3 ms·
Sometimes the obvious answer that the ad company wants to limit its browser's ability to block their revenue stream really is the correct one. The technical rea
by plorkyeran 2y ago
Sometimes the obvious answer that the ad company wants to limit its browser's ability to block their revenue stream really is the correct one. The technical reasons they've given have all been clearly working backwards to find justifications.
- hightrix 2y agoExactly correct. The advertising company doesn’t want unlimited ad blocking on their ad driven browser. Googles brand is becoming more and more toxic, from my perspective.
- amy-petrik-214 2y agofor those looking to switch to firefox (as I did) do be warned that although I make no claim as to whether its more nor less evil than google, firefox does have various ad-related perks sometimes turned on by default... sometimes turned on suddenly with an update a la windows. Firefox in theory lets you cut it all out, but just expect that cutting is needing to be done to get there
- tjpnz 2y agoRecommend tabs being one of them. Hadn't noticed it until recently when it started recommending Facebook. Yuck. Thankfully you can turn it off.
- tjpnz 2y agoThis is starting to make what MS did in the 90s look tame by comparison. Google need to be broken up.
- krackers 2y agoIt sure is awfully convenient that MV3 by design will prevent referal-stripping extensions https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/302 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/302 (By the way, the meeting minutes are all published so you can read exactly how they're conspiring to kill your privacy and security. Take note of how many times they decide not to implement something citing that they don't want to engage in a cat-mouse game. How benevolent of them, to make the hard decisions on our behalf.)