10 ms·

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of ac

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

high_priest 1y ago
Its not happening
- lytedev 1y ago
  It definitely is, buy I think the silent majority just don't care all that much. Is that what you're referring to?
- Etheryte 1y ago
  I don't know, I switched to Safari and it was painful for like two hours and then I stopped thinking about it. The only thing I somewhat miss is the built-in page translate, but I don't need it often enough to be bothered much.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    I find switching from chrome to safari essentially doing nothing. If you switched to a non-big-company owned browser, it would make sense but Apple has plenty of lock in which is as bad as chrome lock in.
    - fny 1y ago
      I'm a huge fan of Orion by Kagi: you should have a look! It's a little rough around the edges but the extension support on iOS is amazing.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Orion is the only viable option on iOS IMO. The fact that, to this day, Safari has no way to block ads on iOS means it's just awful. Before Orion, I avoided using my web browser like the plague, because the experience was just bad. Now I'm on Android, and Ironfox is pretty good and Firefox is also available. The browser story on Android is leaps and bounds ahead of iOS.
        tech234a 1y ago
        Actually there are several adblockers available for Safari on iOS; the functionality was introduced in 2015. Adblock Plus and Adguard are some of the larger extensions available, and now uBlock Origin Lite is now being beta tested for Safari on iOS.
        const_cast 1y ago
        I've never used these, but if I had to guess: these probably don't have the same power as full Manifest V2 extensions. Also names like "Adblock Plus" scare me. I don't want someone I don't trust getting my web activity.
        Etheryte 1y ago
        You don't have to guess, they're as capable as MV2 and AdGuard has been around for a long time.
        const_cast 1y ago
        A quick Google search reveals AdGuard is only a DNS resolver, so it has the adblocking power of something like a Pi Hole. So... nowhere near as capable. It can't inject JS into webpages to prevent pop ups, which is going to lead to white boxes everywhere. In addition, ads can obfuscate the URL or share domains with non-ad content - so that content won't be blocked with a DNS resolver. However, the software seems safe. Their privacy policy says they only store websites locally, and never upload them to servers. The app is also open-source. Ad Block Plus is not privacy respecting. They collect usage data as well as unique device identifiers.
    - vehemenz 1y ago
      Apple isn’t selling my data, and they make the best consumer hardware, so at this point there aren’t many downsides to Apple lock in.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        No company sells your data. They sell access to you based on the data they have about you. Apple is no different
        0xblinq 1y ago
        Facebook entered the chat
        scarface_74 1y ago
        Facebook doesn’t sell your data to other companies either. Your data is too valuable to sell. Companies tell FB what demographics they want to target.
      - sensanaty 1y ago
        > Apple isn’t selling my data Sorry to break it to you, but yes, they are. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/
        jampekka 1y ago
        The greatest trick the Ad ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
        The lock in is a downside.
    - creato 1y ago
      It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.
      - lapcat 1y ago
        This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API. Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equally important IMO is arbitrary JavaScript injection into web pages, which MV2 allows but MV3 does not. MV3 is so locked down that you can't even use String.replace() with a constructed JavaScript function. It's really a nightmare. Google's excuse is that all JavaScript needs to be statically declared in the extension so that the Chrome Web Store can review it. But then the Chrome Web Store allows a bunch of malware to be published anyway!
        rasz 1y ago
        There must be ways of injecting custom non static js because mv3 version of tampermonkey works https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgff...
        lapcat 1y ago
        After dragging their feet for literally years, Google finally implemented a specific userscripts API. However, the implementation was initially just statically declared rules like DeclarativeNetRequest, which sucked, and it also required that the user enable developer mode. In Chrome 135, which is very recent—the public is currently on Chrome 138—Google added an execute() method to run an individual script. However, the API is not available from the extension content script, so if it needs to be triggered from the content script, you have to make an async call to the background script (or more accurately, the background service worker, which is a whole other nightmare of MV3). Moreover, the API accepts only a string for JS code or a filename; you still can't use a Function() constructor for example. In Chrome 138, the current version, Google switched from developer mode to a dedicated userscripts permission toggle in the extension details, which is disabled by default. I think Google is still working on but has not finished a permissions request API. Remember this is almost SEVEN YEARS after Google first announced Manifest V3. The entire time, Google has been stalling, foot dragging, practically getting dragged kicking and screaming into doing the least possible work here.
    - zer00eyz 1y ago
      I don't think in this case your argument is as clear cut and the use cases that people have today arent solved by the choices out there. George Carlin: "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it." The interests of APPLE (who makes money on hardware, and credit card processing) don't align with the interests of Google (who makes money on ad's). I am all for open source, I'm all for alternatives. But honestly if you own an iPhone and a Mac then safari makes a lot of sense. I happen to use safari and Firefox on Mac and am happy to bounce back and forth. I also keep an eye on ladybird, but it isnt ready for prime time. And I'm still going to have a chrome install for easy flashing of devices.
  - mattkevan 1y ago
    Safari has had built-in page translate for years now. It’ll detect different languages and show a translate option in the site tools menu. Works well.
    - Etheryte 1y ago
      I'm aware of this, but in my experience it's pretty bad. It doesn't even cover all European languages, never mind the rest of the world. For the languages it does support, it's always a lottery whether it works with that specific site or not. I've tried using it a few times, but it's not even remotely close to what Chrome does.
  - notatoad 1y ago
    switching to safari because chrome disabled the good adblockers is completely counter-productive. safari has never supported the good adblockers.
- agile-gift0262 1y ago
  I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.
  - galangalalgol 1y ago
    The only time I've used anything but firefox for the last. Well probably since netscape honestly? I am so old. Is to get the in flight entertainment to work on american, but firefox has worked for that for a few years now. People say chrome is faster and in the early 2000s I might have agreed, but now I really don't understand why anyone not on a mac or iphone isn't using Firefox. It is great.
    - nfriedly 1y ago
      Firefox is great on Mac too. You have a point about iPhones, though. It's almost pointless, but not quite: it does get a few features, like cross-platform sync. "Real" Firefox is one of the things that keeps me on Android.
      - galangalalgol 1y ago
        Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.
        tmnvix 1y ago
        > Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I have always been able to.
        MangoToupe 1y ago
        You can use whatever you want on macos
        pdpi 1y ago
        I assume that, by Chromium, you mean WebKit. At any rate, how or why would they have blocked Firefox on a machine where you can compile your own code?
- al_borland 1y ago
  It happened before, multiple times.
phendrenad2 1y ago
A lot of people seem to believe that switching to a de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough. I think that's a psyop promoted by Google themselves. Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome. Brave, custom Chromium builds, Vivaldi, etc. are all very similar to Google Chrome, they just don't have Google spy features. The argument that "Google still controls Chromium so it's not good enough" is exactly the kind of FUD I'd expect to back up this kind of psyop, too.
- poly2it 1y ago
  Isn't that the exact argument behind the Serenity project? I legitimately feel there is a grave issue with the internet if one wallet controls all of the actual development of our browsers. Control over virtually all media consumption mustn't be in the hands of a corporation.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    The argument just doesn't hold water, though. That's like saying Y Combinator shouldn't be the only company paying for our tech forum. It's perfectly fine unless Y Combinator decides to ruin HN it somehow. And, if they did, wouldn't people just switch to one of the many HN clones overnight? That's what's known as FUD - "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". FUD is often spread about the present, but it's often just as useful to spread it about the future. "Don't use product X, the company that owns it could make it unusable someday". Part of me thinks Google keeps threatening to disable adblocking (but never actually does it) as part of a grand strategy. But part of me thinks it's just a coincidence that Google isn't capable of pulling off such a tricky psychological operation.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      The HN comparison doesn’t really hold water. There are a lot of options for tech news and forums. Lots of platforms, self-hosting options, with many business models, or simply self-funded. That is very different than a world where every browser relies on Google for the core of their browser… and those who don’t rely on Google for funding (as they pay a lot of money to be the default search option in major browsers). Even Microsoft gave up on making their own browser, and now depends on Google. They used to own the entire market not so long ago. People are saying this is a psyop, but I’m not sure what Google stands to gain from giving off the impression that they are seeking to control the entire market so they can steer the direction of the web for their own profit. That doesn’t make them look like the good guy, and should keep them neck deep in anti-trust filing from various governments. Where’s the upside? People feeling like they don’t have an option, so they give up and settle like Microsoft? Is that the angle?
pjmlp 1y ago
A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Chrome was made to fracture, and everything started with the aptly named “Atom” editor (they “invented” Electron). Everybody choose convenience over efficiency and standards, because apparently nobody understood what “being lazy” actually is.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Microsoft invented Electron, when Windows Active Desktop came to be. Mozzilla also invented Electron, when XUL applications were a thing. Both failed, as shipping regular processes with the default browser kept being used.
    - necovek 1y ago
      KDE invented Electron, when they built KHTML as independently embeddable HTML + CSS + JS engine. Mozilla did it with Gecko even earlier, really — but they gave up on it to focus on browser itself. (There were a number of Gecko-based browsers like GNOME default browser Epiphany using it) Apple built WebKit on top of KHTML just as Gecko stopped being updated: I guess they invented it too. Tools like Windmill (web rendering automation for testing) took programmable concept further. And Sun did very similar things with Java applets and Java applet runtime for desktop.
      - account42 1y ago
        I don't think KDE ever used KHTML as an app development platform rather than as a plugin for rich text.
        necovek 1y ago
        I only offered that in jest: an embeddable rendering engine is really what WebKit + v8 was, and Electron was just a packaging system for it. There were previous attempts at making cross platform apps for the web and for the desktop.
xg15 1y ago
> Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web. Because that has worked so well so far...
janalsncm 1y ago
“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome” I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.
- yard2010 1y ago
  "This site requires Internet Explorer 6 to work"
- oehpr 1y ago
  Keep chrome installed and fall back iff forced to. That way the majority of usage statistics show up as other browsers so when developers are making guesses at which browser to support, those statistics will push them away from chrome. Additionally: you would be surprised how infrequently you have to switch to chrome
  - zos_kia 1y ago
    Can't remember the last time I actually had to open a website on chrome for compatibility reasons. Is that still a thing?
    - Steven420 1y ago
      I only have to switch to chrome for e-transfers. Everything else seems to work
    - julianz 1y ago
      The F1TV site didn't work on Firefox earlier this year but send to be fixed now, other than that I haven't had any issues.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago
    Btw, the 'website requires chrome browser' problem is often solved if you just make Firefox user agent say it is Chrome.
    - 1y ago
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
This wasn't really the point of the article, which in fact says the workaround was patched in Chrome 118.
- irrational 1y ago
  Because the author reported it. Personally I would have told the ublock origin developers instead of google.
  - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
    To what end? So Google can see how it works and still patch it?
    - deryilz 1y ago
      Yeah, this was my thought process. I get the appeal, but I don't think a million-user open-source extension is gonna start relying on a clear bug to function.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      At least it would make them work for it.
      - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
        It would be creating more work for the Ublock Origin developer[1]; as far as I can tell it wouldn't be creating any extra work for Google, which has to patch the issue anyway. 1: Assuming he even elected to do it; I know I wouldn't.
        account42 1y ago
        According to the article it would have been two additional lines for the extension developers.
autobodie 1y ago
>the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another. The only few examples of ostensible outcomes were critically meaningless and necessitate zero-friction alternatives, like when bud light was encouraged to spend a bit of its marketing budget differently — wow, really showed them!! There's no detour for politics.
- worik 1y ago
  > History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another The South African apartheid regime was brought down by boycotts. The Israeli genocide regime will suffer the same fate if there is any justice left in the world. Boycotts are very powerful. Users boycotting ads is dismantling the surveillance web.
  - bigfatkitten 1y ago
    South Africa didn’t have the U.S. Government and its allies actively propping it up, and punishing anyone who tried to boycott it.
    - linguae 1y ago
      The history is a little more complicated than this…it is true that South Africa was eventually sanctioned by the US for its apartheid policies, and this helped lead to the end of apartheid. However, the US supported South Africa during much of the Cold War period as a bulwark against communism. Some US politicians were willing to look the other way when it came to apartheid before support for South Africa became increasingly politically difficult.
      - AStonesThrow 1y ago
        [dead]
  - zorked 1y ago
    It wasn't just boycotts, however and unfortunately. The South African army was defeated militarily by FAPLA-Cuba. There's a reason why Nelson Mandela's first visit as chief of state was to thank Fidel Castro in person.
miohtama 1y ago
Most complainers are hypocrites who are complaining for the sake of complaining, too lazy to do anything and just come up with excuses to avoid this.
greatbit 1y ago
Ditching Chromium for Firefox isn’t much better since Firefox sells user data. Next would be Safari.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  Firefox only shares anonymized data with partners. Is there evidence OHTTP can be deanonymized?
matthewaveryusa 1y ago
Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.
- elyobo 1y ago
  Really? I've been FF only for years and everything works reliably, including banking sites (Australia & New Zealand).
  - wavesquid 1y ago
    E.g. the Qantas business rewards website was broken in Firefox, along with Qantas hotels
- worik 1y ago
  > Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. What countries banks? I am in New Zealand and have not had that problem in years. 15 years ago I had to edit my user agent string to look like IE (IIRC) for the University of Otago's website (PricewaterhouseCoopers getting lots of money for doing a really bad job) Makes me wonder have you tried that trick? Less tiresome than switching browsers....
- eikenberry 1y ago
  Why not switch banks or move to a credit union?
  - internet2000 1y ago
    This is not a reasonable suggestion.
    - flkenosad 1y ago
      Why not? Credit unions are great.
mattigames 1y ago
Hit then where it hurts would be political action, not individuals switching to Firefox, that does nothing.
- toofy 1y ago
  like most solutions to complex societal/economic issues: it’s almost certainly going to take both of your ideas, more diversity in the browser space and political actions. and then other actions as well. the collective We have fallen into a trap where we consistently talk down other important ideas because we think ours is important too (and it is.) i definitely catch myself doing this far too often. i just hope We can get back to a place where We recognize that different ideas from our own are also important and will need to be used in our effort to solve some of our issues. because so many of these cracks we’re facing will require many many many levers being pushed and pulled, not one magic silver bullet.
- wrasee 1y ago
  In a democracy it’s actually the other way around, over time at least. Politicians follow votes.
  - RamblingCTO 1y ago
    > Politicians follow votes. we have enough data to show that this is not the case, in general.
    - wrasee 1y ago
      Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to simply say that politicians are elected, and are nothing without votes. A politician isn’t even a practicing politician without votes. Democracy is ultimately driven by citizens. Of course politicians will do their best to influence public opinion (it’s their job) but are ultimately in service to it though elections. It’s why what people think (and vote) matters in a democracy. And back to the point, why voting with your feet (switching to Firefox) actually means something.
hulitu 1y ago
> only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome There is more Chrome than Chrome: Edge, Chromium and all their forks.
hnlmorg 1y ago
I think you’re missing the point of the article. Isn’t really about bypassing it to support the development of new extensions. It’s more just a blog about a new bug that the author found during their security research. It’s really more a fluff piece promoting themselves than it is anything else. And to be honest, I’m fine with that. My bigger takeaway from that article was how impressive this individual already is. They’re still a student and already finding and reporting several bugs in major platforms. Kudos to them.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
Also if you don’t like advertising then hit the back button on advertising heavy sites.
amelius 1y ago
We need webmasters to nudge people away from Chrome. E.g. show an annoying popup on opening the page or add a small delay.
- al_borland 1y ago
  We also need Google to stop showing annoying pop-ups every time someone goes to their homepage, Gmail, or any other site they own. They also need to stop promoting users on mobile to open links in Chrome, when the user doesn’t even have Chrome installed, and has chosen the “default browser” option 100 times already. I’m so fed up with these nudges.
  - kevincox 1y ago
    And most importantly these are anti-competitive. They are using Google's other markets to give them an unfair marketing advantage that other browsers do not have. Neither Firefox, Brave or anyone else can have these prompts on Android, Google Search. They are using an unfair advantage to take over the market against the common good.
- amelius 1y ago
  Better yet, include some piece of code in your webpage that is dynamically loaded from e.g. EFF.org or mozilla.org. That way, you give these organizations the power to nuke Chrome, one day. This can also be seen as a kind of mutually assured destruction approach, to keep Google in check.
- p_j_w 1y ago
  Webmasters who make their money on ads seem like the group least likely to do this.
SarahC_ 1y ago
PROXOMITRON! Local proxy filter that is like a Pi-hole, but locally! It's OLD, and became obsolete when browser plugins were invented, but now more relevant than ever! Because it's between the server and the client - it can do what it wants!
- belter 1y ago
  A gift to reduce global CO2 search emissions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://www.proxomitron.info/ https://www.proxomitron.info/
- driverdan 1y ago
  Wow, that brings me back. I used to use Proxomitron before plugin ad blockers were a thing.
belter 1y ago
It's 2025. Here is a list of great browsers committed to MV2 support. If anybody from Google tries to gaslight you with "but security..." review this: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gmail.com https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gmail.com and ask them why do they still support connection with so many insecure tls suites ;-) Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/download/ https://vivaldi.com/download/ Brave: https://brave.com/download/ https://brave.com/download/ Waterfox: https://www.waterfox.net/download/ https://www.waterfox.net/download/ LibreWolf: https://librewolf.net/installation/ https://librewolf.net/installation/ Pale Moon: https://www.palemoon.org/download.shtml https://www.palemoon.org/download.shtml Thorium: https://thorium.rocks/ https://thorium.rocks/ Ungoogled Chromium: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina... Floorp: https://floorp.app/en-US/download https://floorp.app/en-US/download
- throw123xz 1y ago
  There's essentially 2 browsers in that long list: Firefox and Chromium. Everyone using Chromium as base committed to MV2 support, but that's while Chromium itself still supports MV2. What will happen when Google changes things enough that the small browsers can't merge updates in a day or two while maintaining MV2 support? I doubt Vivaldi and Brave have the resources to actually fork Chromium... not even going to mention small projects like Thorium or Ungoogle Chromium. And the Firefox-based browsers are in a similar position. The 2 or 3 students working on Floorp can't do much if Mozilla decides to drop support and then introduces changes that breaks compatibility with old code. Of course those browsers can decide to stop merging upstream code, but then you get a Pale Moon... even if we ignore security flaws (which are a problem for you and your machine), a visit to their forum tells me that it struggles with a few websites.
- konart 1y ago
  This should also mention Orion: https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
- ajnaiz 1y ago
  brave dont work, same message when I try to watch any video. Why none repporting that?
bitlax 1y ago
What browser would you suggest? Firefox is a privacy nightmare as well.
qoez 1y ago
I just tried firefox because of this update but I had to switch back because it's so slow. Sacrificing competitive advantage stings too much to much just for this.
- paulluuk 1y ago
  Interesting, I also just installed Firefox because of OPs comment, and I'm amazed at how much faster it is then Chrome.
  - kayodelycaon 1y ago
    I’ve run across several websites that won’t load in Safari but work great in Chrome. One of them is my router.
  - kiney 1y ago
    For me it depends on open tabs: with modern firefox 4 digit number of open tabs on a 64GB machine is no problem. Chromium crawls to a halt at low 3 digits.
  - ncr100 1y ago
    I've been satisfied with Firefox speed for several years, ever since Chrome manifest version 3 crap started to become reality. I keep many browsers on my laptop and use whichever one I must for in-compatibility reasons and primarily Firefox which makes me generally a happy camper. Mac os. Mobile is different.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  Yeah, it's not Firefox that is slow, it is Google properties that are slow on Firefox. Otherwise FF is fast, or at least Chrome is just as slow or slower (judging by seeing others use it). I mostly avoid Google websites, but when I can't, I always use Brave/Edge/Chromium on those. E.g. Google Earth is especially useless outside of Chrome-land. Firefox (with uBO) also probably wins any realistic speed comparison simply because it still supports MV2. I really don't care how fast the ads are loaded, I prefer blocking them. Especially the most privacy invading ones (i.e. by Google).
ErrorNoBrain 1y ago
Let's not forget, you'll have to ditch Chromium based applications too, like discord, VScode, spotify, and whatever else is basically a chrome browser.
- querez 1y ago
  Why? I fail to see how using chromium as basis for other apps has impact on who has the power to innovate in the browser space?
  - flkenosad 1y ago
    Because then the bugs we find in your app contribute back to chrome rather than Firefox. Then over time, chrome a becomes faster and more efficient browser which makes it harder to convince users to switch. Big picture thing.
internet2000 1y ago
Don't put this on the users. The blame is 50% on web developers, 25% on Mozilla for screwing the pooch, 25% on Google themselves for advertising it so strongly across their properties.
- account42 1y ago
  I think we should also assign some blame to the market regulators that have failed to do their job and to the voters that let them get away with that.
ForHackernews 1y ago
"yeah the free internet, sure, but have you considered Firefox Pocket and also woke?" ^ Every single time this comes up on HackerNews for the past decade
godelski 1y ago
> ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). People should do this for many reasons. Monopolies are not good for anyone, including Google[0]. For most people, that means installing Firefox or using Safari. There are others, but the space is small. Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. Truth is we like to complain. It's good to push things forward and find issues that need to be fixed, not nothing is perfect. For every complaint about Firefox there's another for Chrome. You can't just switch to Brave, Edge, Opera or some other color of Chrome. Things will feel different, but really it's easy to make mountains out of molehills. So what do you care more about? [0] short term, yes. Long term no. Classic monopoly gets lazy and rests upon its laurels
- physPop 1y ago
  Safari is also not adblocker friendly. Lots of other entrants to try though. Brave in particular is great!
  - abandonliberty 1y ago
    Adguard works fine? How are they not friendly?
  - ale42 1y ago
    But Brave is a Chromium browser, which is out of scope according to the comment.
  - godelski 1y ago
    Brave == Chrome
- healsdata 1y ago
  > Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I used Firefox exclusively for about a year and had a website not work about once a month. This included my state's unemployment portal and a small business store. When it happens, there's no indication of why. It's only because I'm technical I thought too try it in Chrome. My non-technical family isn't going navigate that.
throw10920 1y ago
> If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). I disagree, on two fronts. First, I think that the underlying root cause is a level lower - it's the fact that so much content on the web is funded via privacy-invasive and malware-laden advertisements, rather than direct payment. Second, there are multiple valid things that you can do - you don't just have to pick one. You can work on Manifest V2 bypasses and you can boycott Chrom{e,ium} and you can contact your representatives to ask them to craft regulation against this and you can promote/use financial models where you pay for stuff with money instead of eyeballs. All are useful! (especially because regulation is incredibly difficult to get write and takes a long time to build political will, draft, pass, and implement)
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"If people don't agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers)." Is it OK to use non-Chromium browsers that send search query data or other behavioural data to Google by default "Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web." Let's say, hypothetically, the company behind a particular non-Chromium browser is Google's business partner and dependent on Google for its continued existence And that Google can effectively pull the plug on this non-Chromium browser at any time for any reason Would choosing this particular browser be a correct course of action to "hit them where it hurts"
turok 1y ago
Firefox is very nice these days, and will prompt you to import all your Chrome data if you haven't opened it in a while. It's a very easy thing to do, and U-block origin works on it.
toobulkeh 1y ago
Why ditch Chromium browsers? Forks can still get away from the Chrome specialities. (Eg Brave)

high_priest 1y ago

Its not happening

lytedev 1y ago
It definitely is, buy I think the silent majority just don't care all that much. Is that what you're referring to?
Etheryte 1y ago
I don't know, I switched to Safari and it was painful for like two hours and then I stopped thinking about it. The only thing I somewhat miss is the built-in page translate, but I don't need it often enough to be bothered much.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
  I find switching from chrome to safari essentially doing nothing. If you switched to a non-big-company owned browser, it would make sense but Apple has plenty of lock in which is as bad as chrome lock in.
  - fny 1y ago
    I'm a huge fan of Orion by Kagi: you should have a look! It's a little rough around the edges but the extension support on iOS is amazing.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Orion is the only viable option on iOS IMO. The fact that, to this day, Safari has no way to block ads on iOS means it's just awful. Before Orion, I avoided using my web browser like the plague, because the experience was just bad. Now I'm on Android, and Ironfox is pretty good and Firefox is also available. The browser story on Android is leaps and bounds ahead of iOS.
      - tech234a 1y ago
        Actually there are several adblockers available for Safari on iOS; the functionality was introduced in 2015. Adblock Plus and Adguard are some of the larger extensions available, and now uBlock Origin Lite is now being beta tested for Safari on iOS.
        const_cast 1y ago
        I've never used these, but if I had to guess: these probably don't have the same power as full Manifest V2 extensions. Also names like "Adblock Plus" scare me. I don't want someone I don't trust getting my web activity.
        Etheryte 1y ago
        You don't have to guess, they're as capable as MV2 and AdGuard has been around for a long time.
        const_cast 1y ago
        A quick Google search reveals AdGuard is only a DNS resolver, so it has the adblocking power of something like a Pi Hole. So... nowhere near as capable. It can't inject JS into webpages to prevent pop ups, which is going to lead to white boxes everywhere. In addition, ads can obfuscate the URL or share domains with non-ad content - so that content won't be blocked with a DNS resolver. However, the software seems safe. Their privacy policy says they only store websites locally, and never upload them to servers. The app is also open-source. Ad Block Plus is not privacy respecting. They collect usage data as well as unique device identifiers.
  - vehemenz 1y ago
    Apple isn’t selling my data, and they make the best consumer hardware, so at this point there aren’t many downsides to Apple lock in.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      No company sells your data. They sell access to you based on the data they have about you. Apple is no different
      - 0xblinq 1y ago
        Facebook entered the chat
        scarface_74 1y ago
        Facebook doesn’t sell your data to other companies either. Your data is too valuable to sell. Companies tell FB what demographics they want to target.
    - sensanaty 1y ago
      > Apple isn’t selling my data Sorry to break it to you, but yes, they are. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/
      - jampekka 1y ago
        The greatest trick the Ad ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
      The lock in is a downside.
  - creato 1y ago
    It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API. Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equally important IMO is arbitrary JavaScript injection into web pages, which MV2 allows but MV3 does not. MV3 is so locked down that you can't even use String.replace() with a constructed JavaScript function. It's really a nightmare. Google's excuse is that all JavaScript needs to be statically declared in the extension so that the Chrome Web Store can review it. But then the Chrome Web Store allows a bunch of malware to be published anyway!
      - rasz 1y ago
        There must be ways of injecting custom non static js because mv3 version of tampermonkey works https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgff...
        lapcat 1y ago
        After dragging their feet for literally years, Google finally implemented a specific userscripts API. However, the implementation was initially just statically declared rules like DeclarativeNetRequest, which sucked, and it also required that the user enable developer mode. In Chrome 135, which is very recent—the public is currently on Chrome 138—Google added an execute() method to run an individual script. However, the API is not available from the extension content script, so if it needs to be triggered from the content script, you have to make an async call to the background script (or more accurately, the background service worker, which is a whole other nightmare of MV3). Moreover, the API accepts only a string for JS code or a filename; you still can't use a Function() constructor for example. In Chrome 138, the current version, Google switched from developer mode to a dedicated userscripts permission toggle in the extension details, which is disabled by default. I think Google is still working on but has not finished a permissions request API. Remember this is almost SEVEN YEARS after Google first announced Manifest V3. The entire time, Google has been stalling, foot dragging, practically getting dragged kicking and screaming into doing the least possible work here.
  - zer00eyz 1y ago
    I don't think in this case your argument is as clear cut and the use cases that people have today arent solved by the choices out there. George Carlin: "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it." The interests of APPLE (who makes money on hardware, and credit card processing) don't align with the interests of Google (who makes money on ad's). I am all for open source, I'm all for alternatives. But honestly if you own an iPhone and a Mac then safari makes a lot of sense. I happen to use safari and Firefox on Mac and am happy to bounce back and forth. I also keep an eye on ladybird, but it isnt ready for prime time. And I'm still going to have a chrome install for easy flashing of devices.
- mattkevan 1y ago
  Safari has had built-in page translate for years now. It’ll detect different languages and show a translate option in the site tools menu. Works well.
  - Etheryte 1y ago
    I'm aware of this, but in my experience it's pretty bad. It doesn't even cover all European languages, never mind the rest of the world. For the languages it does support, it's always a lottery whether it works with that specific site or not. I've tried using it a few times, but it's not even remotely close to what Chrome does.
- notatoad 1y ago
  switching to safari because chrome disabled the good adblockers is completely counter-productive. safari has never supported the good adblockers.
agile-gift0262 1y ago
I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.
- galangalalgol 1y ago
  The only time I've used anything but firefox for the last. Well probably since netscape honestly? I am so old. Is to get the in flight entertainment to work on american, but firefox has worked for that for a few years now. People say chrome is faster and in the early 2000s I might have agreed, but now I really don't understand why anyone not on a mac or iphone isn't using Firefox. It is great.
  - nfriedly 1y ago
    Firefox is great on Mac too. You have a point about iPhones, though. It's almost pointless, but not quite: it does get a few features, like cross-platform sync. "Real" Firefox is one of the things that keeps me on Android.
    - galangalalgol 1y ago
      Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.
      - tmnvix 1y ago
        > Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I have always been able to.
      - MangoToupe 1y ago
        You can use whatever you want on macos
      - pdpi 1y ago
        I assume that, by Chromium, you mean WebKit. At any rate, how or why would they have blocked Firefox on a machine where you can compile your own code?
al_borland 1y ago
It happened before, multiple times.

phendrenad2 1y ago

A lot of people seem to believe that switching to a de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough. I think that's a psyop promoted by Google themselves. Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome. Brave, custom Chromium builds, Vivaldi, etc. are all very similar to Google Chrome, they just don't have Google spy features. The argument that "Google still controls Chromium so it's not good enough" is exactly the kind of FUD I'd expect to back up this kind of psyop, too.

poly2it 1y ago
Isn't that the exact argument behind the Serenity project? I legitimately feel there is a grave issue with the internet if one wallet controls all of the actual development of our browsers. Control over virtually all media consumption mustn't be in the hands of a corporation.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  The argument just doesn't hold water, though. That's like saying Y Combinator shouldn't be the only company paying for our tech forum. It's perfectly fine unless Y Combinator decides to ruin HN it somehow. And, if they did, wouldn't people just switch to one of the many HN clones overnight? That's what's known as FUD - "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". FUD is often spread about the present, but it's often just as useful to spread it about the future. "Don't use product X, the company that owns it could make it unusable someday". Part of me thinks Google keeps threatening to disable adblocking (but never actually does it) as part of a grand strategy. But part of me thinks it's just a coincidence that Google isn't capable of pulling off such a tricky psychological operation.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    The HN comparison doesn’t really hold water. There are a lot of options for tech news and forums. Lots of platforms, self-hosting options, with many business models, or simply self-funded. That is very different than a world where every browser relies on Google for the core of their browser… and those who don’t rely on Google for funding (as they pay a lot of money to be the default search option in major browsers). Even Microsoft gave up on making their own browser, and now depends on Google. They used to own the entire market not so long ago. People are saying this is a psyop, but I’m not sure what Google stands to gain from giving off the impression that they are seeking to control the entire market so they can steer the direction of the web for their own profit. That doesn’t make them look like the good guy, and should keep them neck deep in anti-trust filing from various governments. Where’s the upside? People feeling like they don’t have an option, so they give up and settle like Microsoft? Is that the angle?

pjmlp 1y ago

A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.

bayindirh 1y ago
Chrome was made to fracture, and everything started with the aptly named “Atom” editor (they “invented” Electron). Everybody choose convenience over efficiency and standards, because apparently nobody understood what “being lazy” actually is.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Microsoft invented Electron, when Windows Active Desktop came to be. Mozzilla also invented Electron, when XUL applications were a thing. Both failed, as shipping regular processes with the default browser kept being used.
  - necovek 1y ago
    KDE invented Electron, when they built KHTML as independently embeddable HTML + CSS + JS engine. Mozilla did it with Gecko even earlier, really — but they gave up on it to focus on browser itself. (There were a number of Gecko-based browsers like GNOME default browser Epiphany using it) Apple built WebKit on top of KHTML just as Gecko stopped being updated: I guess they invented it too. Tools like Windmill (web rendering automation for testing) took programmable concept further. And Sun did very similar things with Java applets and Java applet runtime for desktop.
    - account42 1y ago
      I don't think KDE ever used KHTML as an app development platform rather than as a plugin for rich text.
      - necovek 1y ago
        I only offered that in jest: an embeddable rendering engine is really what WebKit + v8 was, and Electron was just a packaging system for it. There were previous attempts at making cross platform apps for the web and for the desktop.

xg15 1y ago

> Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web. Because that has worked so well so far...

janalsncm 1y ago

“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome” I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.

yard2010 1y ago
"This site requires Internet Explorer 6 to work"
oehpr 1y ago
Keep chrome installed and fall back iff forced to. That way the majority of usage statistics show up as other browsers so when developers are making guesses at which browser to support, those statistics will push them away from chrome. Additionally: you would be surprised how infrequently you have to switch to chrome
- zos_kia 1y ago
  Can't remember the last time I actually had to open a website on chrome for compatibility reasons. Is that still a thing?
  - Steven420 1y ago
    I only have to switch to chrome for e-transfers. Everything else seems to work
  - julianz 1y ago
    The F1TV site didn't work on Firefox earlier this year but send to be fixed now, other than that I haven't had any issues.
- Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago
  Btw, the 'website requires chrome browser' problem is often solved if you just make Firefox user agent say it is Chrome.
  - 1y ago

Wowfunhappy 1y ago

This wasn't really the point of the article, which in fact says the workaround was patched in Chrome 118.

irrational 1y ago
Because the author reported it. Personally I would have told the ublock origin developers instead of google.
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  To what end? So Google can see how it works and still patch it?
  - deryilz 1y ago
    Yeah, this was my thought process. I get the appeal, but I don't think a million-user open-source extension is gonna start relying on a clear bug to function.
  - scotty79 1y ago
    At least it would make them work for it.
    - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
      It would be creating more work for the Ublock Origin developer[1]; as far as I can tell it wouldn't be creating any extra work for Google, which has to patch the issue anyway. 1: Assuming he even elected to do it; I know I wouldn't.
      - account42 1y ago
        According to the article it would have been two additional lines for the extension developers.

autobodie 1y ago

>the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another. The only few examples of ostensible outcomes were critically meaningless and necessitate zero-friction alternatives, like when bud light was encouraged to spend a bit of its marketing budget differently — wow, really showed them!! There's no detour for politics.

worik 1y ago
> History shows mere boycotts to always be abysmal failures one after another The South African apartheid regime was brought down by boycotts. The Israeli genocide regime will suffer the same fate if there is any justice left in the world. Boycotts are very powerful. Users boycotting ads is dismantling the surveillance web.
- bigfatkitten 1y ago
  South Africa didn’t have the U.S. Government and its allies actively propping it up, and punishing anyone who tried to boycott it.
  - linguae 1y ago
    The history is a little more complicated than this…it is true that South Africa was eventually sanctioned by the US for its apartheid policies, and this helped lead to the end of apartheid. However, the US supported South Africa during much of the Cold War period as a bulwark against communism. Some US politicians were willing to look the other way when it came to apartheid before support for South Africa became increasingly politically difficult.
    - AStonesThrow 1y ago
      [dead]
- zorked 1y ago
  It wasn't just boycotts, however and unfortunately. The South African army was defeated militarily by FAPLA-Cuba. There's a reason why Nelson Mandela's first visit as chief of state was to thank Fidel Castro in person.

miohtama 1y ago

Most complainers are hypocrites who are complaining for the sake of complaining, too lazy to do anything and just come up with excuses to avoid this.

greatbit 1y ago

Ditching Chromium for Firefox isn’t much better since Firefox sells user data. Next would be Safari.

paulryanrogers 1y ago
Firefox only shares anonymized data with partners. Is there evidence OHTTP can be deanonymized?

matthewaveryusa 1y ago

Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. I've done the pure firefox forray recently but after 6 months it gets tiresome to have 2 browsers and 3 weeks ago Ive admitted defeat for the second time and went full chrome. Who am I lying to -- market cornered, ggwp. It's like trying to eat food without paying a cent to cargill.

elyobo 1y ago
Really? I've been FF only for years and everything works reliably, including banking sites (Australia & New Zealand).
- wavesquid 1y ago
  E.g. the Qantas business rewards website was broken in Firefox, along with Qantas hotels
worik 1y ago
> Websites I use regularly for banking don't work outside of chrome. What countries banks? I am in New Zealand and have not had that problem in years. 15 years ago I had to edit my user agent string to look like IE (IIRC) for the University of Otago's website (PricewaterhouseCoopers getting lots of money for doing a really bad job) Makes me wonder have you tried that trick? Less tiresome than switching browsers....
eikenberry 1y ago
Why not switch banks or move to a credit union?
- internet2000 1y ago
  This is not a reasonable suggestion.
  - flkenosad 1y ago
    Why not? Credit unions are great.

mattigames 1y ago

Hit then where it hurts would be political action, not individuals switching to Firefox, that does nothing.

toofy 1y ago
like most solutions to complex societal/economic issues: it’s almost certainly going to take both of your ideas, more diversity in the browser space and political actions. and then other actions as well. the collective We have fallen into a trap where we consistently talk down other important ideas because we think ours is important too (and it is.) i definitely catch myself doing this far too often. i just hope We can get back to a place where We recognize that different ideas from our own are also important and will need to be used in our effort to solve some of our issues. because so many of these cracks we’re facing will require many many many levers being pushed and pulled, not one magic silver bullet.
wrasee 1y ago
In a democracy it’s actually the other way around, over time at least. Politicians follow votes.
- RamblingCTO 1y ago
  > Politicians follow votes. we have enough data to show that this is not the case, in general.
  - wrasee 1y ago
    Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to simply say that politicians are elected, and are nothing without votes. A politician isn’t even a practicing politician without votes. Democracy is ultimately driven by citizens. Of course politicians will do their best to influence public opinion (it’s their job) but are ultimately in service to it though elections. It’s why what people think (and vote) matters in a democracy. And back to the point, why voting with your feet (switching to Firefox) actually means something.

hulitu 1y ago

> only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome There is more Chrome than Chrome: Edge, Chromium and all their forks.

hnlmorg 1y ago

I think you’re missing the point of the article. Isn’t really about bypassing it to support the development of new extensions. It’s more just a blog about a new bug that the author found during their security research. It’s really more a fluff piece promoting themselves than it is anything else. And to be honest, I’m fine with that. My bigger takeaway from that article was how impressive this individual already is. They’re still a student and already finding and reporting several bugs in major platforms. Kudos to them.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago

Also if you don’t like advertising then hit the back button on advertising heavy sites.

amelius 1y ago

We need webmasters to nudge people away from Chrome. E.g. show an annoying popup on opening the page or add a small delay.

al_borland 1y ago
We also need Google to stop showing annoying pop-ups every time someone goes to their homepage, Gmail, or any other site they own. They also need to stop promoting users on mobile to open links in Chrome, when the user doesn’t even have Chrome installed, and has chosen the “default browser” option 100 times already. I’m so fed up with these nudges.
- kevincox 1y ago
  And most importantly these are anti-competitive. They are using Google's other markets to give them an unfair marketing advantage that other browsers do not have. Neither Firefox, Brave or anyone else can have these prompts on Android, Google Search. They are using an unfair advantage to take over the market against the common good.
amelius 1y ago
Better yet, include some piece of code in your webpage that is dynamically loaded from e.g. EFF.org or mozilla.org. That way, you give these organizations the power to nuke Chrome, one day. This can also be seen as a kind of mutually assured destruction approach, to keep Google in check.
p_j_w 1y ago
Webmasters who make their money on ads seem like the group least likely to do this.

SarahC_ 1y ago

PROXOMITRON! Local proxy filter that is like a Pi-hole, but locally! It's OLD, and became obsolete when browser plugins were invented, but now more relevant than ever! Because it's between the server and the client - it can do what it wants!

belter 1y ago
A gift to reduce global CO2 search emissions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://www.proxomitron.info/ https://www.proxomitron.info/
driverdan 1y ago
Wow, that brings me back. I used to use Proxomitron before plugin ad blockers were a thing.

belter 1y ago

It's 2025. Here is a list of great browsers committed to MV2 support. If anybody from Google tries to gaslight you with "but security..." review this: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gmail.com https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gmail.com and ask them why do they still support connection with so many insecure tls suites ;-) Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/download/ https://vivaldi.com/download/ Brave: https://brave.com/download/ https://brave.com/download/ Waterfox: https://www.waterfox.net/download/ https://www.waterfox.net/download/ LibreWolf: https://librewolf.net/installation/ https://librewolf.net/installation/ Pale Moon: https://www.palemoon.org/download.shtml https://www.palemoon.org/download.shtml Thorium: https://thorium.rocks/ https://thorium.rocks/ Ungoogled Chromium: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina... Floorp: https://floorp.app/en-US/download https://floorp.app/en-US/download

throw123xz 1y ago
There's essentially 2 browsers in that long list: Firefox and Chromium. Everyone using Chromium as base committed to MV2 support, but that's while Chromium itself still supports MV2. What will happen when Google changes things enough that the small browsers can't merge updates in a day or two while maintaining MV2 support? I doubt Vivaldi and Brave have the resources to actually fork Chromium... not even going to mention small projects like Thorium or Ungoogle Chromium. And the Firefox-based browsers are in a similar position. The 2 or 3 students working on Floorp can't do much if Mozilla decides to drop support and then introduces changes that breaks compatibility with old code. Of course those browsers can decide to stop merging upstream code, but then you get a Pale Moon... even if we ignore security flaws (which are a problem for you and your machine), a visit to their forum tells me that it struggles with a few websites.
konart 1y ago
This should also mention Orion: https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
ajnaiz 1y ago
brave dont work, same message when I try to watch any video. Why none repporting that?

bitlax 1y ago

What browser would you suggest? Firefox is a privacy nightmare as well.

qoez 1y ago

I just tried firefox because of this update but I had to switch back because it's so slow. Sacrificing competitive advantage stings too much to much just for this.

paulluuk 1y ago
Interesting, I also just installed Firefox because of OPs comment, and I'm amazed at how much faster it is then Chrome.
- kayodelycaon 1y ago
  I’ve run across several websites that won’t load in Safari but work great in Chrome. One of them is my router.
- kiney 1y ago
  For me it depends on open tabs: with modern firefox 4 digit number of open tabs on a 64GB machine is no problem. Chromium crawls to a halt at low 3 digits.
- ncr100 1y ago
  I've been satisfied with Firefox speed for several years, ever since Chrome manifest version 3 crap started to become reality. I keep many browsers on my laptop and use whichever one I must for in-compatibility reasons and primarily Firefox which makes me generally a happy camper. Mac os. Mobile is different.
bornfreddy 1y ago
Yeah, it's not Firefox that is slow, it is Google properties that are slow on Firefox. Otherwise FF is fast, or at least Chrome is just as slow or slower (judging by seeing others use it). I mostly avoid Google websites, but when I can't, I always use Brave/Edge/Chromium on those. E.g. Google Earth is especially useless outside of Chrome-land. Firefox (with uBO) also probably wins any realistic speed comparison simply because it still supports MV2. I really don't care how fast the ads are loaded, I prefer blocking them. Especially the most privacy invading ones (i.e. by Google).

ErrorNoBrain 1y ago

Let's not forget, you'll have to ditch Chromium based applications too, like discord, VScode, spotify, and whatever else is basically a chrome browser.

querez 1y ago
Why? I fail to see how using chromium as basis for other apps has impact on who has the power to innovate in the browser space?
- flkenosad 1y ago
  Because then the bugs we find in your app contribute back to chrome rather than Firefox. Then over time, chrome a becomes faster and more efficient browser which makes it harder to convince users to switch. Big picture thing.

internet2000 1y ago

Don't put this on the users. The blame is 50% on web developers, 25% on Mozilla for screwing the pooch, 25% on Google themselves for advertising it so strongly across their properties.

account42 1y ago
I think we should also assign some blame to the market regulators that have failed to do their job and to the voters that let them get away with that.

ForHackernews 1y ago

"yeah the free internet, sure, but have you considered Firefox Pocket and also woke?" ^ Every single time this comes up on HackerNews for the past decade

godelski 1y ago

> ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). People should do this for many reasons. Monopolies are not good for anyone, including Google[0]. For most people, that means installing Firefox or using Safari. There are others, but the space is small. Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. Truth is we like to complain. It's good to push things forward and find issues that need to be fixed, not nothing is perfect. For every complaint about Firefox there's another for Chrome. You can't just switch to Brave, Edge, Opera or some other color of Chrome. Things will feel different, but really it's easy to make mountains out of molehills. So what do you care more about? [0] short term, yes. Long term no. Classic monopoly gets lazy and rests upon its laurels

physPop 1y ago
Safari is also not adblocker friendly. Lots of other entrants to try though. Brave in particular is great!
- abandonliberty 1y ago
  Adguard works fine? How are they not friendly?
- ale42 1y ago
  But Brave is a Chromium browser, which is out of scope according to the comment.
- godelski 1y ago
  Brave == Chrome
healsdata 1y ago
> Don't listen to people, Firefox is perfectly good and most people wont see major differences. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I used Firefox exclusively for about a year and had a website not work about once a month. This included my state's unemployment portal and a small business store. When it happens, there's no indication of why. It's only because I'm technical I thought too try it in Chrome. My non-technical family isn't going navigate that.

throw10920 1y ago

> If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). I disagree, on two fronts. First, I think that the underlying root cause is a level lower - it's the fact that so much content on the web is funded via privacy-invasive and malware-laden advertisements, rather than direct payment. Second, there are multiple valid things that you can do - you don't just have to pick one. You can work on Manifest V2 bypasses and you can boycott Chrom{e,ium} and you can contact your representatives to ask them to craft regulation against this and you can promote/use financial models where you pay for stuff with money instead of eyeballs. All are useful! (especially because regulation is incredibly difficult to get write and takes a long time to build political will, draft, pass, and implement)

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"If people don't agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers)." Is it OK to use non-Chromium browsers that send search query data or other behavioural data to Google by default "Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web." Let's say, hypothetically, the company behind a particular non-Chromium browser is Google's business partner and dependent on Google for its continued existence And that Google can effectively pull the plug on this non-Chromium browser at any time for any reason Would choosing this particular browser be a correct course of action to "hit them where it hurts"

turok 1y ago

Firefox is very nice these days, and will prompt you to import all your Chrome data if you haven't opened it in a while. It's a very easy thing to do, and U-block origin works on it.

toobulkeh 1y ago

Why ditch Chromium browsers? Forks can still get away from the Chrome specialities. (Eg Brave)