4 ms·

Do any of the big-four (counting Edge as its own thing) browsers not easily allow and facilitate ad blockers? Chrome and Safari definitely do, I assume Edge doe

Do any of the big-four (counting Edge as its own thing) browsers not easily allow and facilitate ad blockers? Chrome and Safari definitely do, I assume Edge does too? What a deeply weird thing to even bring up, under those circumstances. Why was that kind of a thing even kicking around in his head?

JoshTriplett 10mo ago
It's so incredibly baffling that I wonder if it was a mistaken transcription of something else similar.
PaulHoule 10mo ago
Chrome NERFed the filtering API which limits the effectiveness of ad blockers in Chrome. I think that's the one point of technical superiority that Firefox has. I think Firefox is not alive based on being "a better product" in most respects, it's alive because it's the anti-Chrome, I mean, that's why I run it. In the early 2000s I despaired for the future because I was afraid it would be impossible to browse the web without Internet Explorer and thus, Windows -- Mozilla and Firefox kept hope alive. Mozilla might not be happy with it but a large chunk of their user base are the kind of anti-big tech people who will explode on Mastodon if you confess that you make an AI generated image once in a while. It might not be rational, but the fury is deep. The thing though is that people's connection to Firefox is not rational it's about wanting to feel you have some choice, control and agency in technology. This article which is the top story on HN expresses this sentiment and it's success shows that a lot of HN users [1] feel this way https://blog.mathieui.net/this-is-not-the-future.html https://blog.mathieui.net/this-is-not-the-future.html Firing your customers so that you can get some imaginary new customers is a story that rarely has a happy ending. [1] who I think like those Mastodonsters are inclined to like technology but want to be in control, like political Linux enthusiasts.
- SirMaster 10mo ago
  I know it's been nerfed, but honestly I can't say that I really notice a difference using ublock lite on manifest v3 compared to before.
  - rixthefox 10mo ago
    I think the difference is really more noticeable if you're on a limited connection. For example, on Starlink I only have 50 GB to play with. It's entirely ineffective if the browser downloads the ads and only scrubs them out of the view after the fact. Same with anybody using a mobile hotspot over LTE. In those situations bandwidth is super limited (I have 5 GB of hotspot data a month) unless you can convince the carriers to zero-rate data pulled for advertisements (they won't) I'll continue blocking ads before they can be loaded. Edit: and I'm not on some cheap MVNO, I'm paying over $80 a month with AT&T on their post-paid plan. The phone gets unlimited data but any other device I may need to share that connection needs to be as efficient with bandwidth as possible. Only Firefox and derivatives provide proper ad blocking at this time.
    - pasttense01 10mo ago
      Switch to an AT&T MVNO that gives you a lot more than 5 GB of hotspot for less than $80/month: https://prepaidcompare.net/ https://prepaidcompare.net/
    - SirMaster 10mo ago
      Dang that's expensive. I am paying $35/mo and getting 100GB tethering on my AT&T phone plan per month.
    - wkat4242 10mo ago
      Also, all those ads that are still loading, are still tracking you.
- cindyllm 10mo ago
  [dead]
apetresc 10mo ago
Didn't the most recent manifest version update for Chrome extensions drop the ability to block ads at the network level? Extensions can still prune them from the DOM but only after the request has finished; something like that, I don't remember clearly. I'm pretty sure that's what the quote is a reference to.

JoshTriplett 10mo ago

It's so incredibly baffling that I wonder if it was a mistaken transcription of something else similar.

PaulHoule 10mo ago

Chrome NERFed the filtering API which limits the effectiveness of ad blockers in Chrome. I think that's the one point of technical superiority that Firefox has. I think Firefox is not alive based on being "a better product" in most respects, it's alive because it's the anti-Chrome, I mean, that's why I run it. In the early 2000s I despaired for the future because I was afraid it would be impossible to browse the web without Internet Explorer and thus, Windows -- Mozilla and Firefox kept hope alive. Mozilla might not be happy with it but a large chunk of their user base are the kind of anti-big tech people who will explode on Mastodon if you confess that you make an AI generated image once in a while. It might not be rational, but the fury is deep. The thing though is that people's connection to Firefox is not rational it's about wanting to feel you have some choice, control and agency in technology. This article which is the top story on HN expresses this sentiment and it's success shows that a lot of HN users [1] feel this way https://blog.mathieui.net/this-is-not-the-future.html https://blog.mathieui.net/this-is-not-the-future.html Firing your customers so that you can get some imaginary new customers is a story that rarely has a happy ending. [1] who I think like those Mastodonsters are inclined to like technology but want to be in control, like political Linux enthusiasts.

SirMaster 10mo ago
I know it's been nerfed, but honestly I can't say that I really notice a difference using ublock lite on manifest v3 compared to before.
- rixthefox 10mo ago
  I think the difference is really more noticeable if you're on a limited connection. For example, on Starlink I only have 50 GB to play with. It's entirely ineffective if the browser downloads the ads and only scrubs them out of the view after the fact. Same with anybody using a mobile hotspot over LTE. In those situations bandwidth is super limited (I have 5 GB of hotspot data a month) unless you can convince the carriers to zero-rate data pulled for advertisements (they won't) I'll continue blocking ads before they can be loaded. Edit: and I'm not on some cheap MVNO, I'm paying over $80 a month with AT&T on their post-paid plan. The phone gets unlimited data but any other device I may need to share that connection needs to be as efficient with bandwidth as possible. Only Firefox and derivatives provide proper ad blocking at this time.
  - pasttense01 10mo ago
    Switch to an AT&T MVNO that gives you a lot more than 5 GB of hotspot for less than $80/month: https://prepaidcompare.net/ https://prepaidcompare.net/
  - SirMaster 10mo ago
    Dang that's expensive. I am paying $35/mo and getting 100GB tethering on my AT&T phone plan per month.
  - wkat4242 10mo ago
    Also, all those ads that are still loading, are still tracking you.
cindyllm 10mo ago
[dead]

apetresc 10mo ago

Didn't the most recent manifest version update for Chrome extensions drop the ability to block ads at the network level? Extensions can still prune them from the DOM but only after the request has finished; something like that, I don't remember clearly. I'm pretty sure that's what the quote is a reference to.