3 ms·

A problem is that the platform owners argue that this kind of stuff is why they need to put up a security gate that prevents you from installing whatever you wa

by yakz 26d ago

A problem is that the platform owners argue that this kind of stuff is why they need to put up a security gate that prevents you from installing whatever you want on your own device while also allowing you to install the malware from the ads (... maybe because they want to control what you can install more than they care about the malware?)

deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
Eueudhsbsj32 26d ago
> On goes Firefox, uBlock Origin, and a couple other extensions. They don't care what browser they use. I did the same with my mom, but then her broker and doctor's websites started complaining that they will only run on a supported browser, i.e., Chrome. I've gotten her to still use Firefox for most other things, but it's not easy.
- zhivota 26d ago
  You can try Brave, it's Chromium under the hood so it's usually accepted and has built in ad blocking, and a one click way to turn it off for a specific site if you have an issue.
  - TylerE 25d ago
    [flagged]
- magackame 26d ago
  Did you try spoofing the User-Agent?
- beloch 25d ago
  A user-agent spoofer like Chrome Mask is helpful here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ It's off by default and has to be turned on per site, but will automatically stay on for subsequent visits. Test the site with it to be sure it works for your mom. Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox. I've encountered a few that run even better on Firefox than they do on Chrome.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 25d ago
    "Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox." I have never encountered a site that requires a Chrome user-agent string Some sites require a string that either (a) is in a list of acceptable strings (that includes non-Chrome strings) or (b) follows a certain format FWIW, most websites submitted to HN, including many high traffic sites, do not require a user-agent header at all What are some examples of these alleged "Chrome-only" sites

by yakz 26d ago

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

Eueudhsbsj32 26d ago

> On goes Firefox, uBlock Origin, and a couple other extensions. They don't care what browser they use. I did the same with my mom, but then her broker and doctor's websites started complaining that they will only run on a supported browser, i.e., Chrome. I've gotten her to still use Firefox for most other things, but it's not easy.

zhivota 26d ago
You can try Brave, it's Chromium under the hood so it's usually accepted and has built in ad blocking, and a one click way to turn it off for a specific site if you have an issue.
- TylerE 25d ago
  [flagged]
magackame 26d ago
Did you try spoofing the User-Agent?
beloch 25d ago
A user-agent spoofer like Chrome Mask is helpful here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ It's off by default and has to be turned on per site, but will automatically stay on for subsequent visits. Test the site with it to be sure it works for your mom. Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox. I've encountered a few that run even better on Firefox than they do on Chrome.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 25d ago
  "Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox." I have never encountered a site that requires a Chrome user-agent string Some sites require a string that either (a) is in a list of acceptable strings (that includes non-Chrome strings) or (b) follows a certain format FWIW, most websites submitted to HN, including many high traffic sites, do not require a user-agent header at all What are some examples of these alleged "Chrome-only" sites