this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
530 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nfsu2@feddit.cl 115 points 2 years ago

oh no, anyway... -Firefox users

[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 82 points 2 years ago

Thank goodness for Firefox. Google is really doing their best to make the Internet unusable.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 68 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Google justified this change by highlighting how extensions using the Web Request API could access and modify all the data in a network request, essentially being able to change everything that a user could do on the web (~~which is pretty scary and problematic when you think about it~~ which is a perfectly valid usecase of a user-installed extension).

[–] gever4ever@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago

I mean what else do I want it to do if not ~~modify~~ extend my usage of the web?

[–] Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev 55 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is good new if you ask me: more people switching to firefox

[–] kionite231@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

People don't even know about manifest v3 let alone switching to Firefox. They will just use whatever google throws at them.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago

This was true of IE too.

All of this has happened before, and will happen again.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The point is they will know once their adblocker stops working, and they start to investigate why this happened.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago

So many people don't use adblockers. It's quite sad actually.

load more comments (1 replies)

Guess I just need to keep using firefox. shrug

[–] yoz@aussie.zone 44 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Goddamnit I missed out again, faaaackkk! Why do i keep using Firefox ? Why?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Because you don't randomly insist that your tab UI is some extremely fucking specific way that is somehow required to use the Internet! The nerve!

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 2 years ago

Well what did you expect from an advertising company with a side hustle in web search.

[–] corbin 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This article is really wrong, wow. There is already a Manifest V3-compliant version of uBlock Origin, it's discussed in this thread: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338

I don't know if it's stated definitively anywhere, but I'm pretty sure the plan is to roll out that different version to Chrome users as an update to the existing extension. It's going to be slightly worse because MV3 is still missing some API features.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that version works but it's always been a lite version compared to the standard ublock origin with far less capabilities and features.

[–] corbin 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Right, my point was just that the article is wrong/clickbait. The changes won't "disable uBlock Origin" or "essentially kill off uBlock Origin".

[–] Phrodo_00@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

The V3 version of ublock should really use a different name to make it clear it doesn't have the same capabilities as in V2/Firefox. Maybe something like UBlock use-firefox-instead.

[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I could have sworn I saw something saying Google caved on this due to pressure.

[–] canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They pushed it back. They've done so several times with Manifest V3.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's an important distinction. Whenever trillion dollar tech companies say they're not going to do something hugely unpopular and selfish because of public sentiment, what they really mean is they're not going to do it right then. Instead they back off, do something like this to get everyone's attention focused elsewhere, and then they'll push the original unpopular idea anyways, but quietly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tibert@jlai.lu 16 points 2 years ago

It was something else. Web drm : Web Integrity API.

Tho I don't think they canceled the mobile variant of it for apps.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

They backed off their web drm, because it was hugely unpopular, but also because they remembered they own chromium and can just disable adblockers directly. They tried to over-engineer something that requires everyone else to adopt a new standard, when all they ever needed to do was use a sledgehammer.

[–] neo@lemmy.comfysnug.space 6 points 2 years ago

They played possum while stuffing MV3 with as many internet killers as they could get away with

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago

Enshitification continues.

[–] OrkneyKomodo@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 2 years ago

Amazing how versioning can give an air of legitimacy through the illusion of progress.

[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I suppose this will affect chromium too?

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago

Since Chrome does not "disable uBlock Origin" but Google deprecating manifest V2 in favor of manifest V3 it will be done in Chromium because Chromium does the heavy lifting and Chrome is "just a Chromium based browser".

[–] mtchristo@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They have been postponing it for a long time now. But uBlock origin has a light version they expect to work with V3. I wonder why they bother in the first place when they can just focus on Firefox

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 15 points 2 years ago (7 children)

But uBlock origin has a light version they expect to work with V3

It just "kinda" works. It cannot nearly load all the network filters that it would normally use.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] red@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Didn't expect the day to come when I can no longer use Chromium based browsers.

Oh well, anyway.

[–] Veticia@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (17 children)

Not sponsored, I just genuinely like the product. Adguard doesn't require manifests because it works outside the browser.

On the other news I hope this bullshit is finally the straw that kills chrome.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago

Not sponsored, I just genuinely like the product. Adguard doesn't require manifests because it works outside the browser.

But trivial to circumvent. Just change the origin url from (for example) 'ads.google.com' to 'google.com' and you no longer can block ads based on DNS blocking.

While it is now not a hugh thread it will eventually happen when they manage to eradicate adblockers in the browser.

[–] utubas@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ublock origin is far way more advanced and complete than adguard, though. Cosmetic filtering, for example

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] waspentalive@lemmy.one 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The people who don't run ad-blockers are many, and stupid.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Hope springs eternal. Most people without an adblocker don't even notice that their web experience has become an ad-ridden hellscape.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I've disabled chrome on all my devices some time ago, so this is fine.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

idk what people say but webextensions were a mistake.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

Early Christmas present for FireFox, yay!

[–] sirdorius@programming.dev 7 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Does this apply to all Chromium based browsers? I would like to switch to Firefox, but the touchscreen scroll there is terrible, and that is 90% of what I do in a browser.

[–] madis@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Vivaldi and Brave are planning to extend the deadline of MV2 by some extent, not sure if it means just like the enterprise policy or will they keep the implementation in code for longer.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mrbubblesort@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

yes it does.

what trouble are you having with FF's scroll? it's worked perfectly fine on every device I've ever seen, you sure it's not a problem with your setup?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›