `document.execCommand('copy')`. Hopefully, removing this permission could help getting the extension restored.
- Nicksil 6y ago
  It seems there's a line which requires such permission: https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/external_js/clipboard-helper.js https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/external_js/c... document.execCommand("copy"); I personally do not know, just going by what's stated within the URL in the adjoining comment (https://github.com/mdn/webextensions-examples/tree/master/context-menu-copy-link-with-types https://github.com/mdn/webextensions-examples/tree/master/co...).
  - theseanl 6y ago
    Confusingly, according to the MDN document I linked, that permission is not needed. Clipboard APIs are in general pretty permissive in writing, any websites can write anything to the clipboard without requesting any permission, if it's done within like 1000ms or so from user interaction. So you don't even need an extension to write to clipboard.
achairapart 6y ago
Just to add my own data point: I have some extensions in the Chrome Web Store and, from time to time, Google send me a notice that they violate privacy policies (but they don't collect any data) or some permissions are not used (but yes, they are). So, after explaining and linking to the source code, they usually reply with another canned response: Thank you for reaching out to us. We took a closer look at your item again and found it to be compliant with our policies. Your item has been reinstated and will be available in the store shortly. We apologise for the inconvenience caused to you in this matter. We value your contributions to the Chrome Web Store and look forward to working with you. So maybe there is some Hanlon's razor at play here, too.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Sufficient incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated similarly (at least when dealing with companies). In my opinion, a company that regularly flags things that are complaint with the rules is Bad regardless of motives.
  - achairapart 6y ago
    From what I can see it may be: - A bad or gone-bad automated system; - Outsourced incompetent people; - A try to soft push out what they don't like (it still takes patience and effort to deal with this); - Some mix in between. For sure, malice or not, it's flawed.
modeitsch 6y ago
In the future google will remove every app that is trying to compete with them
londons_explore 6y ago
I don't understand why Google doesn't hire a third party to do moderation on their platforms. Google could write and publish the rules, and then get a third party to decide if each app/comment/video meets the rules or not. There could even be the option to appeal to a real court if you disagree with the third party. Google still gets effective veto since they could change the rules anytime, but it would still be a big step up over what we currently have.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  You're making the massive assumption that Google cares and wants to change the status quo they've established. There is no evidence of this being the case.
madeofpalk 6y ago
I really struggle to believe that "Google" thinks this itty bitty extension that a rounding error % of their users use would have an impact on their buisness model, which was grounds to kick it off the store. This "just" sounds like the typical story we hear so often of an overzealous "app" reviewer waking up on the wrong side of the bed and just decided to delete someone's product and/or business (which is a huge problem itself!)
- subsubsub 6y ago
  Ad blockers were a rounding error once.
- Closi 6y ago
  One extension does not have an impact, but in aggregate across many extensions these things can make a huge difference. The primary reason Google has Chrome and Android is to maintain ecosystem control and to continue tracking users to support it's Ad business (or reduce the threat that other browsers will diminish it's business in these areas).
  - m-p-3 6y ago
    One of my reason to stick with Firefox on both desktop and mobile.
aritmo 6y ago
This means that I have to install this extension as well.
dandanua 6y ago
I wrote a very basic extension Copy True Link https://github.com/dandanua/copy-true-link https://github.com/dandanua/copy-true-link It doesn't remove all trackers from the URLs yet, but at least you can copy what is displayed at the status bar when you hover over the link. It's useful since a lot of tracking sites (like FB) substitute that status bar link for the tracking one before clicking. I think I'll add some cleaning process in the future.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
patchtopic 6y ago
thanks google for bringing this handy looking extension to my attention!
eterevsky 6y ago
Have they tried to follow recommendations and edit the description?
henvic 6y ago
Awful! I didn't know about this extension, but love the idea! I'm not too much into using extensions, but this is definitely a positive one. I hope you get this reverted.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
Im not sure if this is a droid extension. Nevertheless i searched for it at fdroid, and nada.
minusSeven 6y ago
Glad I am using Firefox for this, issues like this makes my blood boil. One thing I hate about most websites is the backward compatibility issues most websites tend to have from time to time that break pre existing functionalities. Almost all websites have them. EG copy pasting photos through clipboard doesn't work anymore on gmail using firefox which forces me to use chrome.
lk0nga 6y ago
I wonder whether this will backfire as a Streisand on Google or not. Anyone can still install any extensions from git.
noisy_boy 6y ago
I don't get it. Most non-tech people I know are entrenched into the Google echo system and belong to one of these groups: a) don't know the extent of Google's digital invasiveness b) know but don't care c) care but either not enough to leave it or don't have a choice really I don't know anyone from these groups that are aware of ClearURLs or what is solves - they probably would have never installed it. On the other hand, tech folks who know and care about what Google is doing, are perfectly capable of installing Firefox/Opera etc and get around it. Removing this extension doesn't do anything to affect these people. What does such dick moves actually achieve? Its just makes most people either be indifferent or hate them more.
swiley 6y ago
So glad companies like Google are there to tell us what's ok to run on our computers.
- annadane 6y ago
  I just can't understand it and I wish I could be a fly on the wall sometimes. "Yes, let us be intentionally evil"
mshenfield 6y ago
Does Google contact developers before taking down their extensions?
matheusmoreira 6y ago
uBlock Origin is already able to detect these URL trackers. Maybe it should start removing them as well.
- livre 6y ago
  The Stealth Mode in AdGuard AdBlocker does that [1]. I use that one on mobile to keep my number of installed extensions to a minimum for performance. [1] https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/stealth-mode#general https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/stealth-mode#general
known 6y ago
Server can get them with PUT;
sam0x17 6y ago
I think this suggests it is high time we set up a third party chrome extension library not run by Google for use in non-google-shipped chrome-based browsers (Vivaldi, Brave, Chromium, etc)
l1am0 6y ago
Slightly off-topic: https://unshort.link https://unshort.link Prevent short link services from tracking you. Unshort.link i s an open source webservice removing tracking parameters from short links and displaying where they point at.
SergeAx 6y ago
Well, another reason to switch to Firefox.
martin1975 6y ago
I've ceased using Google. DuckDuckGo, Yandex and Bing give better (less curated) results, track less and obviate the need for Google.

815 points by URfejk 6y ago

elktea 6y ago

anyone using this site that still uses chrome, why?

oblio 6y ago
My guess? Better supported by many sites, both on the internet and internal company sites. Faster for some things. And of course, inertia. Studies have shown that people just don't change defaults, as a rule. Only a small minority of people change them.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > Better supported by many sites Interesting. I haven't had much trouble with Firefox yet, even with uBlock Origin. Any idea what kind of sites?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - input_sh 6y ago
    Useful link where you can see and report browser-specific issues: https://webcompat.com/ https://webcompat.com/ > Webcompat.com is developed by volunteers and supported by Mozilla.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    https://web.skype.com/ https://web.skype.com/ because one of the largest IT companies on the planet cannot support a standard-compliant browser on their web client.
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  > My guess? Better supported by many sites, No difference with real sites. A developer may notice some difference in latest features support (not always in favor of Chrome). > Faster for some things. If your PC is new and fast. Otherwise it's much faster for most of the things.
  - oblio 6y ago
    > No difference with real sites. A developer may notice some difference in latest features support (not always in favor of Chrome). I use Firefox (desktop and mobile/Android). You sound like a Firefox evangelist. There are real site where Firefox is buggy or slow. Youtube is one of them. I know it's not technically their fault, but the average user can't fix the site. They can (and do) change their browser. So they use Chrome.
    - qwerty456127 6y ago
      > I use Firefox (desktop So do I. > and mobile/Android). I found it unbearably slow on my Galaxy Note 3 with uBlock. The only reason I tried it was uBlock. So I rarely do. I've switched to Brave. > You sound like a Firefox evangelist Kind of, but an honest (if not say cruel) one - I always say Firefox is slow. I also use Chrome on slower machines. > There are real site where Firefox is buggy or slow. Youtube is one of them I don't know a single site where Firefox would be buggy but it indeed is slow - on all of them. On YouTube in particular yet still pretty much usable. On a modern PC the difference is easy to ignore. I watch a lot of YouTube in Firefox Every day and I enjoy the "picture in picture" mode. I have hardware decoding enabled and high-FPS and high-res (above 720p) modes disabled as I don't appreciate them.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  My daughter on one of our computers had a problem with firefox being able to launch roblox (which frankly roblox's launching mechanisms seem buggy, I don't know why - I assume it is just an uri scheme doing the launching), as a consequence of which my daughter now tends to use Chrome. Which has the benefit of when I get on that computer she uses chrome I use firefox my browsing experience doesn't get littered with an 11 year old's behaviors.
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    There's profiles in browsers these days, and computers usually have multi account support too.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      and 11 year olds grab the computer when you're not there and use it, actually from the age of 8 I think. But yes, browser profiles and computer multi account support are tools that would solve this problem if they worked for the particular problem description - which fair to say they weren't really designed for that scenario so no reason to expect they would work.
      - sundarurfriend 6y ago
        You can have your child use the default profile, and have a shortcut whose target is `firefox -P <adultprofilename> --no-remote` somewhere out of her way. This way, she can just open the browser and use it (on the default profile), and you can click this shortcut to open your profile easily. Just an option to keep in mind in case you decide to get rid of Chrome in the future.
        bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        yeah but the scenario is really, dad is on computer, dad goes in kitchen to make food, child goes gets computer, opens new tab in running browser. It's really a parenting issue, I could stop her doing it but I don't care enough to do so, and if I don't stop her via parenting there will always be ways she slips through the profile guards.
- square_usual 6y ago
  > Better supported by many sites On that note, here's a regular reminder that Slack still doesn't support calls on Firefox for over 3 years now: https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/958645632620748800 https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/958645632620748800
demarq 6y ago
battery life
qwerty456127 6y ago
I use Chrome on a slower PC. Although Chrome consumes more RAM than Firefox does, it actually feels noticeably faster on any PC. On old slow PCs (and mobiles) this makes a hell of difference. Firefox became usable again when it abandoned XUL (for some years before that it was pure torment to use so I had no choice but to switch to Chrome) but still isn't as fast as Chrome is. I only use Firefox happily on faster PCs.
queueworker 6y ago
better devtools compared to any other browser is what keeps me on Chrome
- Number157 6y ago
  Have you tried Firefox recently? I switched a few months ago and so far I haven't found myself missing anything.
- franga2000 6y ago
  I actually much prefer Firefox devtools. The one thing I occasionally go to Chrome for is when stepping through minified JS code - Firefox doesn't fully resolve the variable names in the map files.
brnt 6y ago
I use in on some older machines, where video is choppy on Firefox. I also use it for videoconferencing websites on my work laptop, because with Firefox the fans (sometimes?) are out of control.
aniforprez 6y ago
As a developer, Chrome's tools are pretty good. As a user, the sync options for history and bookmarks are what keep me in. It's definitely not perfect but it's fine for now. I like Firefox but not enough to switch I was first a Firefox user, switched to Chrome, back to FF and finally to Chrome once I got a smart phone and they added sync
- _flux 6y ago
  Firefox has sync as well, though, and it can even send tabs to other sessions. I don't think it has history sharing, that sounds useful. Firefox syncing can also be self-hosted if you're into that..
  - brianzelip 6y ago
    FF does indeed have history sharing.
- mnd999 6y ago
  For web development, it's kinda mandatory as nobody wants a site that doesn't work in the most popular browser. That doesn't mean you have to use it for browsing as well though- I found that having Chrome for testing / debugging and Firefox for browsing was quite a productive setup last time I did web dev.
  - wccrawford 6y ago
    Chrome's dev tools just work better for me, too. For instance, when there's an error in the console, clicking on the filename/line does nothing most of the time in Firefox now. I once fixed it by resetting firefox (per some instructions on the web) but it broken again within days. Chrome's just works, every time. Oddly, it sorta worked for me in FF the other day, but it took me to the minified source, which wasn't terribly helpful in an app that I'm writing. I still use Firefox 99% of the time, but it really pains me that that one feature is so broken.
- cookiecaper 6y ago
  Firefox's tools are still competitive with Chrome and there are even a few things I miss about them when debugging in Brave. It gives a little joy to know that Mozilla is still competitive in something, but not holding my breath for it to stay that way.
thitcanh 6y ago
Because Chrome is objectively the best browser. I left Chrome for Firefox about 2 years ago because Chrome was becoming slow (I was more likely the reason) but Firefox was always “just okay” in many regards. No automatic omnibox search that I enjoyed since probably 2010 in Chrome, for example. That feature alone makes navigation a breeze. Then last summer probably I switched to Safari. Nice browser, but very barebones if not for the beautiful Reader view, reading list and iOS Keychain integration. Generally smooth but extremely sluggish on the new Facebook site. I don’t use Chrome because my dislike for Google grows by the day, but I recognize that Chrome is still the best at what it does, and that’s why many still use it. If Edge supported the keychain I’d probably consider it.
- llampx 6y ago
  I enjoy Edge and Firefox a lot and never use Chrome. I certainly think that Chrome being Google's browser is grounds enough to look critically at it aside from everything else.
  - thitcanh 6y ago
    I don’t disagree, I don’t see why my comment was downvoted. The browser itself is fine, it’s the company that isn’t — and that’s why I don’t use it myself.
    - ziddoap 6y ago
      If I were to guess, it would be saying something is "objectively the best" followed by personal anecdotes with no objectivity.
waitwhat 6y ago
The google translate integration.
- franga2000 6y ago
  I missed that too, but it turns out I need ot veery rarely. For when I do, I have a userscript that injects the GTranslate widget into the page. It's basically the same, albeit with uglier button. I don't think it's available as an extension since it by definition injects external scripts into a page, but it's available as a userscript for *-Monkey.
ccmcarey 6y ago
I used Firefox for years. I recently moved back to a Chromium based browser (Edge). Even on a fairly powerful system (16 logi cores/4GHz) it's just noticeably faster. SPAs are actually usable again. Video decoding is hardware accelerated and I can now play 4k videos without every interaction with the browser lagging like crazy. Firefox is great, theoretically. But even then, Mozilla keep making inane decisions - lately their plans to remove compact mode [0] were in the news. Why?! [0] https://www.ghacks.net/2021/03/14/mozilla-plans-to-remove-the-compact-density-option-from-firefoxs-customize-menu/ https://www.ghacks.net/2021/03/14/mozilla-plans-to-remove-th...
bb101 6y ago
Firefox's default scrolling behaviour didn't feel as responsive as Chrome. I changed a few settings below in about:config and now Firefox is a pleasure to use again. With the uBlock Origin, Cookie Autodelete and ClearURLs add-ons, it's better for privacy too. general.smoothScroll: false mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y: 300
- luckylion 6y ago
  I really wish someone at Mozilla would take the time to document the settings related to scrolling or make a GUI to simulate the behavior you're setting up. Getting it to work "close enough" to how well it works on chrome took a bit of time and was basically looking through forums where people mentioned what had worked for them. It's not the most central thing a browser has to do, but every user does it so often and it's a constant annoyance when it doesn't work the way you like/expect it to.
- lurtbancaster 6y ago
  For almost 6 years, I've been using general.smoothScroll: false mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount: 60 I'd never given mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y a try. But now with both mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount: 60 and your mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y: 300 it's a little too much for me. But ymmv. mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y and mousewheel.min_line_scroll_amount seem identical in function.
  - godshatter 6y ago
    This also helps on Pale Moon, if anyone other than me is still using it.
stiltzkin 6y ago
rPI comes with Chromium.
ungzd 6y ago
I don't like how mouse scrolling works in Firefox. I can't determine exact details what's wrong (jitter? inertia? delay?), but it feels subtly broken, and after a while it makes me nervous.

phnofive 6y ago

Classic error message as well for the extension page in CWS: > The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know. I suspect suspending an extension could be done with slightly more tact, if that was a goal.

alexf95 6y ago

Can someone further explain "ClearURLs has made it to its mission to prevent tracking via URLs and that's how Google makes money"? How exactly does the tracking via URLs work for Google?

mcc1ane 6y ago
https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/README.md
- alexf95 6y ago
  Hmm, intresting. Didn't think it would be basically "everywhere". Understandable though that i got disabled by Google.
aequitas 6y ago
If you search in Google, the links in the results don't directly link to the result page but through a Google redirect. Really annoying if you want to copy/paste a result without visiting. CleanURL fixes this. So that might be what referred here.
- alexf95 6y ago
  Oh I see what you are saying thanks.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  And more than really annoying if you want to share the link to a pdf with someone else.
agilob 6y ago
I use NeatURL where description says: Before: http www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ioquake3-Auto-Updater&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Phoronix+(Phoronix) After: http www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ioquake3-Auto-Updater It removed unnecessary, known tracking code from URL before visiting the URL so origin of click isn't known to advertisers and trackers.

tempaccount98 6y ago

On Firefox it is "recommended" add on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/

seqizz 6y ago
Shows who prioritizes what. Installed.
astura 6y ago
If you, like me, were wondering what that meant (or if it is an automatic distinction like "Amazon Choice"), this is what they say gets a "Recommend" badge. >Recommended extensions are editorially curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality, and user experience. Firefox staff, along with community participation, selects each extension and manually reviews them for security and policy compliance before they receive Recommended status. These extensions may also qualify for promotions on the AMO homepage and other prominent locations. Developers cannot pay to have their extensions included in this program.

Hendrikto 6y ago

> The reasons for this are ridiculous and probably only pretended because ClearURLs damages Google's business model. […] > Among other things, it was claimed that the description of the addon is too detailed and thus violates the Chrome Web Store rules. The mention of all the people who helped to develop and translate ClearURLs is against Google's rules because it could "confuse" the user. Ridiculous. > Also, Google has criticized that the description of the addon did not mention that there is a badged, an export/import function for the settings, a logging function for debugging, and a donation button. This would be "misleading". > Last but not least, it was criticized that the "clipboardWrite" permission would not be necessary. But that's not true, and I've had a description for each permission in the Chrome Web Store Developer Dashboard for well over a year now. So the "clipboardWrite" permission is needed for writing clean links via the context menu into the clipboard.

echelon 6y ago
More fuel for the Google antitrust / breakup fire. Google should not be allowed to develop Chrome or have any say in web standards. Every play they make favors themselves - unsemantic HTML5, AMP, crippled and removed extensions, progressive removal of the URL bar, https everywhere (no more self-hosted blogs unless you understand cert signing and automated renewal - why did the web stop being easy?), cookie standards that favor their moat, "acceptable ads" policies, ReCAPCHA, etc. etc. Here's a laundry list of things they did to YouTube to hamper other, non-Chrome browsers: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-to-google-and-that-should-worry-us-all/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-...
- jiofih 6y ago
  Don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is absolutely true. Handing web standards over to an advertising company has been of the most damaging things ever done to the internet.
  - yurielt 6y ago
    It seems as if google or is eh moles are monitoring this site because it is not the first time a reasonable anti google comments gets treated like this with no replies explaining why

qwerty456127 6y ago

No problem as long as it's available elsewhere, is it? As to popularity - this mere news will probably bring more new users than Google store did in quite a period of time.

Mordisquitos 6y ago
I do not understand what you mean with "No problem as long as it's available elsewhere". Are you implying that we should just treat Google's decisions as inscrutable facts of nature that we must accept with resignation, and just be glad that the extension is still available somewhere?
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  Perhaps. Because Google is not Apple and does not prevent us from side-loading anything, still gives us a great browser and a great OS for free. In fact we, the advanced privacy-concerned users, are not interested in such extensions being on the store front and becoming too popular. Let Google use simple methods to track people who don't care about being tracked (many people who I tell about tracking really don't care, they say I'm a paranoid weirdo complicating things instead of just using them the way everybody does) enough to find a workaround. When AdBlock was only used by a bunch of superusers nobody cared to counter it, everybody was happy.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    If "everybody was happy", its userbase wouldn't have grown.
franga2000 6y ago
Discoverability, trust, security, plus what the sibling comment says.
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  Google store contains a lot of bullshit and spyware extensions. The facts an extension is there doesn't add a dime to trust. Discoverability also isn't a thing such extensions should seek. As soon as too many people discover it Google and others will invent a smarter way to spy.

shilgapira 6y ago

Well it turns out that I just installed this addon on Firefox yesterday after hearing about it here or on Reddit. This move does well to reinforce my loyalty to Firefox as my main browser. Hopefully it has the same effect on others.

0xfaded 6y ago
I also just added it to firefox. Thanks Barbara Streisand effect!
- vertis 6y ago
  At the risk of a me too thread. I've added it to Firefox as well. I think the final nail in the coffin for Chrome for me was the decision to hobble uBlock Origin several year back. Firefox is far from perfect, but at least it's not completely owned by Google.
- bsdubernerd 6y ago
  Mozilla has been playing a little bit better here, but let's not forget Mozilla could remove the addon on pretty much in the same way. Case in point: Firefox on mobile has a selected _whitelist_ of addons you can install, and that's it.
  - emayljames 6y ago
    True, although you can sign in and add to a collection on the site then add to the browser.
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      Pretty far from user friendly though - not a lot of users will do that, reducing the chance there will be actual demand to fixup the APIs and addons to actually work on mobile.
      - iggldiggl 6y ago

g_p 6y ago

It looks like the developer may be in the EU. If they offer the add-on as a business, it may be worth looking at if any of the internet rights legal groups will help take the case up under the 2019 EU platform rules. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... These make various requirements around how Google act, and include requirements around removing products from platforms. As an aside, it seems crazy that we allow platforms to take action when in positions of such clear conflict of interest, but that seems to be the way of the tech sector.

random5634 6y ago
God - if remote code execution exploits are an EU right we are screwed!
- etherealG 6y ago
  Except remote code execution wasn’t the reason google claims to take the add on down... come on, it’s a clear conflict of interest, and they could have easily asked to remove remote code execution possibility instead.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

An extract from the Rules of the Internet, 2021 edition: - don't use Chrome - don't use Google Search

midasuni 6y ago
It’s not like it’s difficult. This isn’t the world of IE6, where a bloated Netscape 4.7 which failed to work on many sites was the only alternative. (Kant remember when KHTML - later konqurer - became more usable than Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox)
- psychstudio 6y ago
  Oh I loved Konq in the olden days. A single tabbed browser for both file system and web. Loved that thing. khtmlview was also an awesome browser component which I made use of in a few QT projects.
  - nottorp 6y ago
    Let's remember that khtml was embraced by Apple and became (forked) the rendering engine in Safari...
- emayljames 6y ago
  I'd respectfully disagree, Netscape (Gecko) had better, more up to date standards. The issue was always folks not testing on other than Internet Exploder.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    I actually found that the best way in that (horrible) era was to develop Opera-first. That way the amount of fixes for IE and Mozilla was much less than if choosing any of these two as firstm
  - int_19h 6y ago
    It didn't when Netscape 4 (which was pre-Gecko) was a thing. The IE vs NN browser war saw both adopting various incompatible non-standard features - e.g. layers in NN, innerHTML in IE - but the set that IE ended up with was closer to what was eventually standardized as HTML5/CSS/DOM.

baybal2 6y ago

This is what Googlers did to AdNauseam too

blunte 6y ago
I think it’s important to be specific. Probably it was not who we think of when we say “googlers”, but rather it was upper management within Google. Frankly, I see two googles: the people who make a lot of decent or great stuff, and the upper decision makers who act against the interests of the other group and the consumers.
- yifanl 6y ago
  If we, the average user, can only see/use/consume the outputs of one of those halves, then its only worth considering that half as google.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  It's not accurate to blame this on upper management. Someone, somewhere, pressed a button - either a human reviewer (yes, takedowns are often issued by a human) or someone who set up whatever botched ML algorithm decided to nuke this extension. It sounds to me like this was definitely humans. Humans also handle disputes, and Google's staff that handle them are borderline incompetent and don't respect developers or end-users. You can say "upper management sets the policies" but I think that's giving people with some degree of control a pass. A highly-compensated SWE definitely has the option to not just go with the flow.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  "Googlers" are happy to take a stand on politically-relevant topics that can earn them Virtue Points, while at the same time staying perfectly quiet on stuff like this that actually harms the people using their product.

xianwen 6y ago

As an indirect effect of this, I got to know about ClearURLs and installed it on my firefox.

arkitaip 6y ago
It's a shame that Firefox Android still hasn't got its shit together wrt add-ons. The current selection is abysmal. It would be nice to have the same addon setup on desktop and mobile and have settings sync across devices.
- kuschku 6y ago
  You can create a collection on AMO and set that instead of the whitelist. It's been enabled on Firefox Nightly since october. It does happen to break some addons, e.g. Greasemonkey, but most work just fine.

teekert 6y ago

Why are people still on Chrome? Just use a browser whose interests align with yours, like Firefox.

sneak 6y ago
Chrome (aside from the ad company spying) has better security than any other browser, Firefox included, by a substantial margin.
- mpol 6y ago
  And security sells better than privacy. Ah yes, it's a shame.
- llampx 6y ago
  Could you elaborate on how Chrome has better security?
  - madspindel 6y ago
    Not OP, but Chrome has end-to-end encryption option for Chrome Sync.
    - croes 6y ago
      And how exactly does this feature make browsing safer?
    - astura 6y ago
      Um, so? The question was "[in which way does] Chrome has better security?" Not "Can anyone name a random Chrome feature?" Firefox's Sync appears to be just as secure if not more secure (there's no option to NOT have end to end encryption): https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ I think sync is a pretty niche feature anyway.
    - wubbert 6y ago
      Doesn't Firefox do the same? IIRC Firefox encrypts your data client side and it doesn't get decrypted on their servers.

dessant 6y ago

I'd love to use ClearURLs, though last I checked it had a major flaw: it allows arbitrary code execution by the provider of the filter list. Among other things, it can redirect script URLs to arbitrary sources, and the filter list is periodically updated from a GitLab page, which enables the filter list provider to perform a targeted attack by serving a malicious filter list to a specific device. The only filter list provider is the extension maintainer, so this information should be safe to share. I have not had the time to set up a PoC, but I'm confident that the filter rules are way too powerful. At the very minimum, the current filter list should be included in the extension package rather than periodically updated from a remote URL. That way the filter list can be audited and must pass a review, without having a negative impact on the effectiveness of the extension, since the filter list does not appear to frequently change. https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/wiki/Rules https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/wiki/Rules https://gitlab.com/anti-tracking/ClearURLs/rules https://gitlab.com/anti-tracking/ClearURLs/rules https://kevinroebert.gitlab.io/ClearUrls/data/data.minify.json https://kevinroebert.gitlab.io/ClearUrls/data/data.minify.js...

cookiengineer 6y ago
I agree with you there. For my stealth browser I decided to go with a different JSON based format [1] that can rewrite the URL parameters via wildcards (for both * at the start and end of both key and val). It has the idea that you can audit a website and only list the allowed parameters there, so that a website search or sorting order or filters can still work. I built my browser on an allowlist based concept because it seemed too impossible to maintain all bad urls, domains, parameters on the web. Most websites have more tracking than content in them, so I decided on maintaining lists to select the content rather than the ads and trackers. [1] https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth/blob/X0/profile/policies.json https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth/blob/X0/profile/p...
dessant 6y ago
I can no longer edit my comment, if someone has the time, please verify this vulnerability and follow up with the maintainer and Firefox reviewers, remote code execution is against add-on guidelines. My impression is that the maintainer is not malicious, though someone could exploit them or the filter list service, and hack the entire userbase of the extension.

qwerty456127 6y ago

If the author is here, please expand the rules database. The rules file seems too humble. Many search engines are not there. Not even Yandex or Yahoo (which are fairly well-known) let alone less-popular search engines.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
daenney 6y ago
I’m sure they’d appreciate a PR: https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls

KingOfCoders 6y ago

Thanks, installed on Firefox now.

ulrikrasmussen 6y ago

What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. If this is allowed to continue then it seems inevitable than an unhealthy monopoly will form where Chrome and its derivatives are the only browsers that can consume the modern web, and where opting out of tracking is not a possibility for anyone but the most technically inclined (although that's almost already the situation now). Come on EU, step up. Google doesn't need protection here, they'll survive even if they cannot retain control over the development of Chrome, and in particular the authority over the extension store.

ppf 6y ago
I thought the accepted solution to these problems was "disrupt!", not regulation. Edit: It seems that not even Silicon Valley likes the monsters it has created.
- kajecounterhack 6y ago
  Natural monopolies are actually one of the main places regulation helps.
  - passerby1 6y ago
    In EU, maybe. However don't forget the lobbying. Money is actually a power (via buying other people's time and effort to spend on one's problems). The money is also behaves like the mass in Universe: it sticks together in large clots. So the power does too.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    We need a regulation that will automatically deal with such monopolies by ordering companies to split after reaching certain thresholds. This way we would never get companies too big to fail.
    - andrewinardeer 6y ago
      Then what is the incentive to start a company, grow it within the legal and regulatory framework and when it gets to an arbitrary, non-defined size have the legal and regulatory bodies systematically dismantle it by forcing you to sell it off?

anonymousDan 6y ago

I would really like to uninstall chrome from my Android phone but it appears to be impossible. Am I missing something?

chii 6y ago
the system webview is chrome based. It cannot be uninstalled as far as i can see. The chrome app may be removable tho? Tho i can only disable it on my phone.
- matsemann 6y ago
  The system webview which crashed millions of android devices after a bad update yesterday..?
franga2000 6y ago
In order to have Google Play Services on an Android device, the vendor has to sign a contract with Google. Part of that contract states that the vendor must pre-install Chrome and a bunch of other Google apps as system apps, making them non-removable. Best you can do is disable it, which should be where the uninstall button usually is.
mpol 6y ago
I have heard it should be possible with adb. But if you don't trust Google Chrome, how can you trust Google Android?
dannyw 6y ago
Consider buying an iPhone. I'm serious. Google is a spyware company.
- antattack 6y ago
  Hm, I find Apple crawling through my photos looking for faces pretty creepy. This feature cannot be disabled for some reason.

antman 6y ago

Pretty bad and ofcourse private company etc etc, but unfortunately since I mostly browse on mobile and: Safari no addons, Chrome no addons, FirefoxAndroid killed almost all addons. I had found here on HN that by using Kiwi browser I could import Chrome Desktop addons but now even this is adding more friction for my own good, apparently because obscure, legitimate looking, dark pattern coloured, reasons. All those browser engine speed ups are intetesting but I prefer the mobile web experience customizable as it was a few years back. Btw if anyone here forks FF and enables customization also plz add bookmarklets! Would pay for that...

gnicholas 6y ago
Insight Browser supports addons on iOS, btw. I believe they’re coming to Android at some point in the future.
commoner 6y ago
You can install any add-ons (including ClearURLs) from addons.mozilla.org onto Firefox Nightly for Android or Fennec F-Droid (a fork of the stable version of Firefox for Android) by following these instructions: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio... Firefox Nightly for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fenix https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fe... Fennec F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ ClearURLs works with no issues. Not all WebExtension APIs are supported in the Android version of Firefox at this time, but the developers are working on the missing features. Tracker: https://github.com/orgs/mozilla-mobile/projects/44 https://github.com/orgs/mozilla-mobile/projects/44
pmlnr 6y ago
> Btw if anyone here forks FF and enables customization also plz add bookmarklets! Would pay for that... https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/
jsinai 6y ago
I use Firefox Focus on mobile which lets you reset your entire browser and cookie history with one click. It also has some built-in tracking protection and content blocking. While it doesn’t solve the issue of add-ons, it has enough of a privacy focus to make me feel better about reducing my footprint on the mobile. It’s a pity that development is not as active as it used to be, but looks like Firefox are still supporting the project: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-ios https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-ios

neilv 6y ago

This reminded me of a library I released in January 2005. Part of the embedded docs from the 2011 release: ;;; The @b{urlskip} Racket library provides a function that translates some of ;;; the Web URLs that might be used to track a user across sites, by removing ;;; intermediate HTTP redirectors or information that might identify the user. ;;; Such a function might be used as part of a privacy-enhancing Web browser, ;;; or to canonicalize or un-obfuscate URLs for Web analysis projects. ;;; ;;; Note that @b{urlskip} is not intended to remove information used by ;;; ``affiliate'' referral programs to identify site operators that have sent ;;; users to a site. However, in some cases this affiliate ID information ;;; might be lost in the process of removing a intermediary URL that is used by ;;; a third party to track and profile users. It had special-case handlers for various URL server authorities and the paths under them. So, for http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=AAA&creative=111&camp=222\ &link_code=bn1&path=asin/b333 it was coded to preserve only certain query parameters, like: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=AAA&path=asin/b333 A lot of the cases it handled were redirectors, which usually meant only the target URL, which was usually in a query parameter, but might be in the path, and might or might not be URL-escaped. So, for example, http://www.google.com/url?sa=l&q=http://www.shopping.com/xGS-AAA_BBB~NS\ -1~linkin_id-111&ai=REALLYLONGNONSENSESTRING&num=3 would skip the redirector, to be simply: http://www.shopping.com/xGS-AAA_BBB~NS-1~linkin_id-111 I was going to link here to the code of `urlskip`, but it's no longer in the package repository where it used to be. (I added a lot of libraries to that repository, and don't recall whether there was some reason to remove this particular library.) It was a pretty niche library, and in a fringe language, so its impact might've only been as an example, pointing out that this could be done, and some rules for it.

karlicoss 6y ago
Sounds like a great idea! I had a similar service in mind to resolve shortlinks like t.co/bit.ly, etc, this could also be a nice feature for web archiving like archive.org

CynicusRex 6y ago

To those looking for alternatives, use uMatrix: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix. It has the option “Block all hyperlink auditing attempts” enabled by default.

pmlnr 6y ago
That is a different thing; hyperlink auditing are things like Safe Browsing. ClearURLs remove the tracking part of URLs, eg all the utm= GET parts. uBlock is NOT an alternative to this specific case.
foepys 6y ago
Raymond Hill has stopped developing uMatrix and also stopped accepting PRs because it's currently too much work for him [1]. So be aware that bugs will probably not be fixed. That being said, I'm a very happy uMatrix user on Firefox. 1: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#issuecomment-694988696 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#is...
- CynicusRex 6y ago
  Dang, so it's only a matter of time when websites get the upper hand again? This is seriously disappointing to hear, even though I understand Raymond.

damsta 6y ago

I switched to Firefox almost two years ago, consider doing the same.

stickupkid 6y ago

I didn't know about this plugin and now I do. So more fool them! See how to install manually here - https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/issues/102#issuecomment-805295052 https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/issues/102#issuecomment-8... and I don't mind manually checking for updates from time to time.

retyurt 6y ago

Contrary to other posters here I'm not sure this is a conscious decision on Google's end. I know of plenty of add-ons that got delisted at random and that were promptly re-instated like ublock (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745) or firenvim (https://github.com/glacambre/firenvim/issues/518 https://github.com/glacambre/firenvim/issues/518 ).

SSLy 6y ago
First time would be a coincidence, third time is a broken (or working well, depending on your PoV) process/culture.

urthor 6y ago

Did they bother to Google "Streisand effect" before making this unfortunate mistake I wonder.

JamesAdir 6y ago

I'm very worried that this extension can limit the ability of small site owners to earn money from affiliate marketing. Many of this sites rely on links to Amazon and other big stores. They are losing on ads with the ad filters, and now this? How can they be compensated for their work? I'm all in for privacy, but shouldn't there be a more balanced way?

nottorp 6y ago
That train has unfortunately left the station long ago. I'd like to see more small sites have a donation (not subscription, unless a decent micropayment solution shows up and they give up on the "it's just the price of a Starbucks coffee" crap) instead.
- JamesAdir 6y ago
  I'm don't have the number but unless there is a specific cause I think that content sites are not seeing donations as a good revenue stream. Maybe Substack and such tools will be able to be a more sustainable solution.
  - nottorp 6y ago
    Donations as a revenue stream is unpredictable, and they're right to not like it. But from the reader side, how many subscriptions can you have? It may feel good now because there are only a few options and any one person only likes a small percentage of those few options enough to give them money. But what happens when every site you click on on HN asks for a subscription? Will you pay for all of them?

seddin 6y ago

Glad that I have been using Firefox as my main web browser for the last 6 years.

abinaya_rl 6y ago

Found that it's available for Firefox. Happy that I switched my main browser to Firefox a couple of months back.

theseanl 6y ago

I did found that the codebase does not seem to be using any `browser.clipboard` API, so `clipboardWrite` permission seems to be unnecessary. According to [MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/clipboard https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...), `browser.clipboard` API mainly exists to enable extensions to write image contents to clipboards, and all the ClearURL needs is writing texts. Also, [another MDN page on clipboard interactions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Interact_with_the_clipboard#browser-specific_considerations https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...) states that extensions do not need `clipboardWrite` permissions to write to clipboards, e.g. by using `document.execCommand('copy')`. Hopefully, removing this permission could help getting the extension restored.

Nicksil 6y ago
It seems there's a line which requires such permission: https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/external_js/clipboard-helper.js https://github.com/ClearURLs/Addon/blob/master/external_js/c... document.execCommand("copy"); I personally do not know, just going by what's stated within the URL in the adjoining comment (https://github.com/mdn/webextensions-examples/tree/master/context-menu-copy-link-with-types https://github.com/mdn/webextensions-examples/tree/master/co...).
- theseanl 6y ago
  Confusingly, according to the MDN document I linked, that permission is not needed. Clipboard APIs are in general pretty permissive in writing, any websites can write anything to the clipboard without requesting any permission, if it's done within like 1000ms or so from user interaction. So you don't even need an extension to write to clipboard.

achairapart 6y ago

Just to add my own data point: I have some extensions in the Chrome Web Store and, from time to time, Google send me a notice that they violate privacy policies (but they don't collect any data) or some permissions are not used (but yes, they are). So, after explaining and linking to the source code, they usually reply with another canned response: Thank you for reaching out to us. We took a closer look at your item again and found it to be compliant with our policies. Your item has been reinstated and will be available in the store shortly. We apologise for the inconvenience caused to you in this matter. We value your contributions to the Chrome Web Store and look forward to working with you. So maybe there is some Hanlon's razor at play here, too.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Sufficient incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated similarly (at least when dealing with companies). In my opinion, a company that regularly flags things that are complaint with the rules is Bad regardless of motives.
- achairapart 6y ago
  From what I can see it may be: - A bad or gone-bad automated system; - Outsourced incompetent people; - A try to soft push out what they don't like (it still takes patience and effort to deal with this); - Some mix in between. For sure, malice or not, it's flawed.

modeitsch 6y ago

In the future google will remove every app that is trying to compete with them

londons_explore 6y ago

I don't understand why Google doesn't hire a third party to do moderation on their platforms. Google could write and publish the rules, and then get a third party to decide if each app/comment/video meets the rules or not. There could even be the option to appeal to a real court if you disagree with the third party. Google still gets effective veto since they could change the rules anytime, but it would still be a big step up over what we currently have.

jaywalk 6y ago
You're making the massive assumption that Google cares and wants to change the status quo they've established. There is no evidence of this being the case.

madeofpalk 6y ago

I really struggle to believe that "Google" thinks this itty bitty extension that a rounding error % of their users use would have an impact on their buisness model, which was grounds to kick it off the store. This "just" sounds like the typical story we hear so often of an overzealous "app" reviewer waking up on the wrong side of the bed and just decided to delete someone's product and/or business (which is a huge problem itself!)

subsubsub 6y ago
Ad blockers were a rounding error once.
Closi 6y ago
One extension does not have an impact, but in aggregate across many extensions these things can make a huge difference. The primary reason Google has Chrome and Android is to maintain ecosystem control and to continue tracking users to support it's Ad business (or reduce the threat that other browsers will diminish it's business in these areas).
- m-p-3 6y ago
  One of my reason to stick with Firefox on both desktop and mobile.

aritmo 6y ago

This means that I have to install this extension as well.

dandanua 6y ago

I wrote a very basic extension Copy True Link https://github.com/dandanua/copy-true-link https://github.com/dandanua/copy-true-link It doesn't remove all trackers from the URLs yet, but at least you can copy what is displayed at the status bar when you hover over the link. It's useful since a lot of tracking sites (like FB) substitute that status bar link for the tracking one before clicking. I think I'll add some cleaning process in the future.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

patchtopic 6y ago

thanks google for bringing this handy looking extension to my attention!

eterevsky 6y ago

Have they tried to follow recommendations and edit the description?

henvic 6y ago

Awful! I didn't know about this extension, but love the idea! I'm not too much into using extensions, but this is definitely a positive one. I hope you get this reverted.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

Im not sure if this is a droid extension. Nevertheless i searched for it at fdroid, and nada.

minusSeven 6y ago

Glad I am using Firefox for this, issues like this makes my blood boil. One thing I hate about most websites is the backward compatibility issues most websites tend to have from time to time that break pre existing functionalities. Almost all websites have them. EG copy pasting photos through clipboard doesn't work anymore on gmail using firefox which forces me to use chrome.

lk0nga 6y ago

I wonder whether this will backfire as a Streisand on Google or not. Anyone can still install any extensions from git.

noisy_boy 6y ago

I don't get it. Most non-tech people I know are entrenched into the Google echo system and belong to one of these groups: a) don't know the extent of Google's digital invasiveness b) know but don't care c) care but either not enough to leave it or don't have a choice really I don't know anyone from these groups that are aware of ClearURLs or what is solves - they probably would have never installed it. On the other hand, tech folks who know and care about what Google is doing, are perfectly capable of installing Firefox/Opera etc and get around it. Removing this extension doesn't do anything to affect these people. What does such dick moves actually achieve? Its just makes most people either be indifferent or hate them more.

swiley 6y ago

So glad companies like Google are there to tell us what's ok to run on our computers.

annadane 6y ago
I just can't understand it and I wish I could be a fly on the wall sometimes. "Yes, let us be intentionally evil"

mshenfield 6y ago

Does Google contact developers before taking down their extensions?

matheusmoreira 6y ago

uBlock Origin is already able to detect these URL trackers. Maybe it should start removing them as well.

livre 6y ago
The Stealth Mode in AdGuard AdBlocker does that [1]. I use that one on mobile to keep my number of installed extensions to a minimum for performance. [1] https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/stealth-mode#general https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/stealth-mode#general

known 6y ago

Server can get them with PUT;

sam0x17 6y ago

I think this suggests it is high time we set up a third party chrome extension library not run by Google for use in non-google-shipped chrome-based browsers (Vivaldi, Brave, Chromium, etc)

l1am0 6y ago

Slightly off-topic: https://unshort.link https://unshort.link Prevent short link services from tracking you. Unshort.link i s an open source webservice removing tracking parameters from short links and displaying where they point at.

SergeAx 6y ago

Well, another reason to switch to Firefox.

martin1975 6y ago

I've ceased using Google. DuckDuckGo, Yandex and Bing give better (less curated) results, track less and obviate the need for Google.