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.

Google Chrome’s plan to limit ad blocking extensions kicks off next week

Reminder to switch browsers if you haven’t already!

  • Google Chrome is starting to phase out older, more capable ad blocking extensions in favor of the more limited Manifest V3 system.
  • The Manifest V3 system has been criticized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for restricting the capabilities of web extensions.
  • Google has made concessions to Manifest V3, but limitations on content filtering remain a source of skepticism and concern.
alchemist2023 ,

won’t stop pihole

7U5K3N ,

Man for real.

overload ,

And they never will.

HarriPotero ,
@HarriPotero@lemmy.world avatar

You sweet summer child.

How long do you think Chrome will let DoH be opt-in?

AlphaAutist ,

You sweet summer child

How are they going to get past my firewall rules?

RootBeerGuy ,
@RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Show 'em your bionicles collection!

4am ,

By refusing to load

HarriPotero ,
@HarriPotero@lemmy.world avatar

Personally, I’d like to see them force in-browser DoH down my throat with my computer powered off. They’ll never see it coming.

admin ,
@admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

By using the same hostnames that you need for wanted content.

brbposting ,

https://files.catbox.moe/2nxvan.gif

Album ,
@Album@lemmy.ca avatar

It’s not up to Chrome.

HarriPotero ,
@HarriPotero@lemmy.world avatar

The day they do their own DoH in-browser it is definitely up to them. It’s already opt-in if you want to see how well your pi-hole won’t work with it enabled.

Next step is to do DoH by default, and finally making it compulsory.

Spotlight7573 ,

Chrome already does have DoH enabled by default from what I can tell.

support.google.com/chrome/answer/10468685

By default, Secure DNS in Chrome is turned on in automatic mode. If Chrome has issues looking up a site in this mode, it’ll look up the site in the unencrypted mode.

Album , (edited )
@Album@lemmy.ca avatar

They can do it all they want but it won’t work…

If I “opt in” it falls back to non doh immediately because using doh on my network is not up to Chrome.

use-application-dns.net + nxdomain for any known doh provider

I don’t use pihole but doh blocking works great on my network. It should work on a pihole tho it’s pretty basic stuff.

If you can’t resolve the domain you can’t validate the TLS certificate.

Railcar8095 ,

It’s still DNS level only, right? That wouldn’t stop YouTube ads, or remove annoyances.

Rai ,

Love my PiHole but you’re hella correct

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

You can block ads from being served to you.

But the flip side is that the website developer can make a website that won’t function if it can’t load the ads being served.

And most users are gonna want a functional website.

dual_sport_dork ,
@dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world avatar

Somebody’s going to need to write a web site with a very, very compelling function to make me give enough of a shit to not just click away if it is deliberately coded to not work with Firefox/adblockers. Like, gives me a million dollars per page load functionality.

Potato__Ninja ,

Firefox Forever!!

parpol ,

What does google expect users to do once they realize they get better extensions with firefox?

Imagine ad blockers not working on youtube only on chromium browsers, or tracking cookies/pixels/scripts not being blockable only on chromium browsers.

AnActOfCreation OP ,
@AnActOfCreation@programming.dev avatar

They expect most users to not care, and sadly they’re right.

overload ,

I think people just genuinely don’t know that firefox (and I suppose Safari) is the only true alternative browser i.e. Not based on chromium.

I do my best to transition people I know across, but people are retty comfortable on chrome. If ad blockers stop working, I think there will be people who care just enough to switch.

shalafi ,

Used Firefox on and off since it came around, not a fan. But if chromium blocks ad-blockers, I’m switching instantly. I doubt many people know or care enough to switch.

overload ,

I’ve been on Firefox almost exclusively for about a decade and I can’t really tell the difference between them honestly in terms of performance of normal web browsing.

I’m having some weird graphical issues with my NAS frontend Web portal display on Firefox atm though, so keep chromium installed for that.

NoRodent ,
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

I honestly don’t understand why anyone would refuse to switch from away Chrome. It’s not like the other browsers lack functionality or are slow. The only problem they might encounter is some rare incompatibility which is the result of Firefox (and its forks) small market share and web devs not caring enough.

I’ve never used Chrome as my primary browser and I don’t think I missed anything. I started using Opera years before Chrome was even a thing (back when everyone was using IE) and then when the old Opera died, I didn’t think even for a second about switching to Chrome and went straight to Firefox. Which could at least be highly customized to bring some Opera exclusive features (eg. mouse gestures, tab grouping) back.

grue ,

I think people just genuinely don’t know that firefox (and I suppose Safari) is the only true alternative browser i.e. Not based on chromium.

Safari is only “not based on Chromium” in the sense that the heredity goes in the other direction (Chromium is based on it).

Firefox is the only browser that maintains a rendering engine codebase fully separate from Chrome. That’s why using Firefox, and evangelizing it to help keep up its marketshare, is so vitally important for the health of the web.

overload ,

Huh, I didn’t know that about Safari/Chromium. Absolutely agree that having a Google-controlled browser monopoly would be catastrophic.

Ephera ,

I think, they just stopped caring about users instead. They’ve got enough market share. Might as well internet-explorer it for a while.

Wild_Mastic , (edited )

80% of people I know does not use an ad block, even the ones more tech savvy. I have no clue how brainwashed they are for eating ad garbage all day long.

NoRodent ,
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

To be fair, let’s be glad that 80% of people don’t use an ad block. If it were the opposite and 80% did use ad block, web services would be much more aggressive in combating ad blockers and many more of them would end up pay-walled (although it seems we’re heading there anyway).

On one hand, I feel kinda bad that my ad-free experience is only supported thanks to those who do undergo the torture of ads, on the other hand, the companies have only themselves to blame. If web ads were decent, only limited to sides and headers or even between paragraphs of web pages and didn’t cover the content you’re trying to view, didn’t try to trick you into thinking it’s part of the content, didn’t lead to malicious websites, didn’t autoplay videos with sound or didn’t put unskippable ads before and inside videos, I would have never felt the need to install an ad block.

exanime ,

What does google expect users to do once they realize they get better extensions with firefox?

If that happens en masse, which is extremely unlikely, Google can just pull its funding for Mozilla and cripple them

The entire sector is fucked because of lack of regulation

Sanctus ,
@Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

I am the only person at my work that even knows what an ad blocker is. My boss, director of IT, doesn’t use one. Uses chrome with no extensions like everyone else.

expatriado ,

firefox extensions are the best patches i have for enshittification

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

Switched to Firefox at work today. Looks like I still need Chrome to do the VPN handshake, but the more of us there are, the more pressure we have on IT!

AnActOfCreation OP ,
@AnActOfCreation@programming.dev avatar

If you still need Chrome, consider Ungoogled Chromium!

Veraxus ,

Is that project going to maintain Manifest V2 support?

AnActOfCreation OP ,
@AnActOfCreation@programming.dev avatar

I have no idea. I’d guess not, as it’s not a strong fork like other Chromium-based browsers. Its main selling point is that it’s nearly identical to Chrome, but with a lot of the Google garbage stripped out. I don’t use it as a daily driver, but only when I need something Chromium-based like the use case mentioned by @OsrsNeedsF2P. It’s very likely to work wherever Chrome does.

Ephera ,

I don’t have official information, but I doubt it. They tend to stick as closely to the Chromium experience as possible, with the exception of the ungoogled part, of course. Maintaining Manifest v2 support would also just be a massive amount of work, for which they likely don’t have the manpower.

Emptiness ,
@Emptiness@lemmy.world avatar

I’m still confounded by workplaces that run the old nineties way of VPN handshake by browser. Clunky, clumsy just straight up bad digital workplace setup.

There is no reason to not do it the modern way where all the handshaking and connecting is done under the hood, hidden from the user. At the most you as a user should only see the tiny little systray icon switch how it looks.

LifeLikeLady ,
@LifeLikeLady@lemmy.world avatar

Long live Firefox.

Jarlsburg ,

hear ye

fine_sandy_bottom ,

Pretty great outcome for firefox really.

I don’t think firefox numbers will get a huge & immediate bump, but I think that over time it will support a reputation for firefox as being cool different and just plain better.

I can’t imagine raw-dogging the internet without an ad blocker in 2024. I’m aware that most people aren’t bothered by ads, but surely… surely some people might be interested in blocking them if they become aware that it’s possible and easy.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Other groups don’t agree with Google’s description, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which called Manifest V3 “deceitful and threatening” back when it was first announced in 2019, saying the new system “will restrict the capabilities of web extensions—especially those that are designed to monitor, modify, and compute alongside the conversation your browser has with the websites you visit.”

Google, which makes about 77 percent of its revenue from advertising, has not published a serious explanation as to why Manifest V3 limits content filtering, and it’s not clear how that aligns with the goals of “improving the security, privacy, performance and trustworthiness.”

Like Kewisch said, the primary goal of malicious extensions is to spy on users and slurp up data, which has nothing to do with content filtering.

Google now says it’s possible for extensions to skip the reviews process for “safe” rule set changes, but even this is limited to “static” rulesets, not more powerful “dynamic” ones.

In a comment to The Verge last year, the senior staff technologist at the EFF, Alexei Miagkov, summed up Google’s public negotiations with the extension community well, saying, "These are helpful changes, but they are tweaks to a limited-by-design system.

For a short period, users will be able to turn them back on if they visit the extension page, but Google says that “over time, this toggle will go away as well.”

The original article contains 692 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

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