Meh, Brave is still Chroium. Even if they continue to support manifest v2, even today the are selling „good“ ads to the users. That and the Crypto bullshit they tried a while ago makes them untrustworthy in my eyes.
You mean by building the add-on directly into the browser? No thanks. I like my browser dev to work on my browser and my ad-block dev to work on my ad-block. They are both good at what they do on their own, I don’t need them to mix.
Those features are opt-in.
They are now. They were opt-out to begin with. This is one of those “fool me twice” situations. That, and the founder of Brave is also an outspoken homophobe. He financially backed Prop 8 in California to overturn same-sex marriage, and left Firefox because it was too woke. I seriously would rather Chrome at that point. They’re just regular levels of corporate evil, not “every person who uses my browser is proving my identity politics” level of evil.
That’s what I don’t get with the Anti-Brave crowd. Brave learns their users don’t like a feature and then they do better. This would, to me, be indicative of the way things should proceed.
Meanwhile Firefox is moving backwards.
By all means, use a browser that doesn’t work as well, but maybe don’t run a circle jerk of trolls whenever someone offers a better-working alternative.
Personally, I think I should be able to expect a company to understand their target demographic well enough to know that those “features” wouldn’t be well received. But I also personally don’t consider ads and crypto garbage to be features. I guess if you do, then it’s the perfect browser for you. However, I don’t really want to contribute to Google’s monopolisation of browser engine development anymore. Nor do I want to use a browser developed by a homophobe. So even if Brave may be slightly “better-working” I would not consider it better at all.
As well, even though I’m a Blahaj member, I’m going to take the time to point out the “Bee Nice” rule of the instance we’re currently on. It feels like you’re skirting dangerously close to violating that, considering you implied I’m a troll for calling out the prejudicial politics of the founder of a piece of software, which you didn’t at all address in your comment. I’m going to attach some resources about it here, if you care to read them at all:
(Some of these are older, about the push for him to step down as Mozilla CEO, some are newer and urging him to leave Brave, or for people to boycott it.)
Only vivaldi caught this issue. Brave had this api enabled, most likely on accident.
But the problem is, that chromium is just such big and complex software, when combined with development being driven by Google, it’s just impossible for any significant changes or auditing to be done by third parties. Google is capable of exteriting control over Brave, simply by hiding changes like above, or by making massive changes like manifest v3, which are expensive for third parties to maintain.
Brave can maintain 1 big change to chromium, but for how long? What about 2, 3, etc.
My other big problem with brave is that I see them somewhat mimicking Google’s beginnings. Google started out with 3 things: an ad network, a browser, and a search engine.
Right now, Brave has those same three things. It feels very ominous to me, and I would rather not repeat the cycle of enshittification that drove me away from chrome and goolgle.
I thought the situation was a little like Android. Google develops an open source version (along with as many independent developers who wish to contribute), then sticks on a bunch of proprietary BS and sells that version to phone companies. If chromium is to chrome like vanilla android is to android with g-services, then I guess my question really becomes: is google making this change in the underlying code base, or just in the BS they put on top?
Or am I confused about how the connection works between chrome and chromium?
Now I get your point. Technically, I think it could be possible to only include the changes in Chrome. It would make sense for Google to push the changes all the way down to Chromium, though, as this would eliminate ad blockers on many competing browsers as well. Judging based on the past I would say this is what’s gonna happen
whether or not a ‘fully functional’ and fully-featured content blocker remains available for third-party browsers that use chromium as their core will depend on those third-parties and what they add, or add back, to their own releases to support those kinds of browser extensions.
Use DNS filtering. I use NextDNS which has a free tier that meets my needs. You can add popular filter lists and your browser will never even see those ads, trackers etc. Or you can use Vivaldi and Firefox of course. But DNS cuts it off before it even gets to your machine.
Alternatively, you can just host this stuff yourself and never pay. A Pihole is just DNS-filtering. There’s a million guides to do this on the internet already. You can also do it more directly with some routers, I run DNS filtering on an ASUS router with the merlin third-party firmware. It’s possibly the simplest thing you can host yourself. Like others have pointed out though, it isn’t a replacement for uBO. They both complement each other and I would recommend both to people who are able. The one major advantage it has is being able to block some ads in mobile apps. But it cannot block as many in a browser.
For me, my default browser is LibreWolf with several privacy hardening extensions, but if I do come across a website that fails, my usual route goes LibreWolf > Firefox > Ungoogled Chromium
If it doesn’t work beyond that then I just won’t use the website.
I have that problem too but I find using a Chromium-based browser is the solution. I doubt you actually need to use Chrome for these websites you’re having problems with.
i mostly use a vivaldi or opera portable for those. unzip, run, use the temperamental site, close, delete directory. it’s not very often that i have to do this.
but for a couple of pesky sites i do frequent a bit more often, i keep their portable browsers to reuse and have them configured (including addons) specifically for them.
well, there’s a lot wrong with me. but the only reason I use chrome is because when my last windows machine took a shit, I couldn’t afford a new PC so I grabbed a chromebook for $130CAD and I was seriously impressed with how easy and fast it was to use. that was 4 years ago, and now I’m just waiting for google’s hammer to drop so I can switch back to windows.
a chromebook isn’t without its charms, there are features that just make sense to me that are non-existent on windows: for example, you can increase the size of everything on your screen with two fingers on your touchpad. expand to make larger, pinch to shrink it down. seems like a no-brainer for any OS, but windows lacks this feature. and when you’re old af and your eyesight is for shit, this is an extremely useful tool to have available.
but if I can’t block ads then it’s meaningless. there are no redeeming features that could ever outweigh adblock capabilities. once that happens, I’m gone and I’ll never go back to chrome. they can go fuck themselves to death if they’re gonna take away UO
I’m (unfortunately for reasons) running Win11 on a Surface Pro 7 with keyboard, and pinch/pull to zoom works fine in Firefox and Vivaldi, which are the only apps I use the feature on. It produces funky behavior in Explorer and usually does nothing elsewhere.
Is it universally functional in Windows? No. Is it implemented at the OS level? Absolutely.
Sure. But loosing the money to fund development surely won’t help, will it? My point is that there is a real danger here. There are other forces at play which is why you have the chrome dominance already. Long term firefox will fall behind if not maintained. There really needs to be a push to finance firefox or alternatives.
Or imagine if more and more websites “require” some new web protocol to prevent ad blocking, or use of DMCA against browsers or addons altering websites as “web apps”. This is another problem that cannot be solved through individual responsibility.
So Google is a monopoly and removing funding to Firefox will help them not to be a monopoly? That does not sound right. Rather the opposite.
Nothing has been decided or done yet. Most likely they will just be forced to not abuse their position, for example make ads for it on www.google.com, don’t bundle Chrome with Android and such things.
I believe there will always be an alternative to Chrome available as the Open Source community will find a way together.
At this point, using Firefox and an ad blocker does more for the climate than paper straws or recycling.
Even with ad blocking, half of consumer internet traffic is ads. Google is contributing to increasing this ratio, where most traffic on the internet will be stuff the client did not request, contributing more to climate change than Bitcoin - not that this makes crypto look better, they are just a useful milestone to compare to with the press they get.
And this doesn’t include the idiotic AI shit they do.
I’m pretty sure the traffic for the ads still gets sent to your device over the Internet, it’s just that the ad blocker keeps it from rendering in your browser.
It’s a mixed bag. Some ads (like some Youtube stuff I guess) are bundled and filtered, but most actually rely on external requests to ad exchanges. What happens mostly is that when there is an ad spot in the page you downloaded, that is in fact a generic request to an ad broker to send an ad instead of a specific ad. That then starts a real time bidding process inside multiple broker networks to find the most expensive (for the advertiser) ad they can show you based on your tracking information and demographics.
And that’s for every ad spot. It’s insanely intricate and frankly wasteful.
More people should use Firefox. Anyone who does not want Google to control the web browser space with a single base. Firefox will continue support uBlock Origin in its full strength. Notice, Google does not “kill” uBlock Origin, but rather weaken it substantially with a new protocol.
But I get it. With such headlines more people will read it. At least it has a good effect of getting attention of people, who would otherwise ignore it.
Its still the same extension, same source code, same logic, just less capable; hence the addition of “Lite” to the name. Originally they wanted release the Lite version with same name, but changed it Lite, so people don’t get confused why its not longer blocking everything it blocked before.
That’s the point, it isn’t. The good old version was built on logic where the browser would send the downloaded webpage to the extension, and uBO could weed out ads and trackers, and give you the sanitized version. uBOL works completely differently, as it has to ask the browser to clean it out, but the browser will ultimately decide what to actually do, and there are already limitations that impact ad blocking, as the browser won’t accept enough changes to block all the different kinds of shit that comes through.
The other big difference in logic is distribution, uBO relies on outside blocklists to keep up with Google changing Youtube several times a day to keep sending you malware, in the new system, this is not allowed, so it’s on Google to approve a new blocklist as fast as they do their changes - they won’t.
It’s going to be less capable, it’s going to be exactly as capable as Google wants. It might as well be named the Google Ad Blocker if only that didn’t discount the insane work the uBO team does to keep up with Google’s shit.
@Kissaki@beehaw.org@baggins@lemmy.ca@ivn@jlai.lu Apologies. I think you guys are right about this, its actually killing the old plugin (in Chrome). Thanks all for explanation, now I understand why that is.
The developer specifically released the light version because they acknowledged that it is not the same and you need to make the explicit choice of what you want to keep using
Its still the same extension, same source code, same logic, just less capable
the same… but not the same… ??
I think the technologies are quite different.
uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension. This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing – uBOL’s service worker process is required only when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages.
Are you claiming non-lite does the same, plus more?
You say it’s the same source code, but it’s a different source code repository. non-lite, lite.
I don’t think it’s the same source code (uBOL vs uBO). And it’s definitely not the same logic, that’s the whole point, blocking with MV3 must be done in a declarative way.
But they’re not blocking ad blockers. They’re restricting a huge attack surface which has the side effect of making it harder to build ad blockers. With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.
Google should add a specific ad blocking API (though I suppose that name would run afoul of market competition laws, so maybe they’d need to workshop that stuff info “content enhancers” or whatever) before removing the ability for extensions to hide/block/redirect/alter arbitrary requests, but the way extension’s currently work is pretty terrible.
It’s all fun and games if uBlock Origin uses this API, but if one of your other extensions get bought out by a Chinese malware company, you’d be wondering why “save downloads to Nextcloud” and “remove Google search bar from the browser home page” were able to steal all the money out of your checking account and open several credit cards in your name.
Google’s approach sucks, but in my opinion other browsers should show stronger warnings when installing extensions with access to everything you do in a browser (and outside it, if you screen share).
I don’t really care about Chrome, Chrome users can just download another browser if they don’t like ads. I do care about the risks in other browsers, and browsers need to do a lot better communicating and compartmentalising this risk to end users.
“For the security” is starting to sound a lot like “for the children”. I hope this works out better than secure boot. When these new ideas emerge that have, let’s call them, “side effects” like disabling ad-blockers or preventing Linux from being installed I am suspicious.
Google clearly shows their intent by not providing an alternative API for content filtering, but that doesn’t mean there are no security concerns. Malicious extensions have become so prevalent that Mozilla had to switch to only permitting signed extensions (despite community outroar) because shitty companies were inserting their extensions into the users’ profile directory without permission and breaking websites and even Firefox itself in some cases.
Secure Boot requires the user to be able to turn it off, so if it gets in the way of anyone, it’s implemented wrong. Microsoft has a weird certification system for “super duper secure” laptops or whatever they call it where only their private key is loaded, but that’s a small amount of expensive business laptops.
If anything, Secure Boot is an example of the “just let me turn it off if I want to” crowd making computers less secure for the majority because Microsoft allows booting a whole bunch of Linux distros on supposedly locked-down systems, which has been proven to make other attacks possible (like that recent one on Lenovo laptops where a Linux boot disk could insert a fingerprint into the fingerprint reader that would unlock TPM-based encryption).
Nobody is preventing you from installing Linux through secure boot. In fact, you can take control of your secure boot settings and prevent anyone from installing Windows on your computer without your password.
With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.
That seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 20,000? Or 300,000? What the hell is this limit even for? Even malware can still target 10 domains and do some significant damage. So, what the hell is the point?
Remember, politicians don’t pass racist laws by directly saying they are excluding PoC into the law. They do it by targeting commonalities that happen to apply to PoC.
Google isn’t going to flat-out say they are blocking uBlock Origin. They are going to do it by implementing “security features” that just so happen to target only uBlock Origin.
Personally, I would’ve lowered the size of this was about security. Make it a nice, round number, like 1024.
I think it must’ve been based on something like “the declarative layout is x KB per entry so if we assume the file can be 10MB at most we get about 30k entries”. Maybe they documented it somewhere, I don’t know.
I think it’s clear that a security concern has been hijacked by the ad people. If it was just about security, some other content blocking API would’ve been set up. Safari on iOS has content blockers and that doesn’t even use web extensions, so clearly there are software design models that allow blocking without the “read any website data any time” risk that WebExtensions pose.
But these features don’t just target ad blockers. It also affects other extensions, like Stylus for user CSS, or TamperMonkey for user scripts. It also affects other content blockers, of course. The big difference is that most extensions that require permanent access to every resource on every page are either ad blockers, malware, or power user scripts.
This is the most succinct, unbiased explanation I’ve seen for this change. Thank you for this! It’s good to know there’s an unintended security improvement in their otherwise brazen attempt to kill ad blockers on Chrome.
Yes but that’s not the same. Because of Chrome limitation it can’t update it’s blocklist directly. You have to update the whole extension to update the blocklist and that goes through Google validation in the Chrome store. It adds delay and Google could even refuse some updates. The blocklist is also shorter because not all filter rules are supported.
Sounds like ubo lite could end up blocking everything else than Google, unless of course the ad companies pay Google to force ubo lite to remove them from the list.
Declared a monopoly only in the search engine space AFAIK. Browsers don’t have anything to do with that other than maybe setting Google as the default search engine.
The judge has yet to rule on how this should be addressed. Even after he makes a decision on that, there will be appeals. So long as the orange shitbag isn’t reelected, things look better for the industry than they have in a long time: at least something is finally happening.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Yet another reason to use Brave, which has better native ad block than any of the other browsers.
Meh, Brave is still Chroium. Even if they continue to support manifest v2, even today the are selling „good“ ads to the users. That and the Crypto bullshit they tried a while ago makes them untrustworthy in my eyes.
Firefox is the only real alternative.
And yet, it does a better job blocking YouTube ads than Firefox, without any add-ons.
Those features are opt-in.
You mean by building the add-on directly into the browser? No thanks. I like my browser dev to work on my browser and my ad-block dev to work on my ad-block. They are both good at what they do on their own, I don’t need them to mix.
They are now. They were opt-out to begin with. This is one of those “fool me twice” situations. That, and the founder of Brave is also an outspoken homophobe. He financially backed Prop 8 in California to overturn same-sex marriage, and left Firefox because it was too woke. I seriously would rather Chrome at that point. They’re just regular levels of corporate evil, not “every person who uses my browser is proving my identity politics” level of evil.
That’s what I don’t get with the Anti-Brave crowd. Brave learns their users don’t like a feature and then they do better. This would, to me, be indicative of the way things should proceed.
Meanwhile Firefox is moving backwards.
By all means, use a browser that doesn’t work as well, but maybe don’t run a circle jerk of trolls whenever someone offers a better-working alternative.
Personally, I think I should be able to expect a company to understand their target demographic well enough to know that those “features” wouldn’t be well received. But I also personally don’t consider ads and crypto garbage to be features. I guess if you do, then it’s the perfect browser for you. However, I don’t really want to contribute to Google’s monopolisation of browser engine development anymore. Nor do I want to use a browser developed by a homophobe. So even if Brave may be slightly “better-working” I would not consider it better at all.
As well, even though I’m a Blahaj member, I’m going to take the time to point out the “Bee Nice” rule of the instance we’re currently on. It feels like you’re skirting dangerously close to violating that, considering you implied I’m a troll for calling out the prejudicial politics of the founder of a piece of software, which you didn’t at all address in your comment. I’m going to attach some resources about it here, if you care to read them at all:
(Some of these are older, about the push for him to step down as Mozilla CEO, some are newer and urging him to leave Brave, or for people to boycott it.)
Google put an API into Chrome that sends extra system info but only to*.google.com domains. In every Chromium browser.
Only vivaldi caught this issue. Brave had this api enabled, most likely on accident.
But the problem is, that chromium is just such big and complex software, when combined with development being driven by Google, it’s just impossible for any significant changes or auditing to be done by third parties. Google is capable of exteriting control over Brave, simply by hiding changes like above, or by making massive changes like manifest v3, which are expensive for third parties to maintain.
Brave can maintain 1 big change to chromium, but for how long? What about 2, 3, etc.
My other big problem with brave is that I see them somewhat mimicking Google’s beginnings. Google started out with 3 things: an ad network, a browser, and a search engine.
Right now, Brave has those same three things. It feels very ominous to me, and I would rather not repeat the cycle of enshittification that drove me away from chrome and goolgle.
No thanks Brendan Eich the CEO of Brave is a piece of shit.
Enshittification goes brrrr.
Will this change be implemented in Chromium too? Or will it / should it finally become independent of Chrome?
I guess so. I don’t get your second point however. Chromium is as independent from Google/Chrome as your banking app from your bank account.
I thought the situation was a little like Android. Google develops an open source version (along with as many independent developers who wish to contribute), then sticks on a bunch of proprietary BS and sells that version to phone companies. If chromium is to chrome like vanilla android is to android with g-services, then I guess my question really becomes: is google making this change in the underlying code base, or just in the BS they put on top?
Or am I confused about how the connection works between chrome and chromium?
Now I get your point. Technically, I think it could be possible to only include the changes in Chrome. It would make sense for Google to push the changes all the way down to Chromium, though, as this would eliminate ad blockers on many competing browsers as well. Judging based on the past I would say this is what’s gonna happen
yes, it will.
whether or not a ‘fully functional’ and fully-featured content blocker remains available for third-party browsers that use chromium as their core will depend on those third-parties and what they add, or add back, to their own releases to support those kinds of browser extensions.
Use DNS filtering. I use NextDNS which has a free tier that meets my needs. You can add popular filter lists and your browser will never even see those ads, trackers etc. Or you can use Vivaldi and Firefox of course. But DNS cuts it off before it even gets to your machine.
DNS filtering only gets you so far. An adblocker is still a very good addition
dns blocking methods do not, and literally cannot, block them all.
Alternatively, you can just host this stuff yourself and never pay. A Pihole is just DNS-filtering. There’s a million guides to do this on the internet already. You can also do it more directly with some routers, I run DNS filtering on an ASUS router with the merlin third-party firmware. It’s possibly the simplest thing you can host yourself. Like others have pointed out though, it isn’t a replacement for uBO. They both complement each other and I would recommend both to people who are able. The one major advantage it has is being able to block some ads in mobile apps. But it cannot block as many in a browser.
Fuck chrome, FF ftw.
With this from chrome, and Reddit going paywalls do you think we’ll see another spike in Lemmy traffic…i think it’s a safe bet.
They have already been coming in over the last week since the announcement.
At this point if you use Chrome I think there is something wrong with you.
Every now and then a website doesn’t work on Firefox.
For me, my default browser is LibreWolf with several privacy hardening extensions, but if I do come across a website that fails, my usual route goes LibreWolf > Firefox > Ungoogled Chromium
If it doesn’t work beyond that then I just won’t use the website.
I have that problem too but I find using a Chromium-based browser is the solution. I doubt you actually need to use Chrome for these websites you’re having problems with.
i mostly use a vivaldi or opera portable for those. unzip, run, use the temperamental site, close, delete directory. it’s not very often that i have to do this.
but for a couple of pesky sites i do frequent a bit more often, i keep their portable browsers to reuse and have them configured (including addons) specifically for them.
well, there’s a lot wrong with me. but the only reason I use chrome is because when my last windows machine took a shit, I couldn’t afford a new PC so I grabbed a chromebook for $130CAD and I was seriously impressed with how easy and fast it was to use. that was 4 years ago, and now I’m just waiting for google’s hammer to drop so I can switch back to windows.
a chromebook isn’t without its charms, there are features that just make sense to me that are non-existent on windows: for example, you can increase the size of everything on your screen with two fingers on your touchpad. expand to make larger, pinch to shrink it down. seems like a no-brainer for any OS, but windows lacks this feature. and when you’re old af and your eyesight is for shit, this is an extremely useful tool to have available.
but if I can’t block ads then it’s meaningless. there are no redeeming features that could ever outweigh adblock capabilities. once that happens, I’m gone and I’ll never go back to chrome. they can go fuck themselves to death if they’re gonna take away UO
I’m (unfortunately for reasons) running Win11 on a Surface Pro 7 with keyboard, and pinch/pull to zoom works fine in Firefox and Vivaldi, which are the only apps I use the feature on. It produces funky behavior in Explorer and usually does nothing elsewhere.
Is it universally functional in Windows? No. Is it implemented at the OS level? Absolutely.
The garbage is taking itself out
Block Chrome and use anything not Chrome based. In other words use Firefox.
But Firefox is about to loose it’s funding because google is a monopoly lol
Firefox is open source. It’s not going anywhere; even if Mozilla Co. goes broke and closes down the Mozilla Foundation.
Sure. But loosing the money to fund development surely won’t help, will it? My point is that there is a real danger here. There are other forces at play which is why you have the chrome dominance already. Long term firefox will fall behind if not maintained. There really needs to be a push to finance firefox or alternatives.
Or imagine if more and more websites “require” some new web protocol to prevent ad blocking, or use of DMCA against browsers or addons altering websites as “web apps”. This is another problem that cannot be solved through individual responsibility.
So Google is a monopoly and removing funding to Firefox will help them not to be a monopoly? That does not sound right. Rather the opposite.
Nothing has been decided or done yet. Most likely they will just be forced to not abuse their position, for example make ads for it on www.google.com, don’t bundle Chrome with Android and such things.
I believe there will always be an alternative to Chrome available as the Open Source community will find a way together.
See here The Google antitrust ruling could be an existential threat to the future of Firefox | Financials show 86% of Mozilla’s revenue came from the agreement keeping Google as Firefox’s default search engine - lemm.ee
At this point, using Firefox and an ad blocker does more for the climate than paper straws or recycling.
Even with ad blocking, half of consumer internet traffic is ads. Google is contributing to increasing this ratio, where most traffic on the internet will be stuff the client did not request, contributing more to climate change than Bitcoin - not that this makes crypto look better, they are just a useful milestone to compare to with the press they get.
And this doesn’t include the idiotic AI shit they do.
I’m pretty sure the traffic for the ads still gets sent to your device over the Internet, it’s just that the ad blocker keeps it from rendering in your browser.
It’s a mixed bag. Some ads (like some Youtube stuff I guess) are bundled and filtered, but most actually rely on external requests to ad exchanges. What happens mostly is that when there is an ad spot in the page you downloaded, that is in fact a generic request to an ad broker to send an ad instead of a specific ad. That then starts a real time bidding process inside multiple broker networks to find the most expensive (for the advertiser) ad they can show you based on your tracking information and demographics.
And that’s for every ad spot. It’s insanely intricate and frankly wasteful.
No, the adblocker usually blocks the request before the data gets sent to the device. It’s why pages load faster with an adblocker
Yes! Vivaldi!
Built on Chromium. No thanks.
More people should use Firefox. Anyone who does not want Google to control the web browser space with a single base. Firefox will continue support uBlock Origin in its full strength. Notice, Google does not “kill” uBlock Origin, but rather weaken it substantially with a new protocol.
But I get it. With such headlines more people will read it. At least it has a good effect of getting attention of people, who would otherwise ignore it.
They do kill uBlock Origin. The Lite version is a different extension.
Its still the same extension, same source code, same logic, just less capable; hence the addition of “Lite” to the name. Originally they wanted release the Lite version with same name, but changed it Lite, so people don’t get confused why its not longer blocking everything it blocked before.
That’s the point, it isn’t. The good old version was built on logic where the browser would send the downloaded webpage to the extension, and uBO could weed out ads and trackers, and give you the sanitized version. uBOL works completely differently, as it has to ask the browser to clean it out, but the browser will ultimately decide what to actually do, and there are already limitations that impact ad blocking, as the browser won’t accept enough changes to block all the different kinds of shit that comes through.
The other big difference in logic is distribution, uBO relies on outside blocklists to keep up with Google changing Youtube several times a day to keep sending you malware, in the new system, this is not allowed, so it’s on Google to approve a new blocklist as fast as they do their changes - they won’t.
It’s going to be less capable, it’s going to be exactly as capable as Google wants. It might as well be named the Google Ad Blocker if only that didn’t discount the insane work the uBO team does to keep up with Google’s shit.
@Kissaki@beehaw.org @baggins@lemmy.ca @ivn@jlai.lu Apologies. I think you guys are right about this, its actually killing the old plugin (in Chrome). Thanks all for explanation, now I understand why that is.
The developer specifically released the light version because they acknowledged that it is not the same and you need to make the explicit choice of what you want to keep using
the same… but not the same… ??
I think the technologies are quite different.
Are you claiming non-lite does the same, plus more?
You say it’s the same source code, but it’s a different source code repository. non-lite, lite.
I don’t think it’s the same source code (uBOL vs uBO). And it’s definitely not the same logic, that’s the whole point, blocking with MV3 must be done in a declarative way.
The ad company blocking an ad blocker is totally about security
- Google stans
deleted by creator
But they’re not blocking ad blockers. They’re restricting a huge attack surface which has the side effect of making it harder to build ad blockers. With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.
Google should add a specific ad blocking API (though I suppose that name would run afoul of market competition laws, so maybe they’d need to workshop that stuff info “content enhancers” or whatever) before removing the ability for extensions to hide/block/redirect/alter arbitrary requests, but the way extension’s currently work is pretty terrible.
It’s all fun and games if uBlock Origin uses this API, but if one of your other extensions get bought out by a Chinese malware company, you’d be wondering why “save downloads to Nextcloud” and “remove Google search bar from the browser home page” were able to steal all the money out of your checking account and open several credit cards in your name.
Google’s approach sucks, but in my opinion other browsers should show stronger warnings when installing extensions with access to everything you do in a browser (and outside it, if you screen share).
I don’t really care about Chrome, Chrome users can just download another browser if they don’t like ads. I do care about the risks in other browsers, and browsers need to do a lot better communicating and compartmentalising this risk to end users.
“For the security” is starting to sound a lot like “for the children”. I hope this works out better than secure boot. When these new ideas emerge that have, let’s call them, “side effects” like disabling ad-blockers or preventing Linux from being installed I am suspicious.
Google clearly shows their intent by not providing an alternative API for content filtering, but that doesn’t mean there are no security concerns. Malicious extensions have become so prevalent that Mozilla had to switch to only permitting signed extensions (despite community outroar) because shitty companies were inserting their extensions into the users’ profile directory without permission and breaking websites and even Firefox itself in some cases.
Secure Boot requires the user to be able to turn it off, so if it gets in the way of anyone, it’s implemented wrong. Microsoft has a weird certification system for “super duper secure” laptops or whatever they call it where only their private key is loaded, but that’s a small amount of expensive business laptops.
If anything, Secure Boot is an example of the “just let me turn it off if I want to” crowd making computers less secure for the majority because Microsoft allows booting a whole bunch of Linux distros on supposedly locked-down systems, which has been proven to make other attacks possible (like that recent one on Lenovo laptops where a Linux boot disk could insert a fingerprint into the fingerprint reader that would unlock TPM-based encryption).
Nobody is preventing you from installing Linux through secure boot. In fact, you can take control of your secure boot settings and prevent anyone from installing Windows on your computer without your password.
if google cared, they’d vet ads and ad links, and guarantee their safety and security.
if google cared, they’d put a stop to seo ‘optimizers’ and scammers scoring top positions on serps.
but google doesn’t care about anything other than their profits and share price.
adblockers can affect both of those. they’re using the weak cover of ‘security’ enhancement to neuter them.
existing adblockers provide more safety and security than what can be realized by the shift to mv3.
That seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 20,000? Or 300,000? What the hell is this limit even for? Even malware can still target 10 domains and do some significant damage. So, what the hell is the point?
Remember, politicians don’t pass racist laws by directly saying they are excluding PoC into the law. They do it by targeting commonalities that happen to apply to PoC.
Google isn’t going to flat-out say they are blocking uBlock Origin. They are going to do it by implementing “security features” that just so happen to target only uBlock Origin.
Personally, I would’ve lowered the size of this was about security. Make it a nice, round number, like 1024.
I think it must’ve been based on something like “the declarative layout is x KB per entry so if we assume the file can be 10MB at most we get about 30k entries”. Maybe they documented it somewhere, I don’t know.
I think it’s clear that a security concern has been hijacked by the ad people. If it was just about security, some other content blocking API would’ve been set up. Safari on iOS has content blockers and that doesn’t even use web extensions, so clearly there are software design models that allow blocking without the “read any website data any time” risk that WebExtensions pose.
But these features don’t just target ad blockers. It also affects other extensions, like Stylus for user CSS, or TamperMonkey for user scripts. It also affects other content blockers, of course. The big difference is that most extensions that require permanent access to every resource on every page are either ad blockers, malware, or power user scripts.
This is the most succinct, unbiased explanation I’ve seen for this change. Thank you for this! It’s good to know there’s an unintended security improvement in their otherwise brazen attempt to kill ad blockers on Chrome.
Fuck Google.
i use firefox (and you should too) but they’re blocking ubo, which as not updated to mv2 - ubo lite still works.
Yes but that’s not the same. Because of Chrome limitation it can’t update it’s blocklist directly. You have to update the whole extension to update the blocklist and that goes through Google validation in the Chrome store. It adds delay and Google could even refuse some updates. The blocklist is also shorter because not all filter rules are supported.
Sounds like ubo lite could end up blocking everything else than Google, unless of course the ad companies pay Google to force ubo lite to remove them from the list.
Google was declared a monopoly. Next step: Let the monopoly keep doing the monopoly stuff.
Declared a monopoly only in the search engine space AFAIK. Browsers don’t have anything to do with that other than maybe setting Google as the default search engine.
The judge has yet to rule on how this should be addressed. Even after he makes a decision on that, there will be appeals. So long as the orange shitbag isn’t reelected, things look better for the industry than they have in a long time: at least something is finally happening.