• nexussapphire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Discord, slack, bitwarden, steam, Microsoft teams, visual studio code, balena etcher . Anyone else know of any electron apps or heavily modified version of chrome?😄

        • qupada@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          5 months ago

          Teams has switched to Microsoft’s own edition of the same concept, “Edge WebView2”. Now that Edge is just being Chrome wearing a rubber Scooby Doo mask, I don’t expect the differences are vast.

          Another fun iteration is Plex’s desktop client, which uses QtWebEngine… however surprise! still the Chromium engine underneath.

          Signal’s desktop app is plain old Electron though.

          Of the ones on your list, worth noting that Discord and Slack work fine with FirefoxPWA.

            • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              5 months ago

              I use the shit out of Firefox PWA. I just wish Mozilla would get off their asses and make it work out of the box vs having to install a third party app.

          • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            I do wish there were more native apps but alternatives to electron is always a good thing in my book.

            Except for Microsoft, Microsoft can stop pretending their solution is demonstrably different from electron and chromium.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      What pisses me off is how many websites don’t work right with Firefox now. There’s been several times where I’ve had issues with a site functioning on Firefox and had to switch to a chromium browser.

      • drspod@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        I see this FUD all the time but nobody ever gives examples. Can you point to some specific sites that don’t work with Firefox?

        • Stoney_Logica1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          5 months ago

          Costco Travel login page never loads for me in Firefox. Specific sites my kids use for school don’t work either. I wouldn’t say it happens regularly, but often enough to be annoying.

        • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s not FUD but there’s usually more to it than just “Firefox”. Usually has something to do with security plugins. There are sites that do not work properly with Ublock or Noscript installed, even when you turn them off for the site. I’ve experienced it many, many times. It happens to me most often ordering food, because a lot of local restaurants sites are janky as fuck, but I’ve also had issues with more well known sites. Southwest airlines has been problematic for a couple years now. My credit union also had issues with parts of their online banking app, but that thankfully got fixed after a year or two.

          TL;DR - it’s a real thing.

        • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Walmart.com didn’t work for me on FF for about a week, and it did work on edge and chrome (still broken on FF when I disabled all my add ons). However, they fixed it and it works now. I think it was just a problem with the build of the website, and wasn’t intentional because it definitely works now.

          I think that’s what’s more likely - temp problems that could affect any browser until their web dev fixes it. Not anything malicious like intentionally blocking a browser.

          And then, it’s just Walmart. It’s nothing that really mattered.

        • lapping6596@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          I have issues with twitch. Given I only watch every 3 months for the POE announcement live stream, I just open brave for that one site. I have not tried to figure out if it’s my setup or not

          • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’ve been watching Twitch on Firefox for years without an issue, so it’s very likely that the problem is on your end.

        • AWittyUsername@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          The payment provider my local council uses doesn’t work on Firefox, or Safari. I have to use shitty chrome on my phone. I refuse to install it on my computer.

        • kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          I was worried about this when I originally switched from Chrome to Firefox earlier this year but I can honestly say I haven’t found a single site that I personally use that I had to go back to Chrome for. Any issues I had with any site were related to ad blocking using uBlock or DNS based blocking I also do.

        • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The local Uber eats clone here has the submit order button off screen. Reuters on Android sometimes has the top bar of the webpage shift down over the content. A video conferencing site used by my medical provider won’t connect the video. The 3rd party comment section on our local news site sometimes lays out the controls off screen. The Lemmy PWA on Android used to crash on startup (recently fixed yay!!)

          FF is my daily driver and 99% of things work fine, but I’ve definitely found a few sites where they clearly didn’t test it. I still have Chrome installed for those rare occasions I need it.

          And I don’t even necessarily blame Firefox for this. I used to do web dev back in the day and I remember making my shit work across multiple browsers. Maybe Firefox is doing it right and Chrome is doing it wrong, but everybody targeted Chrome because it has a zillion percent of the market.

        • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Firefox has been, and still is, my primary browser since before Chrome even existed so, definitely not FUD. Also, it’s generally not Firefox’s fault either, but instead the developers of websites that don’t work in Firefox are usually doing something that isn’t standards compliant.

          First to come to mind is that I can’t log into the account management part of the pet boarding company I use when in Firefox. Another scenario is that a lot of movie streaming sites won’t give Firefox video higher than 720p so in that case, Edge is often the only browser that can receive 1080p video. From my understanding the movie studios are the ones to blame for this.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I read that most sites work just fine if you spoof your user agent to windows and standard chrome

        • ayaya@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          This breaks any site that uses CloudFlare’s Turnstile for me. It will loop forever and never let me through if my user agent is set to Chrome.

          • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The point was that some sites neglect to develop for Firefox, and simply tell Firefox users to get chrome instead. Meanwhile Firefox works in most cases perfectly fine without any doing on the website’s part if it is simply duped into believing that the firefox user is just a plain old chrome user as expected. Doesn’t work for everything, but almost.

      • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 months ago

        This happens very rarely, but it does happen from time to time. When a website starts acting weird out of nowhere I keep a copy of Chrome installed just for that use and then promptly return to Firefox.

        • gsfraley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          My insurance site (MyCigna) started working a couple months ago, but for years it failed to log in. It’s those types of contracted apps that seem to fail the most for me, like apps you’d see on a company intranet.

      • Caesium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have a friend who sends me tiktoks that refuse to load with firefox on my phone. I consider it a blessing

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Libredirect extension will redirect to public proxitok instances so you could watch them without going to tiktoks site directly

      • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I only have Chrome installed for the rare occasion where a site doesn’t work in Firefox. I feel like we’ve gone a bit backwards as of lately in building websites that are browser agnostic.

        • calamityjanitor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          The only problem I run into is sites that use Bluetooth or USB APIs to talk to a local device. Both Firefox and Safari don’t implement them due to security concerns.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          T mobiles website is the most recent I had issues with. Navigating to certain pages within t mobiles site would cause “something went wrong” or just a redirect loop.

      • danafest@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I was recently trying to add tickets from ticketbastard to Google wallet to be able to use them offline. I have chrome disabled on my phone. Surprise surprise it doesn’t work with any other browser except chrome. The ticketbastard app just throws an error and nothing happens. Took me a lot of searching to realize it was because chrome was disabled.

      • mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Does this happen in you work environment or on your private managed system? I raise this question because I started to realize that governing firefox apparently is a hard task. Never did I experience a faulty site on my private desktop devices but on my work stations. Im currently running firefox 115.13.0esr.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately for work I may have no choice:-(. Several of our daily work products I’ve tried on Firefox without success. Those also don’t have ads.

      I wish there were better alternatives. I may try out LibreWolf but I could not imagine it somehow being easier, though with enough effort put in the end result may be all that matters. Until the first update (possibly forced on the server end even if I don’t on mine) that breaks everything and I cannot do my work for the day, in which case I will absolutely go crawling back to Chrome, bc they have us by the short hairs there.:-(

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Chromium (Google Chrome’s base) is also open source.

          And yet, we’re still at a corporation’s mercy as to whether everything Chromium-based gets ruined by Google’s fuck-what-the-users-want policies. Like with Manifest V3. And JXL support. And extensions on mobile.

            • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              44
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Users don’t know what the fuck Manifest is period. They just click the internet button. And for the longest time that meant the E with a loop around it. Now that means the multicolored circle.

              • John Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                5 months ago

                Users know that they want more security. MV3 makes a major of users that use Chrome safer from malicious extensions.

                • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  27
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I get what you’re saying, but the average person has no idea what it is, why they should care, or anything about it. All they see is Google making their extensions stop working. And when that includes some of the most popular extensions, that directly affect Googles revenue, they’re going to think that’s the reason.

                  The overwhelming majority of users get their extensions from the Chrome Web Store… Which Google has full control over. Users expect them to be blocking almost all malicious extensions before they’re even available to download.

              • John Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                30
                ·
                5 months ago

                Because it makes a majority of users that use Chrome much safer. Do you do any basic research? Do you need me to point you to the getting started guide?

                • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It doesn’t though. An adblocker is your VERY most important tool in a good security posture. Googles playing any users who ask for MV3 for fools

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              the minority of people complaining about it are the only ones who know what it even is

        • AWittyUsername@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          So is Android. So is Chromium. So is React, and Flutter. So is Java.

          Open source doesn’t mean FOSS.

          • bamboo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Open source does mean FOSS. It doesn’t mean community-oriented.

            • AWittyUsername@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No it doesn’t. Different licenses dictate what you can and can’t do with open source software. Some are more restrictive than others. Open source simply means that the source code is freely available.

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m grateful for FF, but they also annoy me at times. Just little stuff probably not worth bitching about in detail. But also a peek at the potential for problems that you’re talking about.

        So of course I’ll bitch about it.

        I call it the “stop whatever you think you’d rather do right now and pay attention to our product” type shit.

        Imagine you have a combination wrench and whenever you take it out of the toolbox it starts yammering at you about how great of a wrench it is and all if its shiny features. Fucking ridiculous, right?

        So why do we tolerate software that does that?

        Way too much software does this pushy shit. Just stay outta my face and do your actual job, software.

        • Blaster M@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Because people have the attention span of a goldfish and if you aren’t reminding them every 5 seconds of the features they have available they’ll forget they do in fact use them and then complain to support because they can’t spend 5 seconds on the help page.

          I say this, not in defense of mozilla, but in frustration at having to deal daily with these kinds of issues. You can put giant screen-size arrows on where to go / what single “do the thing” button to press and people will still forget 5 seconds later.

          • Boozilla@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Good point. That’s true, there is definitely that side of it. I think what you’re talking about is less obnoxious than the stuff that feels forced and make-the-boss-happy promotional. Push notifcations for no reason, etc. It’s a spectrum from necessary to uneccessary, and there’s too much of the latter IMO.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          We’re so fucking used to ads we don’t even always realize we’re getting pushed propaganda

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Firefox is a foundation, not a corporation. And I’m already using Fennec instead of the official release.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yeah, it’s strange just how readily the blinders go up wherever Mozilla is concerned. They’re a corp, just like any other; if they had the money and leverage, they’d be just as aggressive as Google. Have people already forgotten that time they laid off 200+ employees and then gave all the execs bonuses?

        E: Apparently y’all have forgotten. In 2021, Mozilla laid off a few hundred employees. CEO’s salary doubled that year. Fuck Mozilla, they’re no more your friends than Google or Microsoft; they’re the same evil, just smaller-scaled evil, is all.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          But they haven’t threatened to undercut ad blocking yet, so as a comparison they are better.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          You forgot to also mention that they are a cult where you get attacked if you say anything negative about Mozilla.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m not shilling for anyone. If you want to discuss actual technical details I’m happy to do so. If you’re here just to share your feelings absent facts then I don’t care what you have to say.

          • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Looking around, I don’t think that’s true. Lots of bad things are freely said about Mozilla and the people running it.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Anyone else been having issues of not being able to load YouTube videos past the first few seconds on Firefox using ublock? I couldn’t find any recent information online. I don’t know if this is part of the war on ad blockers, or unrelated.

    • Matriks404@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Besides the fact that Mozilla sucks, Firefox is an amazing piece of software. It’s PITA that it’s about to be enshittified.

    • LostXOR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Almost as if a browser company that’s not also an advertising company has no reason to fight ad blockers.

        • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          i mean they bought a privacy preserving ad company to offer an alternative for companies to google, which is what they should be doing.

          because like it or not people depend on ads for their sites.

        • endofline@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can always fork firefox. People used to use website not requiring javascript at all and it worked well. Some people still use even w3m f.e. when graphics card driver goes bad after update and they need to watch some docs on the internet. Most current browser have most features you would ever need

          • hollyberries@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Forking is indeed the way forward when Mozilla loses its way a little more. For myself, I switched to Librewolf about 6 months ago, along with replacing Thunderbird with Betterbird after using it since the Phoenix days.

            I cannot remember what prompted the move to Librewolf, it may have been the AI stuff they were pushing at the time, or possibly the update that forced the tabs into my titlebar without having to go into about:config to fix it. Or the fact that Firefox was constantly pushing me to sign up for an account. There were quite a few gripes that added up over time lol

            Betterbird restored some removed things I liked pre-supernova as well as a native systray icon under Linux and that was enough motivation to make the switch.

            It is time for a new browser to enter the market. Either Ladybird or something built with Servo seems likely.

      • jo3shmoo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Same. Firefox Mobile had been a laggy mess when I used it a few years ago, but a combination of some really aggressive advertising and the announcement of manifest v3 caused me to give it another shot about a year ago. It’s a dramatic improvement in phone browsing.

    • ArugulaZ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It saddens me to agree with this. Who knew Google would become as oppressive as fucking MICROSOFT?

    • voluble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I hear the term ‘broken up’ a lot in media and discourse, but it’s never explained. In your eyes, what actually happens when a government ‘breaks up’ a corporation? I mean, what are the steps, objectives, and outcomes?

      Not being adversarial, I’m just curious.

      • boatswain@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not the person you’re asking, but my general understanding is that different products would be required to be their own companies, so advertising, Android, and Chrome would all be separate businesses.

      • Verat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I envision it like AT&T’s break-up, where the singular Google is broken up into regional companies that will (hopefully) have to compete with each other.

    • NekkoDroid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It really wouldn’t change anything in the long run. Any company that creates a browser is gonna need some form of income and people aren’t willing to pay for a browser. What would be their incentive to continue to work on the browser when they aren’t being paid?

      • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Same as Firefox. Let search engines (including google) pay them a fair market rate to make them the default browser.

  • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Adblockers are the largest consumer boycott in history.

    Google isn’t just disabling an extension, they’re attacking a boycott comprised of 200,000,000+ people, all around the globe, standing up to forced manipulation of our beliefs and habits by profit-hungry corporations.

  • VantaBrandon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    IT guys will stop using it…

    Which means they’ll stop deploying it as the default browser on some large enterprises, it won’t ship as defaults in pre-baked images going forward.

    Average joes and janes will use Safari and Edge depending on OS.

    Where is their growth going to come from after this change? Chromebooks? lol.

    I hope they do it, it will hurt them in the long run.

    You can bet 300 new uBlock replacements to spring up practically overnight, some of them scams, reducing trust in the Google ecostystem.

    • unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      You can bet 300 new uBlock replacements to spring up practically overnight, some of them scams, reducing trust in the Google ecostystem.

      Unfortunately it’s a bigger problem.

      Google doesn’t plan to block uBlock Origin itself, but the APIs it uses to integrate into Chrome in order to function. This will effectively disable all adblockers on Chrome. uBlock won’t be removed from the Chrome extension store, it will just have 90% of its functionality removed.

      Additionally, this isn’t a Chrome-only change, but a change in the open source Chromium, an upstream browser of Chrome all other Chrome-based browsers use (essentially everything aside from Firefox and Safari themselves).

      The change itself is involved in changing the browser’s “Manifest”, a list of allowed API calls for extensions. The current one is called Manifest v2 and the new one was dubbed Manifest v3.

      Theorethically Chromium-based browsers could “backport” Manifest v2 due to the open source nature of Chromium. However that is unlikely as it’s projected to take a lot of resources to change, due mostly to security implications of the change.

      Vendors of other Chromium-based browsers themselves have little to gain from making the change aside from name recognition for “allowing uBlock”, which most users either wouldn’t care for or already use Firefox, so the loss for Google isn’t projected to be large, just as the gains for other vendors.

      TLDR: uBlock won’t be removed from the Chrome extension store, but the mechanisms through which it blocks ads will be blocked. The block isn’t a change in Chrome but in Chromium and affects all Chromium-based brosers (all except Firefox and Safari). Other vendors could change that to allow adblockers but it’s projected to take a lot of time and resources.

      • erwan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        There is already a “lite” version of uBlock origin that conforms to the new manifest and will still work.

        There are still a few features missing, some can’t be implemented but others will be.

        • Axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          The ‘block element’ picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.

          Also included block lists can’t update unless the extension itself updates.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      IT guys will stop using it…

      No, they will not, if they didn’t already. Because convenience it key.

      The browser war is over, and humans lost, corporations won. Google and other huge corporations control the biggest websites and most of the access to content on the internet.

      They just need to make it inconvenient to use ad-blocking browsers.

      They built their business on advertiser gambling, which seem to be flawed concept, because they keep on squeezing that tube for every penny more and more, in a race to the bottom.

      But they are still in control of both browers and content so they have options to keep squeezing more.

      So you want to use a ad blocker? Well, the browser that supports them might not be white listed (anymore) by the bot detector, and you have to solve captchas on every site you visit, until you come to your senses and use a browser, where ad blocking is no longer possible.

      Oh, and all that is ok, because of “security”. Because letting the users be in control of their devices and applications is “in-secure”. They are just doing that to protect you from spam and scams, just trust them! Trust them, because they don’t trust you!

  • ChonkaLoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    5 months ago

    Thank you Google I hope shitty moves like this drives enough people away to better browsers like Firefox. It desperately needs a bigger market share.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So, what they’re saying is: Chrome will have severely decreased functionality and users will no longer be able to protect themselves from sketchy ads that contain scams, malware, and other nefarious bullshit (often hosted on Google’s own ad networks)?

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Whew, kinda weird to find a Google employee on lemmy. I would have thought there were rules against that in the would employee handbook.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t work for Google. Are you in a cult or an anti-opensource PR firm? Why would that be your first instinct in response to facts? Go read the beginners guide to MV3. Maybe you could learn a thing or two before talking about feelings.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I gave you facts about MV3. It is also explained at the beginning of the uBOL GitHub page which even acknowledges MV3 adds protections to users with some filtering tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs can be implemented in other ways but it is more work and would require other software. I am not here saying Google is perfect or that MV3 is perfect, but it does make installing extensions more secure for the average user. If you don’t agree then be specific. This vagueness that you keep utilizing without providing any details at all to try to make a point is a clear sign that you honestly have no clue what you’re talking about.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Did I say that the author of uBlock Origin actually reads your traffic? No I didn’t, so stop the bad faith arguments. I said that MV2 exposed users to malicious extensions that were able to do that. Most features of uBO work fine with uBOL. Not everything does though, and I do acknowledge that. I’m just saying MV3 does make a majority of users safer overall.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          An ad blocker doesn’t need to see your traffic to function. That is the point of the declarative APIs. It is supposed to help protect users from malicious extensions and some forms of malicious software.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes, it absolutely does.

            An adblocker has unconditional complete control of my browser because I want it to have unconditional complete control of my browser, because it cannot do what I want it to any other way. Taking that control away from me is malicious by definition. It’s more malicious when every single person on the planet with a shred of tech knowledge knows with certainty that it’s for the sole purpose of boosting Google’s ad revenue at the expense of their users.

  • Hal-5700X@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Yeah, we saw this coming. When Manifest v3 first talked about.

    Google an ad company are killing ad blockers. Yeah, that sounds right.

      • DivineDev@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        I wish, but I don’t see it happening. Most people are just content with seeing ads absolutely everywhere, I just don’t get it.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there. But the fucking obnoxious mid page ads, auto playing videos, scam link shit can go die in a hole.

          • Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            I used to not mind them, now I do. They over did it and I can’t go back. I will block ads untill I can’t and then I’ll probably climb a clock tower with an Uzi.

            I won’t really climb a clock tower with an Uzi.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there.

            Since those are semi-regularly vectors for malware now, even those are not safe to allow.

          • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It’s things like this that keep me using an ad blocker. I was researching when sunflowers develop their seeds, for crying out loud. Screenshot of a plug-in which has blocked ”127 ads" on this page Edit: this was on Opera. It’s… fine.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      5 months ago

      MV3 doesn’t kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.

      Some of these “features” that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.

        Then allow a savvy user to choose to keep MV2 mode via an opt-in control instead of depreciating years of hard work by non-malicious extension authors. uBlock Origin is, in fact, the ONLY browser extension I use in Chrome, as Firefox is my main browser.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree they should have tried to find more ways to keep the old behavior. MV3 rollout has already been delayed for a long time, and now users merely get a message. I’m not sure that the community (mostly Google contributors) won’t give in or try to find a way to keep MV2. However, what was done with MV2 can now be done with MV3 with native messaging or other network tools… I think the concern is that allowing an exception makes it much easier for a malicious extension or software to get users to agree not realizing what they’re agreeing to. Furthermore, the declarative approach is actually preferable by many. You get most of the same features without exposing all your traffic to an extension.

      • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        From my understanding, MV3 kills vital features of ad-blockers in that

        1. Some filtering rules do rely on the ability to read the content of the webpage, which can’t be migrated, per the FAQ linked in the article
        2. The declarative API means an update to the rules requires an update to the plugin itself, which might get delayed by the reviewing process, causing the blocker to lag behind the tracker. It might not be able to recover as quickly as uBO in the recent YouTube catch-up round.
        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago
          1. uBOL GitHub does a pretty good job of explaining some challenges, and some of them are better tracked in the issues.

          2. Your second point isn’t accurate though and MV3 does support dynamic rules.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        And yet the likelihood of Google publishing a malicious extension is quite low. Not sure why you’re so adamant about defending their shitty anti-adblock actions, making excuses for a mega corporation.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, Arch Linux, NixOS, Flathub, etc. all end up publishing malicious software in their stores and package managers. It is inevitable. If you’re not worried about sandboxing then you might as well proxy all your traffic using third party software.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s a funny way to say “you should uninstall chrome rather than leaving it unused” but I hear you Google. 🫡

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    5 months ago

    The modern Internet is completely unusable without an ad blocker. Way to remake ie6, Google!

  • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    …Oh, no! Anyway. Just giving people one more reason to finally make the switch to Firefox or something different.

    Google Chrome warns about disabling uBlock Origin. I warn Google Chrome that they’re being a little bitch & they’re going to lose users.

  • VantaBrandon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    5 months ago

    Could turn out to be a good thing. All power users will dump Chrome practically overnight, a huge boon to the alternatives, that could actually give them enough momentum to compete with Google for a change. I’m sure they’ve considered this, probably an empty treat.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        me too. a long time ago i practically forced everyone around me to switch to chrome. now I’m doing the opposite.

      • ghterve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I for one have been in denial and probably won’t switch away until it literally stops working. So, there’s hope.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Every browser is either chromium (open source captured by Google) or exists because of a Google search contract (this represents 80% of Mozilla’s revenue), Google can’t lose