Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.

Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.

The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.

Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.

Archive link

      • feoh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Totally agree. Many people who keep using Chrome have a VERY outdated view of what Firefox can do. That’s a shame, but it’s unfortunately an aspect of human nature that negative impressions are SUPER hard to change.

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Using the internet without an adblocker is genuinely dangerous. Everyone really should be using uBlock Origin. Using a web browser that prevents uBlock Origin puts you in danger

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the perfect time to go aggressive on telling your friends to switch to Firefox

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              it is lol, have you seen how much the ceo is paying herself?

              its kind of a reddit situaton, where money wouldnt be that much of an issue if it werent all for the ceo.

            • stoy@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              A CEO is a needed possition, I know in the past the Brendan Eich was controversial in his political views, but Laura Chambers seems ok so far

              • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                A CEO is a needed possition

                Ha! Good one…

                oh wait. You’re serious…

                How is a ceo needed? They do no work. Their entire job is to rake in cash from workers.

                All a ceo needs is a guillotine.

                • stoy@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Ok, granted that the CEO concept is not the only way to lead a company.

                  But you do need a leader, someone who can make decisions for the company, someone to make everyday decisions that are not fun, but needed to make the company work.

                  We can absolutely argue about their compensation, but thst is another argument alltogether.

                • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Right.

                  And a football team doesn’t need a quarterback.

                  🤦🏼‍♂️

                  Yes, many of them are assholes, doesn’t change the need for the leadership.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not sure firefox will be on our side after the recent ad tracking debacle. If they implement one more anti consumer feature I‘m jumping ship.

        • Mikina@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          IIRC, only like 2% of Mozilla spending goes towards FF (I may be misinterpreting something, but I remember 2% being thrown around), so funding FF without rest of Mozilla bullshit shouldn’t be that hard. Of course, since Mozilla did spend so little on FF, it’s a question how much they actually care about FF and what would happen if they lost access to their golden goose. They shouldn’t have problem funding FF, but they probably have other bullshit they don’t want to let go and that has more priority for them.

            • Mikina@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              You are right, it was unfairly harsh wording, I apologize for that. Most of those products are super cool and important, I’ve kind of extrapolated it from what I’ve read in other posts about them spending too much on stuff like events and other, non-developemnt, related stuff that I actually never checked, while also not realizing that they also have a ton of other projects, which mixed with the dissapointment with the recent development about the Meta partnership led to me choosing that wording unfairly.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The title should be “Google pulls plug out of Chromium”

    Too bad that even when people start switching, people writing drafts for the W3 spec are mostly Google employees. I’m sure that’ll be their next battleground.

  • TaintPuncher@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s not perfect but PiHole will still catch a lot of the ads if you have the know-how to set one up. Tis a relatively cheap and easy solution that has the benefit of being able to block ads network-wide, providing your router lets you set a custom DNS.

    https://pi-hole.net

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Even if my Internet provider forced me to use their router I’d plug my own router in behind that one fuck that.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Some isp’s have been detecting the second router and giving people shit for it.

        But I’m with you on that, I don’t trust the isp’s backdoored router-modem. Hard pass.

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Some isp’s have been detecting the second router and giving people shit for it.

          Giving people shit how? This is the first time I hear something like this. In my case, my ISP does not allow bridging a router, so I NAT mine instead, and it works just fine.

          • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, they can still tell that you’re Nat behind another router.

            But they don’t like it because it gives them less access to your network and more possibility for something to be wrong

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              How would they do that? Maybe by looking at ports? You could just lie and say you only have one device.

              • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The moment they see their ONT is registering only 1 device (the router) it’s clear everything is being routed via that.

                I have never not had a router natted behind my modem. They can see the amount of packets and data I use over the ISP, but that’s about it. On top of that my LANs and VLANs are all VPNd through NordVPN before anything hits the WAN and all DNS traffic goes though my Adguard Home and Quad9 as well, so there’s that.

            • socphoenix@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’ve never had an isp complain about me using my own router in the US, is this just common in other countries or have I just been lucky?

              • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It’s a rarity afaik, I’ve only heard of one or two cases, but a concerning report to me personally.

                Though I’m Canadian so it’ll be a few years before it filters here (assuming it catches on)

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                There’s always NAT. You get one IP address, your router/wifi shares the network using NAT

                But ISPs aren’t looking for NAT, since everyone with wifi is using it

  • Modva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Moved to Firefox some months ago, it’s fine. Small adjustment but browsers generally offer high interchangeability

  • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Honestly, I blame developers who, some years ago, decided it was a good idea to centralize the browsers into the same engine. Yeah, it was hellish to maintain code for all browsers at the time (IE5, IE6, Firefox, Safari, etc), but it was paradise compared to our current scenario: at least we really had options: WebKit, Trident, Gecko, as well as lots of smaller, almost unknown engines. Now, all modern browsers are different wrappings of Chromium or Firefox, while most modern sites are developed without the active worry to keep Firefox compatible (one can notice how modern HTML5 features varies across both of them). It has no easy solution. Don’t update, maybe? (Until sites start to complain about the outdated version)

  • Mikina@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If it keeps going on like this, it won’t be long before I’ll just say fuck it and switch to elinks…

    Hmm, on that note - is there any CLI web browser that can do javascript and css? Because iirc, elinks doesn’t, though I havent used it in years.

    • toastal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Elinks for can do basic CSS & JS. I wish there were better support for like 256 or 16 color modes for CSS to better support TUIs. The reading UX is generally pretty good, but stuff like syntax highlighting really helps. …That is if website makers did their job correctly & treated JavaScript as an enhancement. The bigger issue is even in the case of limited JS support like Netsurf, most developers aren’t going to be writing ES3 or ES5-compatible code which is about all most of these systems can support which means the JS will be broken anyhow without keeping their engines up to date.

  • Zicoxy3@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    the big companies, technological or not, always do the same thing… they launch a good product, very cheap (or free). When they already have a big market, they start cutting back. In the case of food, they raise prices, cut products, slightly change the taste… In the case of technology, they raise prices, cut the product, eliminate features…

    That a company like Google, dedicated to data, has its own browser and pays to include it as standard in cell phones, it is clear that it is not going to stand still when an addon for its browser blocks part of its business…In this case, very few will switch browsers. That means changing habits. Already did with Google Photos… . Tiene miles de millones de fotos y vídeos de menores, de fiestas, íntimas… Ofrece espacio gratuíto y después, le pagas por ello, porque tienes tu vida ahí… Or with Google Maps. It’s a great service, but it knows where you go, what for, your schedules… a brutal security problem…or with email… it reads everything. Because otherwise it will add you to the calendar when you take a flight without having opened the confirmation email…

    I’ve never stopped using Firefox. Google pays it too, but it’s the only one that’s independent. And then there’s Waterfox, Librewolf, PaleMoon… Run away from Google… there are alternatives.

    Translated with DeepL.com (free version)