5 ms·
How long before Chrome changes their license to disallow ad blocking? Why should users think they own their whole screen, after all? "We estimate we can sell u
by h2odragon 3y ago
How long before Chrome changes their license to disallow ad blocking?
Why should users think they own their whole screen, after all? "We estimate we can sell up to 80% of the visual field before inducing seizures!"
- rapnie 3y agoIt would mostly piss off the more techy folks. And maybe speed up development of the various open source browser projects out there. And help get them to sufficient level to be real viable alternatives.
- clouddrover 3y agoWhat, you mean like Firefox?
- adriancr 3y agoIf they want to dig an early grave for chrome, sure, there's always firefox
- est31 3y agoChrome on Android does not support extensions at all. It's still the biggest mobile browser. Sure, it will make a lot of technical people mad, but a lot more won't care.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoBrave and Firefox on Android blocks ads just fine.
- LinuxBender 3y agoSadly I suspect that may change. Manifest v3 was added to FF in 109 which is why I am on ESR and will probably stay on it as long as I can. Mozilla get funding from Google and that could potentially come with the price of blocking ad-blockers using manifest v3 at some point.
- ylyn 3y agoAFAIK FF manifest v3 will maintain the webRequest interface.
- johnny22 3y agothey've explicitly said it won't. If somehow that ever changes you'll see huge news about it.
- fwn 3y agoWe've always said the same thing about the Firefox for Android extension ecosystem. Despite Mozilla's explicit denial of the intention to kill extensions on Android, there is an allow list that effectively bans almost all extensions on Android. There is no justification for this; extensions work just fine on Firefox for Android, which can be tested using the nightly and jumping through a few artificial hoops. tl;dr: There's little evidence that there will be any big news once adblockers get finally axed on Firefox.
- xkcd1963 3y agoThe moment this happens a big fraction of internet users will switch to an alternative browser
- lagniappe 3y ago>"We estimate we can sell up to 80% of the visual field before inducing seizures!" It's Blipverts all over again
- martin8412 3y agoI sort of want a client that does the exact opposite. Click on all ads in the background and provide bogus randomized client data, in essence costing companies money for no gain and rendering advertising useless.
- barbariangrunge 3y agoIt exists as a plug-in, google it. I fixed a bug in it once actually but forget the project name, there are two plugins like it
- ChoGGi 3y agoAdNauseam I didn't know there was another, hopefully someone will mention it?
- SpaghettiCthulu 3y agoAs much as I like adnauseam's mission, it seems to hide ads less reliably than ublock origin. I'd imagine some need to be visible for the click spoofing to work?
- im3w1l 3y ago> Google has removed ad blocking and privacy extension AdNauseam from its Chrome Web Store, and has taken the unusual step of flagging the extension as malware, thereby preventing AdNauseam from being used by those who have installed the software via Chrome's developer mode. Available for firefox and chromium-based browsers though.
- pleb_nz 3y agoDon't google it, look it up with an alternative search engine,
- spondylosaurus 3y agoTools like this exist, but by using them you run the risk of having your IP flagged by anti-fraud tools and potentially blacklisted. Not because those tools have an issue with the specific tools involved, but because that kind of behavior makes it look like you're running a click farm. It could also have negative repercussions for the sites whose ads you're "clicking" on, but whether that's a pro or a con depends on your opinion of each site :P
- Tijdreiziger 3y agohttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L5YeR9kDQIg/TezDWiay72I/AAAAAAAAAXo/DJX86clbz24/s1600/308.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L5YeR9kDQIg/TezDWiay72I/AAAAAAAAAX...
- princevegeta89 3y agoAs long as we use Chrome, we're basically only giving away our privacy, control and data more and more with not much that we can do about. Don't use Chrome
- rnk 3y agoWhat are the privacy implications if you switch the search to use duck duck go or something else in Chrome? I kind of naively thought that would give you privacy but I need more information.
- jeffybefffy519 3y agoIm no Google shill, but the results DDG returns are terrible. I suspect for search to work well, the engine needs to know a bit about the user - especially if localising the results is important to you.
- rnk 3y agoI've been fine with duck duck go, I occasionally go to google if i can't find something.
- aerio 3y agoUsing a search engine efficiently is a lost skill these days and has been replaced by search engines knowing more bout you and making assumptions about your search intentions.
- DropInIn 3y agoGiven that half of users report search modifiers have ceased working entirely with Google, and many other engines don't handle them well if at all, the skill isn't lost so much as impossible to apply.
- princevegeta89 3y agoDuckDuckGo may not be tracking you on their website, but Chrome is tracking you all the time. A majority of companies partnered with Google to get data on what sites you visit, and what data Google can share about you. Not just that, Chrome also doesn't respect your privacy settings across some websites especially owned by Google: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-to-face-5b-lawsuit-over-tracking-users-in-incognito-mode/399113/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-to-face-5b-lawsui... They also are going to block your AdBlockers from blocking ads with Manifest V3