uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.

uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    105·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    73·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • kubica@fedia.io
    40·
    3 months ago

    Google was declared a monopoly. Next step: Let the monopoly keep doing the monopoly stuff.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      11·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • ColonelPanic@lemm.ee
      16·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • adarza@lemmy.caEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      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@infosec.pub
        8·
        3 months ago

        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@lemmy.zipEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

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

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    26·
    3 months ago

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

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      15·
      3 months ago

      They’ve literally said ad blockers are a threat to their revenue https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419000004/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.

  • kyub@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    16·
    3 months ago

    Well, they’re only doing what they announced already like 1-2 years ago. So we knew it was coming. This is also accompanied by Google making YouTube more restrictive when viewed with adblockers. Google is (somewhat late, to be honest) showing its teeth against users who block ads. I always expected it to happen but it took them quite some time. Probably they wanted to play the good guys for long enough until most users are dependent on their services, and now their proprietary trap is very effective.

    On the desktop, you should switch to a good Firefox fork right now. Firefox can also be used but needs configuring before it’s good. The forks LibreWolf or Mullvad Browser are already very good out of the box. There’s the potential issue of the forks not being updated fast enough, but so far these two have been fast. Mullvad shares a lot of configuration with the Tor Browser, so using it may break some sites. LibreWolf might be “better” for the average user because of that, but otherwise I think Mullvad is the best Firefox fork overall.

    On mobile, Firefox-based browsers aren’t recommended, because on Android, the sandboxing mechanism of Firefox is inferior to that of the Chromium-based browsers. And on iOS, all browsers (have to) run on Apple’s proprietary Webkit engine anyway, but well this is Apple we’re talking about so of course it’s all locked-down and restricted. It’s one of the reasons I don’t even like talking about Apple that much, just be aware that as an iOS user, your choice doesn’t mean as much when it comes to browsers, and your browser might not behave like you think it does on other platforms.

    So on mobile, I’d suggest things like Brave, Cromite or Mull. Or Vanadium (GrapheneOS). If the browser doesn’t have built-in adblocking capability which sidesteps the MV3 restrictions, make sure to use an ad-blocking DNS server, so your browser doesn’t have to do it. But you still need it. Adblocking not only helps you retain your sanity when browsing the web in 2024, but it also proactively secures you against known and unknown security threats coming from ads. So adblocking is a security plus, a privacy plus, and a sanity plus. It’s absolutely mandatory. As long as the ad industry is as terrible as it is, you should continue using adblocks. All the time. On every device and on every browser.

    The ad industry is itself to blame for this. There could in theory be such a thing like acceptable ads, but that would require ads to be static images/text, not fed by personal data, and not dynamically generated by random scripts which could compromise your security, and not overly annoying. Since that is probably never going to happen, you should never give up using adblockers. Since they basically fight you by reducing your security and privacy, you have a right to defend yourself via technical means.

  • Leonard Kelley@beehaw.org
    15·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • coffeetest@beehaw.org
    13·
    3 months ago

    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@lemmy.caEnglish
      14·
      3 months ago

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

    • B0rax@feddit.orgDeutsch
      5·
      3 months ago

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

      • psycocan@lemmy.ml
        2·
        3 months ago

        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

    • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
      23·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
        1·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
      11·
      3 months ago

      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.