4 ms·

It should be a good time for Firefox, because now it's clear that Firefox plus ublock origin can block more ads than google ever allows Chrome to do (they don't

It should be a good time for Firefox, because now it's clear that Firefox plus ublock origin can block more ads than google ever allows Chrome to do (they don't allow it anymore). That's a tangible benefit you can tell your friends about.

louthy 3y ago
But other Chromium based browsers do that too: Brave etc.
- jowea 3y ago
  If the scenario other posters are concerned about where most sites become chrome-only I wonder if something like that will substitute the market niche that Firefox currently occupies. Or will we just have Firefox on Blink like Microsoft moved Edge to Blink.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  But if Google changes what's in Chromium, those other browsers would get those anti-features downstream.
SpacePortKnight 3y ago
tbh if ads on a website can not be blocked by a simple content blocker, then I'll just simply stop using the website. Safari and Chrome V3 blocker are much more privacy friendly since the extension does not need to access the entire DOM.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  So you will stop using YouTube? You will stop using some of the biggest sites on the internet and restrict yourself to a small niche?
  - SpacePortKnight 3y ago
    I pay for Youtube Premium. I don't mind paying for things which provide me value.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    Some of us pay for YouTube Premium. One can argue that if you don't want ads, and you don't want to pay for a subscription, then maybe you shouldn't use that website. Because continued use is just like software piracy. It's imoral because you're getting subsidized by those playing fair, but also because alternatives can't thrive unless you choose to vote with your wallet or eyeballs. It's the same reason piracy was imoral, as it kept people using the incumbents, instead of using alternatives that were open-source.
    - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
      > Some of us pay for YouTube Premium. I have considered that actually but it would mean I have to give them my credit card thereby tying my real identity to the Google/YouTube account. I might consider it if they sold those gift cards that you can buy with cash at a convenience store.
      - bad_user 3y ago
        This is a good reason, but it's niche, and such level of privacy isn't sustainable for most people. Because they are Google, and they know the location of your IP address better than anyone (since they have Wi-fi info, too), so if you can't trust them at all and fear repercussions, you'd better access them via Tor or some VPN you can trust. Personally, I trust my local authorities, since I'm an EU citizen and the GDPR applies. I know this may be naive, but Google has implemented many changes in response to the GDPR already, and for me it's the only alternative short of avoiding them completely. Speaking of Chromium, forks still exist, like Vivaldi or Brave, and they ship with ads blockers that are not subject to the limitations of Manifest v3.
        TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

louthy 3y ago

But other Chromium based browsers do that too: Brave etc.

jowea 3y ago
If the scenario other posters are concerned about where most sites become chrome-only I wonder if something like that will substitute the market niche that Firefox currently occupies. Or will we just have Firefox on Blink like Microsoft moved Edge to Blink.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
But if Google changes what's in Chromium, those other browsers would get those anti-features downstream.

SpacePortKnight 3y ago

tbh if ads on a website can not be blocked by a simple content blocker, then I'll just simply stop using the website. Safari and Chrome V3 blocker are much more privacy friendly since the extension does not need to access the entire DOM.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
So you will stop using YouTube? You will stop using some of the biggest sites on the internet and restrict yourself to a small niche?
- SpacePortKnight 3y ago
  I pay for Youtube Premium. I don't mind paying for things which provide me value.
- bad_user 3y ago
  Some of us pay for YouTube Premium. One can argue that if you don't want ads, and you don't want to pay for a subscription, then maybe you shouldn't use that website. Because continued use is just like software piracy. It's imoral because you're getting subsidized by those playing fair, but also because alternatives can't thrive unless you choose to vote with your wallet or eyeballs. It's the same reason piracy was imoral, as it kept people using the incumbents, instead of using alternatives that were open-source.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    > Some of us pay for YouTube Premium. I have considered that actually but it would mean I have to give them my credit card thereby tying my real identity to the Google/YouTube account. I might consider it if they sold those gift cards that you can buy with cash at a convenience store.
    - bad_user 3y ago
      This is a good reason, but it's niche, and such level of privacy isn't sustainable for most people. Because they are Google, and they know the location of your IP address better than anyone (since they have Wi-fi info, too), so if you can't trust them at all and fear repercussions, you'd better access them via Tor or some VPN you can trust. Personally, I trust my local authorities, since I'm an EU citizen and the GDPR applies. I know this may be naive, but Google has implemented many changes in response to the GDPR already, and for me it's the only alternative short of avoiding them completely. Speaking of Chromium, forks still exist, like Vivaldi or Brave, and they ship with ads blockers that are not subject to the limitations of Manifest v3.
      - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago