4 ms·

>So, if you use Chrome, or a Chrome-based browser Seems Mozilla may have an opening in browser market share, if they allow add blocking extensions. But how lo

by jmclnx 2y ago

>So, if you use Chrome, or a Chrome-based browser Seems Mozilla may have an opening in browser market share, if they allow add blocking extensions. But how long before sites start blocking Firefox ? Already on some sites have issues when people are using a VPN. Yes, I did try browsing with out add blockers, and the experience was terrible. Some "mainstream" sites you would think would know better had multiple popups. So blocker on. I would not mind ads as long as they were not intrusive, but seems it is getting worse and worse.

Arnt 2y ago
Manifest v2 → v3 isn't really about allowing or disallowing adblockers. https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-manifest-v3/ https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-ma... has a 12-line ad blocker that's pretty effective against Google's own ads. Ad blockers suffer more or less by accident. v2 was too easy to use for evil extensions.
- wruza 2y ago
  Skeptical readers will note that this trivial approach blocks one type of Google’s ads, but not every type of Google ads. And that’s certainly true. And then proceeds to sweep it under some nostalgy. Nice try ;) To learn what something is about, learn what it does to money. Subj does good to money, so it is for that. Extension security is a lateral positive effect used for marketing. If it was important, MV2 would get upgraded soon after or even before its release. They didn’t care for all these years, only now it crossed their mind. Sure, sure. And they won’t include the most important project on the web into the standard suite. “No, it’s for everyone, we can’t make exceptions and we’ll remove the page access functionality for other browsers cause that’s uhm… un… unsustainable! Such an accident, ad blocking was so good.”. That’s a quantum law of bigcorps, there’s nothing under the money layer. Everything beyond money is just an interpretation and a side effect.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The fundamental problem is that centralizing Google (née Doubleclick) considers well-loved libre software and lower-tier surveillance industry malware to be equivalently worthy of trust. It's a reasonable goal to keep Grandma from installing no-name extension #837 (bundled with bottom-market surveillance malware) in spite of herself. But projects like UBO and syncthing have reputations that frankly deserve more trust than Google, itself a top-market player in the surveillance industry.
- consteval 2y ago
  I don't think this is the case. Rather, ad-blocking-blocking was the primary motivation, and the undoing of evilness is a byproduct that allows much better marketability. In reality, extensions are user-installed software. There is ALWAYS a risk with user-installed software on a PC. It's one thing if this is code webpages can automatically serve to you - then, the security is larger concern. But I, for example, don't see anyone trying to clean up Win32 for security's sake. The closest thing I can think of is Wayland, which is also for security. But - that's desktop wide, for absolutely all software.
winternett 2y ago
All of these workarounds are temporary & flimsy --- They will not last long and will certainly not get better, as the rules put in place as well as the tech behind ad delivery are rapidly and constantly changing. We as users & consumers are being abused by these practices, and ads and monthly subscription models are being used as a weapon to get us to pay ridiculous (& arbitrarily increasing) prices for mostly unhelpful services and entertainment now more than ever that still include ads -- It's the beginning of madness & a new form of veiled consumer mass-fleecing. By accepting the ad infiltration and enrolling, we're only funding our own process of shooting ourselves in the foot. They're even getting as bold as to stop sales of physical media (DVDs and CDs) to not allow choices during the worst economy that could possibly exist for consumer opportunity. The underlying problem is the abusive and untrustworthy way modern ads are being implemented into everything by big business & media companies. They're removing the ability to block ads, because they want to sell a new monthly subscription just to get less ads, and the price will go up until most people can't afford to be on the Internet at all... They're also secretly lobbying to prevent independents from running websites and apps in many ways too. This model was tested on Twitter, where it's gentrified the community now, and driven most past (free) users completely off the platform... Twitter is still highly unprofitable, so it's completely baffling to me as to why companies think this new ad-spam business model will actually work in the long run for their profit. We will also have no options for interaction or entertainment if the Internet goes out, save for a few people with physical media saved from a long time prior to the outage... It's Titanic-Level hubris to buy into this business model. These ads create such an absolutely jarring experience in navigating sites now, I actually completely avoid implementing them on my sites and apps for that same reason, and to be honest, I never click on them no matter what. With the ways that social apps, and ad content is converging, the Internet, once highly useful for valid information, is now a hellscape of distraction, undesired content, and disinformation meant to drive political overload and consumerism. We need to start asking where the happy medium is in all of this. Not everything should be for-profit, and laced with ads, and the things that have ads can perhaps be less essential to serious need and function. Microsoft embedding ads into it's OS and office apps is a perfect example of how the frenzy to capture pennies per click has turned on it's head. people are writing secure and private documentation on apps that are willing to place tracking and adware so easily into mission critical applications that it's eroding trust in products altogether. We should expect more from these very large and well profitable companies that are entrusted with mission critical services. Elon scuttling Twitter for his own personal gain was not a crime, but in many ways it was a failure of trust for the service, and I'm honestly still surprised how people are still paying for verification on the platform and buying Teslas to fund his nonsensical ego-maniacal escapades in elitism. As a consumer economy, we need to shape up and start sending messages to these corporations to shape up and put customer service and respect back at the forefront of their operations at the risk of failure. This model of abusing customers until they pay is NOT in line with a democratic country, and apparently Congress is never going to get it's act together on tech regulation, so we need to vote in more savvy reps that will pay deep attention to tech fleecing and manipulation. Otherwise, by next year, we'll need to watch a video ad between reading each paragraph, and in 5 years we may damn well be required to watch a 3 minute ad before being able to exit our cars.

by jmclnx 2y ago

Arnt 2y ago

Manifest v2 → v3 isn't really about allowing or disallowing adblockers. https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-manifest-v3/ https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-ma... has a 12-line ad blocker that's pretty effective against Google's own ads. Ad blockers suffer more or less by accident. v2 was too easy to use for evil extensions.

wruza 2y ago
Skeptical readers will note that this trivial approach blocks one type of Google’s ads, but not every type of Google ads. And that’s certainly true. And then proceeds to sweep it under some nostalgy. Nice try ;) To learn what something is about, learn what it does to money. Subj does good to money, so it is for that. Extension security is a lateral positive effect used for marketing. If it was important, MV2 would get upgraded soon after or even before its release. They didn’t care for all these years, only now it crossed their mind. Sure, sure. And they won’t include the most important project on the web into the standard suite. “No, it’s for everyone, we can’t make exceptions and we’ll remove the page access functionality for other browsers cause that’s uhm… un… unsustainable! Such an accident, ad blocking was so good.”. That’s a quantum law of bigcorps, there’s nothing under the money layer. Everything beyond money is just an interpretation and a side effect.
mindslight 2y ago
The fundamental problem is that centralizing Google (née Doubleclick) considers well-loved libre software and lower-tier surveillance industry malware to be equivalently worthy of trust. It's a reasonable goal to keep Grandma from installing no-name extension #837 (bundled with bottom-market surveillance malware) in spite of herself. But projects like UBO and syncthing have reputations that frankly deserve more trust than Google, itself a top-market player in the surveillance industry.
consteval 2y ago
I don't think this is the case. Rather, ad-blocking-blocking was the primary motivation, and the undoing of evilness is a byproduct that allows much better marketability. In reality, extensions are user-installed software. There is ALWAYS a risk with user-installed software on a PC. It's one thing if this is code webpages can automatically serve to you - then, the security is larger concern. But I, for example, don't see anyone trying to clean up Win32 for security's sake. The closest thing I can think of is Wayland, which is also for security. But - that's desktop wide, for absolutely all software.

winternett 2y ago

All of these workarounds are temporary & flimsy --- They will not last long and will certainly not get better, as the rules put in place as well as the tech behind ad delivery are rapidly and constantly changing. We as users & consumers are being abused by these practices, and ads and monthly subscription models are being used as a weapon to get us to pay ridiculous (& arbitrarily increasing) prices for mostly unhelpful services and entertainment now more than ever that still include ads -- It's the beginning of madness & a new form of veiled consumer mass-fleecing. By accepting the ad infiltration and enrolling, we're only funding our own process of shooting ourselves in the foot. They're even getting as bold as to stop sales of physical media (DVDs and CDs) to not allow choices during the worst economy that could possibly exist for consumer opportunity. The underlying problem is the abusive and untrustworthy way modern ads are being implemented into everything by big business & media companies. They're removing the ability to block ads, because they want to sell a new monthly subscription just to get less ads, and the price will go up until most people can't afford to be on the Internet at all... They're also secretly lobbying to prevent independents from running websites and apps in many ways too. This model was tested on Twitter, where it's gentrified the community now, and driven most past (free) users completely off the platform... Twitter is still highly unprofitable, so it's completely baffling to me as to why companies think this new ad-spam business model will actually work in the long run for their profit. We will also have no options for interaction or entertainment if the Internet goes out, save for a few people with physical media saved from a long time prior to the outage... It's Titanic-Level hubris to buy into this business model. These ads create such an absolutely jarring experience in navigating sites now, I actually completely avoid implementing them on my sites and apps for that same reason, and to be honest, I never click on them no matter what. With the ways that social apps, and ad content is converging, the Internet, once highly useful for valid information, is now a hellscape of distraction, undesired content, and disinformation meant to drive political overload and consumerism. We need to start asking where the happy medium is in all of this. Not everything should be for-profit, and laced with ads, and the things that have ads can perhaps be less essential to serious need and function. Microsoft embedding ads into it's OS and office apps is a perfect example of how the frenzy to capture pennies per click has turned on it's head. people are writing secure and private documentation on apps that are willing to place tracking and adware so easily into mission critical applications that it's eroding trust in products altogether. We should expect more from these very large and well profitable companies that are entrusted with mission critical services. Elon scuttling Twitter for his own personal gain was not a crime, but in many ways it was a failure of trust for the service, and I'm honestly still surprised how people are still paying for verification on the platform and buying Teslas to fund his nonsensical ego-maniacal escapades in elitism. As a consumer economy, we need to shape up and start sending messages to these corporations to shape up and put customer service and respect back at the forefront of their operations at the risk of failure. This model of abusing customers until they pay is NOT in line with a democratic country, and apparently Congress is never going to get it's act together on tech regulation, so we need to vote in more savvy reps that will pay deep attention to tech fleecing and manipulation. Otherwise, by next year, we'll need to watch a video ad between reading each paragraph, and in 5 years we may damn well be required to watch a 3 minute ad before being able to exit our cars.