8 ms·

uBlock Origin forcefully disabled by Chrome

220 points by doppp 2y ago

lalaland1125 2y ago
This all makes sense when you think of the money at stake. Reducing a block usage by even 10% is worth billions of dollars a year in revenue for Google
- joquarky 2y ago
  Are they giving equal value to people who don't mind the ads, and people who hate ads enough to install an ad blocker?
SecretDreams 2y ago
You can turn it back on for another couple of months in the app settings. Short, we need to ditch chrome, but what is best alternative?
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
  Firefox was the right browser for a very long time. If you are a software developer and you are using Chrome, shame on you
  - uncomplexity_ 2y ago
    firefox literally just rugpulled everyone by officially selling people's data starting last week.
    - hparadiz 2y ago
      So disable data sharing. The alternative is selling your data without saying a thing.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      The controversy was misinformation, and the parent post wasn't even what the controversy was. People thought FF had been doing it before. The reality is, as I understand, they just updated their terms to cover all possible legal issues - including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data.
      - mimasama 2y ago
        > including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data. Mozilla has never used the data you upload/send via Firefox to non-Mozilla websites (as it should be), and they shouldn't have that permission just as Epson the company shouldn't have the right to use for any purpose a paper marked as classified just because some fed employee sent a digital copy of it to an Epson printer.
        mmooss 2y ago
        They don't have that permission.
        wtallis 2y ago
        Except for the specific cases where their Privacy Notice does give them permission to collect and sell user information, such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about. Just read the terms rather than spread misinformation. That data doesn't leave the user's computer. Do you just not care what happens to Mozilla? How does it help to spread misinformation about them?
        wtallis 2y ago
        Excerpts from the Privacy Notice that I have read, and attempted to get you to read: > Mozilla processes certain technical and interaction data, such as how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. Mozilla's partners receive de-identified information about interactions with the suggestions they've served. > Depending on your location, Mozilla derives the high level category (e.g., travel, shopping) of your search from keywords in that query, in order to understand the types and number of searches being made. > Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Your claim "That data doesn't leave the user's computer" is simply not true. Mozilla isn't selling empty files to their advertising partners. The only true and valid defense you've put up for Mozilla in the past week is that they're trying to anonymize the data before they sell it, but that's not nearly as strong an argument as you seem to think it is.
    - aembleton 2y ago
      Where can I buy the data? Or who are they selling it to?
      - agelas 2y ago
        [dead]
  - hypothesis 2y ago
    This is high and mighty, but didn’t they fire security team a year or so ago (couldn’t afford pay for higher ups)? I like how everyone just memory-holed that part and moved on… why would you recommend that to anyone?
- jpalawaga 2y ago
  I've been using Firefox for the last 4+ years and it's been mostly fine. I have Chrome for the very occasional site that doesn't behave right, but they're few and far between (like maybe once a year).
- nycdatasci 2y ago
  Brave?
- sergiotapia 2y ago
  Brave. Fast, runs light on battery, i've seen zero ads since using Brave. it's baked in you don't even think about it. they added some kind of weird stuff like ai and wallets but you dont need to use it or invoke the ui
  - topspin 2y ago
    Remember, the business model[1] of Brave Software, Inc. is various cryptocurrency schemes including the BAT currency ad scheme integrated into the Brave browser. Also, the CEO and co-founder of Brave Software, Inc. is Brendan Eich, a financial supporter[2] of the CA Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
    - chneu 2y ago
      It's wild to me how many folks are suggesting Brave, which is a known scam browser which calls itself privacy focused while doing the opposite.
    - throwme_123 2y ago
      Brendan Eich is also the inventor of JavaScript and the former CTO of Mozilla. While I don't support Prop 8 personally, I don't think we should judge technical products on political opinions of their author. You may think it's funny to advocate for bans and boycotts, until the other side does it too and we get a world split in 2 (or more).
      - topspin 2y ago
        > You may think it's funny There is nothing funny here at all. I'm so cynical about all of it that, as a many years long Brave user, I'm actively discouraging people from using it, because if Brave ever has enough users to be a problem for adtech, it will be destroyed. So if the crypto stink or ancient crimes against the progressive project can help forestall this for a few years, then at least they're good for something. As for Eich and JavaScript; technically, I doubt more that 0.1% of working coders are fit to lace his boots. Myself included.
- rsanheim 2y ago
  Firefox is a less bad option, even with the recent stupid policy changes they've made. Or there are a bunch of other options that care about privacy (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/). Brave, Librewolf, Arc, Zen, Orion (Kagi's thing). I tried Orion for a few days recently, but it started crashing randomly and felt unstable and slowed down after real-world use (3-6 windows, many many tabs, dev tools, etc). I really wish there was more competition here from the smaller, privacy focused players...but the reality is building a browser is insanely difficult for the modern web.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. And thank WHATWG for making it impossible for indie players to remain compliant with modern standards by turning W3C's eminently reasonable and wholly sufficient specifications into a hulking monstrosity that's simultaneously large enough to be used as a stress test for your mobile browser's rendering engine (seriously. go try to load up 'view-source:https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/'. At the time of writing, the HTML for that single-page version is over 98,254 lines composing over 15MB of plain HTML) while simultaneously quite literally being defined as a continuously moving target.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      > Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. They had other options, including not collecting and selling user data. The California law is working as intended.
      - anonym29 2y ago
        They're not selling user data in any sense that any ordinary, reasonable person would understand, only in California's excessively broad definition that may technically cover a litany of entirely noncommercial uses, like using opt-in customer metadata to improve their own free product, without distributing it to any third party at all. Businesses like to avoid risk where possible, and Mozilla's lawyers pushed this wording to ensure compliance with the riskiest possible interpretation of California's ambiguous and poorly-worded law.
- jppope 2y ago
  Tier 1: Brave, Arc, Ladybird Tier 2: Safari, Firefox Tier 3: Curl, lynx ... Tier 30: Chrome, Edge
  - tavavex 2y ago
    Brave is definitely not a 'tier 1' browser in any world. Their whole existence had been mired in controversy after controversy[1], lots of these incidents involving privacy and general shady behavior. Arc is kind of promising, but I never really tried it after discovering that it's the only browser I've ever seen that requires (!) you to have an account with them. The obvious next question is 'what for?' [1] - https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave_browser_controversies/ https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave...
  - stephen_g 2y ago
    I have very high hopes for Ladybird as it's being developed, but it's not really fair to call it Tier 1 when it's pre-alpha stage and not really suitable for general use yet...
  - dcchambers 2y ago
    Surely your tier 1 is a joke. Ladybird isn't even targeting an alpha release until 2026.[^1] The Browser Company has basically decided to kill off Arc in favor of...Dia, whatever that is/will be.[^2] And Brave...oh Brave. Too much controversy there over the years to be interesting, honestly. Tier 1 is actually just Firefox, maybe Safari if you only care about MacOS/iOS. Interesting up-and-comers are Orion and Ladybird, but both are far from "tier 1" currently. [^1]: https://ladybird.org/ [^2]: https://www.diabrowser.com/
peeters 2y ago
Is there any kind of alternative to uMatrix in the ManifestV3 world? I'm assuming no. It's just a shame that my browsing experience went to complete trash overnight. I'll obviously be moving away from Chrome where I can, but not sure what to do with my Chromebook.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- muppetman 2y ago
  uBlockOrigin Lite. It's nowhere near as powerful but it'll help. Edit: Sorry you said Matrix. I don't think so.
- jamesy0ung 2y ago
  You can replace the ChromeOS bootloader with upstream Coreboot and use SeaBIOS or edk2 payloads to turn it into a generic x86 laptop and install Linux.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    Can you recommend any good guides for doing so?
- mmooss 2y ago
  uMatrix hasn't been updated in 4+ years, or is gorhill (or someone) distributing an updated version outside the addon stores?
  - gnabgib 2y ago
    uMatrix[0] (discontinued/archived in 2021)[1] and uBlock Origin (UBO)[2] are both by Raymond Hill/@gorhill.. he said he can only afford the time to continue with one and chose the latter. I'm guessing GP meant UBO. (UBOlite is also by @gorhill, but it's constrained by the browser) [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27602118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27602118 [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
jamesy0ung 2y ago
Mozilla literally chose the worst possible time to change the Firefox terms. They could be scooping up disgruntled Chrome users, yet all they did was generate a load of negative noise.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Unless it's actually the "best" time, because they didn't want disturbed Firefox users switching the other way...
  - benterix 2y ago
    Interesting conspiracy theory, but it would imply they were directly bribed by Google because their normal salary depends on the popularity of Firefox so frankly, it makes little sense.
    - sshine 2y ago
      I hate to break it to you, but their normal salary depends directly more on Google. Google paid Mozilla $600M in 2022 for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Mozilla is directly bribed by Google.
      - rubslopes 2y ago
        I think OP meant that they only receive the allowance because they are popular enough.
    - tessierashpool9 2y ago
      mozilla is bribed by google on a regular basis and officially at that :)
- mmooss 2y ago
  [flagged]
- koakuma-chan 2y ago
tananaev 2y ago
What are the limitations of uBlock Origin Lite compared to the original extension?
- LiamPowell 2y ago
  In practice, not much if you're not writing your own filters or using the umatrix-like functionality. There's a few rules that can't be ported but these don't apply to most sites: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... One massive upside is there's now a less comprehensive mode that doesn't allow the extension to view and edit the complete DOM of every page, which has actually made me comfortable enough to use it for regular browsing as opposed to just turning UBO on for certain sites.
  - wruza 2y ago
    Another upside is that sites can now just use these banners that Lite cannot block. We can finally block ads in our webpages and have ads! Win-win. This couldn’t be ever achieved without the truly titanic coordination efforts from google.
    - LiamPowell 2y ago
      Will they though? I don't think they will for 2 reasons: 1. Ad blocking on Safari has worked like this for years and none of the major ad networks have chosen to act on that fact. 2. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried (e.g. server-side embedding of randomly obfuscated JS).
      - wruza 2y ago
        Ad blocking on safari is obscure, I regularly see tech threads where people aren’t even aware it exists. Mobile ads blocking for default browsers was always a puzzle. This means too little market share to address. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried Cause arms race with a dynamic blocker is expensive and futile. You are trying to s/UBO/UBO Lite/ in this sentence and convince things will work the same way, they won’t.
throwaway48476 2y ago
This is just step 1 in googles plan to 'fix' the mistake of the open web. Next up is DRM and web attestation.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Grateful that I will soon have an LLM do all my browsing for me in a sandbox VM
  - TheDong 2y ago
    It's much more efficient for the LLM to directly inject ads into your brain rather than the old way, where you might accidentally see the google results below the ads. Google made a search engine. They became rich from ads. Facebook made a social network. They became rich from ads. OpenAI made a chatbot. They're trying to figure out how to become rich. The adblock of the future will be buying $12k worth of GPUs in order to run an "ad-free" LLM locally.
vezycash 2y ago
A dns based adblocker like nextdns.io can help to a large extent. It doesn't block YouTube ads in my experience though
arealaccount 2y ago
Love all the work arounds - right click the button and inspect to undisable it, etc. You can just install Firefox But im scared of their bad privacy policy But you’re logged into reddit, and you’re… using Chrome? Why is FF the one app that you’re a privacy policy enthusiast when you couldn’t care less on every other app you’re using Your mission is not to have invasive and possibly malicious ads then, like, Firefox does that. Its so weird to me why people make all these reasons to stay on Google Chrome when they allegedly hate it and its incredibly trivial to just use firefox
- bediger4000 2y ago
  The rhetoric and weirdness about staying with Chrome are reminiscent to the rhetoric and weirdness justifying staying on Windows when Ubuntu (or...) and MacOS are right there.
  - Panzer04 2y ago
    There is no functional difference between chrome and Firefox. If you are at all dissatisfied with google it's trivial to switch. I don't think the analogy holds
    - healsdata 2y ago
      There are plenty of crappy but important websites that don't work with Firefox and there's hardly ever a way of knowing that's the issue without opening Chrome and seeing that it works there. I'm not putting Firefox on my dad's PC just so he complains about not being able to access his bank, etc. Maybe Mozilla should focus on that issue instead of an AI website builder, ad server, etc.
      - Panzer04 2y ago
        Not sure about plenty; I've been using Firefox for years now and not encountered any real issues like that. Each to their own, I just disagree that Firefox isn't a real alternative in the same way Linux is to windows.
CGamesPlay 2y ago
It doesn't seem to be removed and the install button isn't grayed out when using Brave: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...
xnx 2y ago
Headline is a little misleading. "Forcefully disabled" is more accurate. This happened to me for uBlock and dozens of other extensions. The top comment on that Reddit thread has the answer: "You can still enable it. Not supported is a lie. It still works. On the extensions page you have to select "Keep" and then reconfirm. Then scroll down to the extension and click the slider. Then reconfirm AGAIN and then it will work"
- wtallis 2y ago
  Forcefully disabled, for now, with plans to permanently break it in the near future. The last officially-sanctioned workaround is planned to be killed in June.
  - xnx 2y ago
    Definitely. When I can no longer block ads, I'm out. Until then, business as usual.
- dang 2y ago
  Ok we've put that in the title above. Thanks!
spl757 2y ago
[flagged]
Sephr 2y ago
If only Ladybird development had taken off sooner. The best balance of {respectful defaults, security, privacy, extensibility} out of the top 5 browsers seems to be Brave[1] for now, which isn't the most ideal situation. 1. https://eligrey.com/blog/choosing-a-browser/ https://eligrey.com/blog/choosing-a-browser/
- throwme_123 2y ago
  Why not ideal?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- TheDong 2y ago
  Why not firefox? the recent firefox privacy policy stuff seems way overblown to me, like you can read the firefox source code and know they aren't shipping your inputs off to google or whatever. On the other hand, brave has provably run afoul of stealing cryptocurrency donations, and trying to trick users into adding referral codes unintentionally. https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 Firefox hasn't had anything of that magnitude, has it?
LiamPowell 2y ago
I feel like it should be mentioned that on the page that Chrome presents showing that the extension was removed they actively suggest installing UBO Lite. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what that says about Google, but it's a pretty important detail that the original poster chose not to include.
- cebert 2y ago
  I think that’s just an effort on the part of Google to minimize the damage done by this change. UBO Lite is crippled.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    It's not really crippled. I've noticed no increase in ads from using it at all. It's just less efficient under the surface.
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      Yet
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pton_xd 2y ago
What's the reasoning behind this? Anyone working at Google care to share with us?
- tw04 2y ago
  The claim is for security. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the fact it primarily affects ad blockers was a happy little accident or intentional on Google’s part.
  - cptskippy 2y ago
    Their revenue streams are now secure.
    - hbn 2y ago
      The bag is secured
- rsanheim 2y ago
  The days of Google engaging with the tech community, or even pretending to try and explain their decisions when it comes to Chrome, SEO, or search quality are long, long gone. There really is no need for an explanation here, its all laid out: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings tells you everything you need to know.
- paxys 2y ago
  The reasoning is that Google, an advertising company, wants to show you ads
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- adrr 2y ago
  Security. Extensions can't pull it remote scripts and execute them on a web page. Everything has to be in the extension so you know exactly what it is doing. All the browsers will switch to manifest v3, they all testing it now including Firefox.
todsacerdoti 2y ago
No surprise but tragic nonetheless.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
UberFly 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
maxglute 2y ago
So anyway to backup chrome extensions and prevent updates? Still have several deprecated extensions with no alternative.
- xethos 2y ago
  This is on-par with asking how to keep using your 32-bit and PowerPC apps on MacOS. Not even OSX, but modern MacOS. The OEM is actively pulling support and working against you. There is no stable solution; at best you can have "This week we're doing X", and the correct solution is to move away from the unsupported software that depends on depreciated APIs that are being actively ripped out. Having "no alternative" is one of the many reasons the open ecosystem we call the web, matters. Why having a single choice, especially one run by an ad agency, is a shite spot to be in. Unless you are willing to do your web browsing on an unpatched version of Chrome, or a fork run by a smaller team that "can totally keep up with Google's pace of development, trust us, those security patches made it in", you're kind of hooped.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    Critical industrial software runs on windows 95, such is life. I've tried migrating to firefox several times last couple years, but essential functionality still lacking (though improving). I'll choose workflow over security, as I imagine many others will.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      What essential functionality do you think Firefox lacks?
- tim333 2y ago
  I've tried blocking updates. I got told by an llm to rename ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate on the macbook so we'll see how that goes.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
nbittich 2y ago
Glad I switched to Firefox years ago.
palisade 2y ago
I'm surprised no one is mentioning Brave. They refuse to take Chrome's change.
- chneu 2y ago
  Because Brave is a scam browser that nobody should be using. There are other chromium forks that don't scam you. Brave's history of scumbag actions isn't anything new.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Hardly news is it? But here's some recent discussion: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43239774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43239774
waltercool 2y ago
[dead]
QuantumGood 2y ago
Chrome with Ublock origin works through June 2025, via "browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025". Discussion on how to enable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812638
Goodtimejohnny 2y ago
[dead]

220 points by doppp 2y ago

This all makes sense when you think of the money at stake. Reducing a block usage by even 10% is worth billions of dollars a year in revenue for Google

joquarky 2y ago
Are they giving equal value to people who don't mind the ads, and people who hate ads enough to install an ad blocker?

SecretDreams 2y ago

You can turn it back on for another couple of months in the app settings. Short, we need to ditch chrome, but what is best alternative?

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
Firefox was the right browser for a very long time. If you are a software developer and you are using Chrome, shame on you
- uncomplexity_ 2y ago
  firefox literally just rugpulled everyone by officially selling people's data starting last week.
  - hparadiz 2y ago
    So disable data sharing. The alternative is selling your data without saying a thing.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    The controversy was misinformation, and the parent post wasn't even what the controversy was. People thought FF had been doing it before. The reality is, as I understand, they just updated their terms to cover all possible legal issues - including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data.
    - mimasama 2y ago
      > including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data. Mozilla has never used the data you upload/send via Firefox to non-Mozilla websites (as it should be), and they shouldn't have that permission just as Epson the company shouldn't have the right to use for any purpose a paper marked as classified just because some fed employee sent a digital copy of it to an Epson printer.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        They don't have that permission.
        wtallis 2y ago
        Except for the specific cases where their Privacy Notice does give them permission to collect and sell user information, such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about. Just read the terms rather than spread misinformation. That data doesn't leave the user's computer. Do you just not care what happens to Mozilla? How does it help to spread misinformation about them?
        wtallis 2y ago
        Excerpts from the Privacy Notice that I have read, and attempted to get you to read: > Mozilla processes certain technical and interaction data, such as how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. Mozilla's partners receive de-identified information about interactions with the suggestions they've served. > Depending on your location, Mozilla derives the high level category (e.g., travel, shopping) of your search from keywords in that query, in order to understand the types and number of searches being made. > Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Your claim "That data doesn't leave the user's computer" is simply not true. Mozilla isn't selling empty files to their advertising partners. The only true and valid defense you've put up for Mozilla in the past week is that they're trying to anonymize the data before they sell it, but that's not nearly as strong an argument as you seem to think it is.
  - aembleton 2y ago
    Where can I buy the data? Or who are they selling it to?
    - agelas 2y ago
      [dead]
- hypothesis 2y ago
  This is high and mighty, but didn’t they fire security team a year or so ago (couldn’t afford pay for higher ups)? I like how everyone just memory-holed that part and moved on… why would you recommend that to anyone?
jpalawaga 2y ago
I've been using Firefox for the last 4+ years and it's been mostly fine. I have Chrome for the very occasional site that doesn't behave right, but they're few and far between (like maybe once a year).
nycdatasci 2y ago
Brave?
sergiotapia 2y ago
Brave. Fast, runs light on battery, i've seen zero ads since using Brave. it's baked in you don't even think about it. they added some kind of weird stuff like ai and wallets but you dont need to use it or invoke the ui
- topspin 2y ago
  Remember, the business model[1] of Brave Software, Inc. is various cryptocurrency schemes including the BAT currency ad scheme integrated into the Brave browser. Also, the CEO and co-founder of Brave Software, Inc. is Brendan Eich, a financial supporter[2] of the CA Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
  - chneu 2y ago
    It's wild to me how many folks are suggesting Brave, which is a known scam browser which calls itself privacy focused while doing the opposite.
  - throwme_123 2y ago
    Brendan Eich is also the inventor of JavaScript and the former CTO of Mozilla. While I don't support Prop 8 personally, I don't think we should judge technical products on political opinions of their author. You may think it's funny to advocate for bans and boycotts, until the other side does it too and we get a world split in 2 (or more).
    - topspin 2y ago
      > You may think it's funny There is nothing funny here at all. I'm so cynical about all of it that, as a many years long Brave user, I'm actively discouraging people from using it, because if Brave ever has enough users to be a problem for adtech, it will be destroyed. So if the crypto stink or ancient crimes against the progressive project can help forestall this for a few years, then at least they're good for something. As for Eich and JavaScript; technically, I doubt more that 0.1% of working coders are fit to lace his boots. Myself included.
rsanheim 2y ago
Firefox is a less bad option, even with the recent stupid policy changes they've made. Or there are a bunch of other options that care about privacy (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/). Brave, Librewolf, Arc, Zen, Orion (Kagi's thing). I tried Orion for a few days recently, but it started crashing randomly and felt unstable and slowed down after real-world use (3-6 windows, many many tabs, dev tools, etc). I really wish there was more competition here from the smaller, privacy focused players...but the reality is building a browser is insanely difficult for the modern web.
- anonym29 2y ago
  Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. And thank WHATWG for making it impossible for indie players to remain compliant with modern standards by turning W3C's eminently reasonable and wholly sufficient specifications into a hulking monstrosity that's simultaneously large enough to be used as a stress test for your mobile browser's rendering engine (seriously. go try to load up 'view-source:https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/'. At the time of writing, the HTML for that single-page version is over 98,254 lines composing over 15MB of plain HTML) while simultaneously quite literally being defined as a continuously moving target.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. They had other options, including not collecting and selling user data. The California law is working as intended.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      They're not selling user data in any sense that any ordinary, reasonable person would understand, only in California's excessively broad definition that may technically cover a litany of entirely noncommercial uses, like using opt-in customer metadata to improve their own free product, without distributing it to any third party at all. Businesses like to avoid risk where possible, and Mozilla's lawyers pushed this wording to ensure compliance with the riskiest possible interpretation of California's ambiguous and poorly-worded law.
jppope 2y ago
Tier 1: Brave, Arc, Ladybird Tier 2: Safari, Firefox Tier 3: Curl, lynx ... Tier 30: Chrome, Edge
- tavavex 2y ago
  Brave is definitely not a 'tier 1' browser in any world. Their whole existence had been mired in controversy after controversy[1], lots of these incidents involving privacy and general shady behavior. Arc is kind of promising, but I never really tried it after discovering that it's the only browser I've ever seen that requires (!) you to have an account with them. The obvious next question is 'what for?' [1] - https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave_browser_controversies/ https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave...
- stephen_g 2y ago
  I have very high hopes for Ladybird as it's being developed, but it's not really fair to call it Tier 1 when it's pre-alpha stage and not really suitable for general use yet...
- dcchambers 2y ago
  Surely your tier 1 is a joke. Ladybird isn't even targeting an alpha release until 2026.[^1] The Browser Company has basically decided to kill off Arc in favor of...Dia, whatever that is/will be.[^2] And Brave...oh Brave. Too much controversy there over the years to be interesting, honestly. Tier 1 is actually just Firefox, maybe Safari if you only care about MacOS/iOS. Interesting up-and-comers are Orion and Ladybird, but both are far from "tier 1" currently. [^1]: https://ladybird.org/ [^2]: https://www.diabrowser.com/

peeters 2y ago

Is there any kind of alternative to uMatrix in the ManifestV3 world? I'm assuming no. It's just a shame that my browsing experience went to complete trash overnight. I'll obviously be moving away from Chrome where I can, but not sure what to do with my Chromebook.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
muppetman 2y ago
uBlockOrigin Lite. It's nowhere near as powerful but it'll help. Edit: Sorry you said Matrix. I don't think so.
jamesy0ung 2y ago
You can replace the ChromeOS bootloader with upstream Coreboot and use SeaBIOS or edk2 payloads to turn it into a generic x86 laptop and install Linux.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  Can you recommend any good guides for doing so?
mmooss 2y ago
uMatrix hasn't been updated in 4+ years, or is gorhill (or someone) distributing an updated version outside the addon stores?
- gnabgib 2y ago
  uMatrix[0] (discontinued/archived in 2021)[1] and uBlock Origin (UBO)[2] are both by Raymond Hill/@gorhill.. he said he can only afford the time to continue with one and chose the latter. I'm guessing GP meant UBO. (UBOlite is also by @gorhill, but it's constrained by the browser) [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27602118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27602118 [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

jamesy0ung 2y ago

Mozilla literally chose the worst possible time to change the Firefox terms. They could be scooping up disgruntled Chrome users, yet all they did was generate a load of negative noise.

Terr_ 2y ago
Unless it's actually the "best" time, because they didn't want disturbed Firefox users switching the other way...
- benterix 2y ago
  Interesting conspiracy theory, but it would imply they were directly bribed by Google because their normal salary depends on the popularity of Firefox so frankly, it makes little sense.
  - sshine 2y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but their normal salary depends directly more on Google. Google paid Mozilla $600M in 2022 for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Mozilla is directly bribed by Google.
    - rubslopes 2y ago
      I think OP meant that they only receive the allowance because they are popular enough.
  - tessierashpool9 2y ago
    mozilla is bribed by google on a regular basis and officially at that :)
mmooss 2y ago
[flagged]
koakuma-chan 2y ago

tananaev 2y ago

What are the limitations of uBlock Origin Lite compared to the original extension?

LiamPowell 2y ago
In practice, not much if you're not writing your own filters or using the umatrix-like functionality. There's a few rules that can't be ported but these don't apply to most sites: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... One massive upside is there's now a less comprehensive mode that doesn't allow the extension to view and edit the complete DOM of every page, which has actually made me comfortable enough to use it for regular browsing as opposed to just turning UBO on for certain sites.
- wruza 2y ago
  Another upside is that sites can now just use these banners that Lite cannot block. We can finally block ads in our webpages and have ads! Win-win. This couldn’t be ever achieved without the truly titanic coordination efforts from google.
  - LiamPowell 2y ago
    Will they though? I don't think they will for 2 reasons: 1. Ad blocking on Safari has worked like this for years and none of the major ad networks have chosen to act on that fact. 2. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried (e.g. server-side embedding of randomly obfuscated JS).
    - wruza 2y ago
      Ad blocking on safari is obscure, I regularly see tech threads where people aren’t even aware it exists. Mobile ads blocking for default browsers was always a puzzle. This means too little market share to address. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried Cause arms race with a dynamic blocker is expensive and futile. You are trying to s/UBO/UBO Lite/ in this sentence and convince things will work the same way, they won’t.

throwaway48476 2y ago

This is just step 1 in googles plan to 'fix' the mistake of the open web. Next up is DRM and web attestation.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
Grateful that I will soon have an LLM do all my browsing for me in a sandbox VM
- TheDong 2y ago
  It's much more efficient for the LLM to directly inject ads into your brain rather than the old way, where you might accidentally see the google results below the ads. Google made a search engine. They became rich from ads. Facebook made a social network. They became rich from ads. OpenAI made a chatbot. They're trying to figure out how to become rich. The adblock of the future will be buying $12k worth of GPUs in order to run an "ad-free" LLM locally.

vezycash 2y ago

A dns based adblocker like nextdns.io can help to a large extent. It doesn't block YouTube ads in my experience though

arealaccount 2y ago

Love all the work arounds - right click the button and inspect to undisable it, etc. You can just install Firefox But im scared of their bad privacy policy But you’re logged into reddit, and you’re… using Chrome? Why is FF the one app that you’re a privacy policy enthusiast when you couldn’t care less on every other app you’re using Your mission is not to have invasive and possibly malicious ads then, like, Firefox does that. Its so weird to me why people make all these reasons to stay on Google Chrome when they allegedly hate it and its incredibly trivial to just use firefox

bediger4000 2y ago
The rhetoric and weirdness about staying with Chrome are reminiscent to the rhetoric and weirdness justifying staying on Windows when Ubuntu (or...) and MacOS are right there.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  There is no functional difference between chrome and Firefox. If you are at all dissatisfied with google it's trivial to switch. I don't think the analogy holds
  - healsdata 2y ago
    There are plenty of crappy but important websites that don't work with Firefox and there's hardly ever a way of knowing that's the issue without opening Chrome and seeing that it works there. I'm not putting Firefox on my dad's PC just so he complains about not being able to access his bank, etc. Maybe Mozilla should focus on that issue instead of an AI website builder, ad server, etc.
    - Panzer04 2y ago
      Not sure about plenty; I've been using Firefox for years now and not encountered any real issues like that. Each to their own, I just disagree that Firefox isn't a real alternative in the same way Linux is to windows.

CGamesPlay 2y ago

It doesn't seem to be removed and the install button isn't grayed out when using Brave: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...

xnx 2y ago

Headline is a little misleading. "Forcefully disabled" is more accurate. This happened to me for uBlock and dozens of other extensions. The top comment on that Reddit thread has the answer: "You can still enable it. Not supported is a lie. It still works. On the extensions page you have to select "Keep" and then reconfirm. Then scroll down to the extension and click the slider. Then reconfirm AGAIN and then it will work"

wtallis 2y ago
Forcefully disabled, for now, with plans to permanently break it in the near future. The last officially-sanctioned workaround is planned to be killed in June.
- xnx 2y ago
  Definitely. When I can no longer block ads, I'm out. Until then, business as usual.
dang 2y ago
Ok we've put that in the title above. Thanks!

spl757 2y ago

[flagged]

Sephr 2y ago

If only Ladybird development had taken off sooner. The best balance of {respectful defaults, security, privacy, extensibility} out of the top 5 browsers seems to be Brave[1] for now, which isn't the most ideal situation. 1. https://eligrey.com/blog/choosing-a-browser/ https://eligrey.com/blog/choosing-a-browser/

throwme_123 2y ago
Why not ideal?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
TheDong 2y ago
Why not firefox? the recent firefox privacy policy stuff seems way overblown to me, like you can read the firefox source code and know they aren't shipping your inputs off to google or whatever. On the other hand, brave has provably run afoul of stealing cryptocurrency donations, and trying to trick users into adding referral codes unintentionally. https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 Firefox hasn't had anything of that magnitude, has it?

LiamPowell 2y ago

I feel like it should be mentioned that on the page that Chrome presents showing that the extension was removed they actively suggest installing UBO Lite. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what that says about Google, but it's a pretty important detail that the original poster chose not to include.

cebert 2y ago
I think that’s just an effort on the part of Google to minimize the damage done by this change. UBO Lite is crippled.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  It's not really crippled. I've noticed no increase in ads from using it at all. It's just less efficient under the surface.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Yet

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pton_xd 2y ago

What's the reasoning behind this? Anyone working at Google care to share with us?

tw04 2y ago
The claim is for security. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the fact it primarily affects ad blockers was a happy little accident or intentional on Google’s part.
- cptskippy 2y ago
  Their revenue streams are now secure.
  - hbn 2y ago
    The bag is secured
rsanheim 2y ago
The days of Google engaging with the tech community, or even pretending to try and explain their decisions when it comes to Chrome, SEO, or search quality are long, long gone. There really is no need for an explanation here, its all laid out: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings tells you everything you need to know.
paxys 2y ago
The reasoning is that Google, an advertising company, wants to show you ads
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
adrr 2y ago
Security. Extensions can't pull it remote scripts and execute them on a web page. Everything has to be in the extension so you know exactly what it is doing. All the browsers will switch to manifest v3, they all testing it now including Firefox.

todsacerdoti 2y ago

No surprise but tragic nonetheless.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

UberFly 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

maxglute 2y ago

So anyway to backup chrome extensions and prevent updates? Still have several deprecated extensions with no alternative.

xethos 2y ago
This is on-par with asking how to keep using your 32-bit and PowerPC apps on MacOS. Not even OSX, but modern MacOS. The OEM is actively pulling support and working against you. There is no stable solution; at best you can have "This week we're doing X", and the correct solution is to move away from the unsupported software that depends on depreciated APIs that are being actively ripped out. Having "no alternative" is one of the many reasons the open ecosystem we call the web, matters. Why having a single choice, especially one run by an ad agency, is a shite spot to be in. Unless you are willing to do your web browsing on an unpatched version of Chrome, or a fork run by a smaller team that "can totally keep up with Google's pace of development, trust us, those security patches made it in", you're kind of hooped.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Critical industrial software runs on windows 95, such is life. I've tried migrating to firefox several times last couple years, but essential functionality still lacking (though improving). I'll choose workflow over security, as I imagine many others will.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    What essential functionality do you think Firefox lacks?
tim333 2y ago
I've tried blocking updates. I got told by an llm to rename ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate on the macbook so we'll see how that goes.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago

nbittich 2y ago

Glad I switched to Firefox years ago.

palisade 2y ago

I'm surprised no one is mentioning Brave. They refuse to take Chrome's change.

chneu 2y ago
Because Brave is a scam browser that nobody should be using. There are other chromium forks that don't scam you. Brave's history of scumbag actions isn't anything new.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Hardly news is it? But here's some recent discussion: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43239774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43239774

waltercool 2y ago

[dead]

QuantumGood 2y ago

Chrome with Ublock origin works through June 2025, via "browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025". Discussion on how to enable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812638

Goodtimejohnny 2y ago

[dead]