There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

CynicusRex , (edited )
@CynicusRex@lemmy.ml avatar

On desktop, either use:

On Android:

tangentism ,

Google isn’t blocking one of the biggest adblockers. It’s killing chrome!

Those who aren’t using an adblock won’t notice any difference but everyone else will just migrate to a non chromium browser

communist ,
@communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz avatar

This will incentivize businesses to only support chrome

DragonTypeWyvern ,

I’m fine with not supporting them then.

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.ml avatar

Google has been telegraphing this for months. Either switch browsers now or enjoy your ads.

JackbyDev , (edited )

They’ve literally said ad blockers are a threat to their revenue www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/…/goog10-kq42018.htm

Risks Related to Our Businesses and Industries

[…]

New and existing technologies could affect our ability to customize ads and/or could block ads online, which would harm our business.

Technologies have been developed to make customizable ads more difficult or to block the display of ads altogether and some providers of online services have integrated technologies that could potentially impair the core functionality of third-party digital advertising. Most of our Google revenues are derived from fees paid to us in connection with the display of ads online. As a result, such technologies and tools could adversely affect our operating results.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

It’s not exactly super helpful to just link to an 86 page SEC filing. Maybe you could provide a quote?

JackbyDev ,

Ctrl F for “block”. There were only 5 usages of the word and that led me to the section.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

That’s nice. A quote still would have been more approachable for most, while those that were more curious could have followed the link to the document.

JackbyDev ,

I have some time now, I’ll grab it and edit it in

FlashMobOfOne ,
@FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org avatar

Yet another reason to use Brave, which has better native ad block than any of the other browsers.

blackris ,
@blackris@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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.

FlashMobOfOne ,
@FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org avatar

Brave is still Chroium

And yet, it does a better job blocking YouTube ads than Firefox, without any add-ons.

Crypto, Ads

Those features are opt-in.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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.

FlashMobOfOne , (edited )
@FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org avatar

They are now.

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.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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:

  1. pinknews.co.uk/…/javascript-inventor-gave-1000-to…
  2. arstechnica.com/…/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-…
  3. arstechnica.com/…/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-ei…
  4. tim.dreamwidth.org/1844711.html
  5. modelviewculture.com/…/killing-the-messenger-at-m…
  6. tim.dreamwidth.org/1852118.html
  7. community.brave.com/t/…/281044

(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.)

Xero ,
@Xero@infosec.pub avatar

No thanks Brendan Eich the CEO of Brave is a piece of shit.

moonpiedumplings , (edited )

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.

orcrist ,

The garbage is taking itself out

Mio ,

Block Chrome and use anything not Chrome based. In other words use Firefox.

LarmyOfLone ,

But Firefox is about to loose it’s funding because google is a monopoly lol

fwygon ,

Firefox is open source. It’s not going anywhere; even if Mozilla Co. goes broke and closes down the Mozilla Foundation.

LarmyOfLone ,

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.

Mio ,

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.

LarmyOfLone ,

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

psycocan ,

Ungoogled Chromium

Dhs92 ,

Or, hear me out, Firefox

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Firefox: “I’m listening.”

Sabata11792 ,

Advertiser: “I know.”

psycocan ,

I left the firefox camp about a couple of weeks ago. First, it has huge memory consumption on linux (seems more like leaks) and my RAM is 16 Gigs. The recent decisions and the light shed on mozilla priorities actually made me realize that Mozilla is on the same train as evil corporates like Google. Ungoogled chromium seems the better choice to me atm

Ilandar ,

Have you tried the various Firefox forks? If one of your primary problems with Firefox is a belief that they are “evil like Google” then switching to a browser developed by Google and further entrenching their monopoly on the market is a very strange decision.

coffeetest ,

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.

adarza ,

dns blocking methods do not, and literally cannot, block them all.

B0rax ,

DNS filtering only gets you so far. An adblocker is still a very good addition

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

a free tier

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.

FreeBooteR69 ,
@FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca avatar

Fuck chrome, FF ftw.

zeekaran ,

Looks like I’m going to use my work laptop browser a lot less.

DeForrest_McCoy ,

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.

Sabata11792 ,

They have already been coming in over the last week since the announcement.

CanadaPlus ,

Enshittification goes brrrr.

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

Perhaps this will bug people who currently use Chrome and uBO to switch browsers.

ColonelPanic ,

This coming down the line finally got me off of my incredibly lazy ass and forced me to switch a few months ago. It was easy, and I don’t know why I didn’t do it sooner.

ShepherdPie ,

I use Firefox everywhere except work where my only options are Chrome or Edge (both chromium). Apparently uBlock lite is supposed to work on the new version of Chrome and hopefully still functions roughly the same. Apart from block web ads, I rely on it to block YouTube ads.

stealth_cookies ,

I wish I could for work. But stupid corporate policy demands otherwise, Google workspace is so shit.

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

Oh no judgment at all, I’m also using Chrome at work and somewhat outside of work.

adarza ,

i did read somewhere that affected chrome users are being presented with alternatives from the chrome extension ‘store’ that are mv3-ready.

whether or not they’re capable of clicking the right buttons on the right screens and windows to do it is another story.

ubo, abp and adguard all have mv3 variants. there are others, but i think those are the ‘big three’. ublock origin lite is what i’ve been moving people to here, if not to firefox. so far, so good.

viking ,
@viking@infosec.pub avatar

I think the lite versions don’t allow scripted blocking, only static or something. So a whole lot of the adaptive blocks for persistent ads you encounter on facebook, instagram and other shitty socials that behave like viruses will be hard to impossible to kill.

I’m glad I never had to deal with that as I have never used Chrome on desktop, but I’m pretty sure there will be many folks out there who don’t know how to switch.

LiveLM ,

They’ll switch from Chrome to Cryptocurrency flavored Chrome and think all is well in the world.

Antient ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Fish ,

    I wouldn’t recommend Brave for 3 main reasons:

    1. Chromium-based
    2. Funded by venture capitalists
    3. Supported by crypto and ads

    Unfortunately, Firefox and its forks are really the only alternative to Chrome.

    sleepybisexual ,

    Also the whole brave CEO being a homophobic prick. Also that adblock will probably break under v3

    Antient ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    sleepybisexual ,

    Nice, doesn’t excuse the CEO tho

    Antient ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    sleepybisexual ,

    Good, and CEO are kinda mutually exclusive

    technocrit ,

    I’m pro-crypto enough that I tried Brave but anti-crypto enough that I had to stop.

    The popup ads were melting my brain and the payment wasn’t worth it.

    tate ,

    Will this change be implemented in Chromium too? Or will it / should it finally become independent of Chrome?

    abrahambelch ,
    @abrahambelch@programming.dev avatar

    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.

    tate ,

    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?

    abrahambelch ,
    @abrahambelch@programming.dev avatar

    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

    adarza ,

    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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •