EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:
Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.
Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.
Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.
Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):
I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/
“uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.
Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.
How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word “slam” on the daily in headlines?
It’s straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.
Ragebait gets more clicks.
Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.
Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.
it’s also just an objectively fantastic word
100% disagree
“X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
Fuck “slam” in headlines.
You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”
I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.
I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.
All of these are better
No they aren’t, for the very reason I already stated. They aren’t concise, which is paramount when it comes to crafting a headline.
Slam in headlines implies violence
Slam does not imply violence or force lol.
If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question
I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Slam does not imply violence or force lol.
Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):
I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.
My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:
if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It’s clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.
The title is misleading, or false.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox
This document explains why uBO works best in Firefox.
The title is misleading, or false.
Welcome to 2024, where people only read the headline and the article is compiled by AI
Even better is FF mobile (on Android) supports full list of addons, including uBlock Origin.
The using the web without uBlock Origin is cancer.
I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.
Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.
It’s the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.
The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.
Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask
This addon will work if it’s not letting you
Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn’t work on other browsers, where they failed to test.
Worth keeping around at least
Out of principle, I refuse to pretend I am not browsing with Firefox. 🦊❤️✊ Let website statistics show! And I will boycott sites that break due to not testing on multiple browsers!
I thought like that until youtube started intentionally slowing firefox identifying clients. As soon as I changed my user-agent to match chrome’s the speed was back to normal.
Lol I blocked all but essential JS on YouTube with NoScript and never faced any problems at all. Videos load just fine without extra penalties.
That works until it’s your bank or credit card website. I cannot use Capital One’s (CC) “pay bill” any longer.
Change banks
What the uBlock dev actually said:
Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.
Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.
Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.
This has been a long time in the making…hopefully Firefox will see a market share increase. Google is doing this right as they get slapped by an antitrust ruling ironically lol. If you haven’t already just go ahead and switch, if you like Lemmy you’ll probably like Firefox as well.
Side note: I try not to be negative here, but this would be a great time for Mozilla to get their act together as an organization. Love Firefox and the idea, but Mozilla has been pissing off the FOSS space for a while now with their decisions. If they’ve improved in recent years, disregard this.
Can you share some examples of things that pisses off the FOSS space? Mostly just curious to understand more
Here’s the most recent example:
The browser that promises “no shady privacy notices or advertiser backdoors” on its storefront has suddenly added an experimental feature to beam user interactions to advertisers and enables it by default. Many are not happy.
It should be noted that the advertisers get zero personal information, neither does Mozilla, and it has been designed in a way so that the data is impossible to fingerprint in a way that can tie it back to any individual person, machine, or specific location.
It’s a way for advertisers (and like it or not, a decent amount of the content we want has to be paid for somehow) to see how effective their ads are without anybody’s privacy being encroached on.
Should it have been turned on without informing the user? Fuck no. But there’s a lot of misinformation going around about this.
Personally I’ll still be using uBO, because I despise any ads at all, but if we are to have ads, the system Mozilla has built is just about the most ethical and privacy-respecting way to do it.
Even if Mozilla takes precautions to avoid de-anonymizing our data, any private data sold to data brokers becomes a part of the puzzle for learning our identities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_re-identification
Even knowing something a trivial as two movie ratings led to a 68% success rate in learning an identity.
I suggest you actually look into how their system works. This kind of strategy is not possible with Mozilla’s system.
In fact, your very link points to ‘Differential Privacy’ as a very effective foil to re-identification, and that’s basically how the Mozilla system operates.
This is not a matter of Mozilla having a load of data about your account or IP, then Mozilla scrubbing that information then sending the database to advertisers.
I appreciate your informed response but no system other than advertising-abstinence is fool proof.
Im saying this as a supporter. My browser of choice is firefox and I send them money regularly. And I understand their need to generate more revenue. But there has never been a company who has sold customer data discretely. My understanding is that every piece of data that’s sold can be de anonymized when combined with other data sets. And the data is horsetraded until it gets into some very marginal actors’ hands.
Mozilla’s need for money is largely driven by massive mismanagement. It should have been fully funded in perpetuity through establishing a foundation that operates off interest payments but they decided to try and build a headquarters in Mountainview. They also operate offices in some of the most expensive cities in the world. They have made expensive software aquisitions. These are not necessary and have only whetted mozilla’s thirst for other revenue sources. It’s guaranteed that they will look for more customer data to sell because that’s the path of least resistance.
I wish them luck but I also wish they’d not chase advertising money.
As for the “no system is foolproof”, you’re thinking of implementations, not algorithms. An algorithm can indeed be something-proof. Most “known” algorithms are built on top of very strong mathematical foundations stating what is possible, what is not and what is a maybe.
As for the ads thing, Mozilla is not making a dime off this. It is not monetizable. They’re basically expecting that by giving advertisers a fairly “benign” way to do their shenanigans they will stop doing things the way they currently do (with per-individual tracking).
The absolutists might say that there’s no such thing as benign ads, however truth is that the market forces behind ads are big enough that you’d get website-integrity-bullshit rather ad-free web. Having tracking less ads is better than having a “this website only works in chrome” or “only without extensions” internet.
Is there any other possibility? Maybe. Is is reasonable to think that the moment tracking starts getting blocked em masse, we risk a web-integrity-bullshit +wherever-said-tracking-can-exist-only internet? I think so.
The tricky part is that Google isn’t wrong about Manifest v3 increasing security for some people. Just allowing any extension to access the full URLs from a webpage is honestly pretty sketchy for most things that aren’t adblockers. Think about Beth in accounting who has 27 bloatware toolbar extensions installed on her home PC, which are happily collecting her full browser history and sending it off to gods know where. Manifest v3 is targeted at increasing security for those users, by making it more difficult for extensions to track you.
The issue is that it also makes ad blocking virtually impossible, because the blocker is forced to just trust that the browser is being truthful about what is and isn’t on the page. And when the browser (developed by one of the largest advertisers in the world) has a vested financial interest in displaying ads, there’s very little trust that the browser will actually be honest.
The issue is that there’s not some sort of “yes, I really want this extension to have full access” legacy workaround built in. Yes, it would inevitably be abused by those scummy extensions, which would just nag idiot users to allow them full access. And the idiot users, being idiots, would just do it without understanding the risks. Even if Chrome threw up all kinds of big red “hey make sure this extension actually needs full access and isn’t just tracking your shit” warning flags, there are still plenty of users who would happily give bloatware full access without reading any of the warnings. But it would also allow ad blockers to continue to function.
The single biggest security improvement you could make for Beth in accounting would be to install UBO. Where do you think she gets all those shitty toolbar extensions? That’s right, from ads.
This is targeted at destroying adblockers because Google is, first and foremost, an ad serving company. That’s their business model. It incidentally improves security for certain users in certain edge cases, because they need some kind of figleaf of legitimacy.
On the same day Google was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act…
I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s ruling. They are a direct competitor.
deleted by creator
Because their maiden name is Judge Fasbuk?
Too bad nothing will come from that.
What happened?
They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).
It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.
As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.
It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.
Why not just recommend not using Chrome…?
You know there are other ad blockers? Other browsers have them built into the browser itself so there’s no need for any extensions at all.
You realize Mozilla is selling your data, regardless of what extensions you have?
uBO is the best one though. And Firefox is one of the major mainstream browsers. Is easier to get people to change to something well known rather than an obscure browser like librewolf.
Mozilla doesn’t sell your data if you use Librewolf (or if you just opt out)
Then use LibreWolf.
I just think it’s hilarious that people fall over themselves lambasting private Chromium alternatives while vehemently supporting a browser that is openly selling your data.
…no?
why not?
Why?
a good reason is that they are controlled by Google and without competition they can implement any anti-consumer features they want
No they’re not. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
None of the other Chromium based browsers have the engineering power to go their own way. They are dependent on what Google adds or removes in Chromium.
Switching to another Chromium-based browser is a half-measure. Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time.
As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support. Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications. And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.
I mean, sure, use what you’re comfortable with if you really can’t use a non-Chromium-based browser for some reason. But it means you’re likely going to have to jump ship again sooner or later. Why not just jump once, to something with better long-term prospects?
Then again, the folks behind Arc Browser have expressed interest in becoming engine-agnostic, so perhaps there will be a Chromium-free Arc version in the future. That would be very cool.
Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time. As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support.
And Firefox won’t? I just explained why you don’t even need v2 support.
Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications.
Except…all of them?
And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.
If and when that becomes a problem, I can change later just like I can today… Today it is not a problem.
They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead
Imagine if Google’s decision to do this to fight adblockers results in them losing the lead in the browser war because everyone switches to other browsers.
Dreaming is one thing, but I remain skeptical. Tech people always seem to vastly overestimate how much the average population will react to tech news. Most people don’t care. They should but they don’t. In addition to that, use of Chrome by businesses is heavily entrenched. The IT guys probably hate it on a personal level, but it takes a lot to make business bigwigs change direction away from a “trustworthy” big company like Google.
I mostly agree, but lets remember
use of Chrome by businesses is heavily entrenched.
So was internet explorer
The thing that finally got businesses to finally get off IE wasn’t from the browser being worse than every other option. Heck, it wasn’t even because it was a decrepit piece of software that lost it’s former market dominance (and if anything businesses see that as a positive, not a negative).
What finally did that was microsoft saying there won’t be any security updates. That’s what finally got them off their ass; subtly threatening them with data breaches, exploits, etc. if they continue to use it. I don’t see google doing this anytime soon, at least not without a “sequel” like microsoft had with edge.
The ‘block element’ picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.
Also included block lists can’t update unless the extension itself updates.
If you’re not stuck on chrome due to workplace policy or something, now is the time to switch to Firefox
I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.
memories of Internet Explorer doing the same thing intensifies
So now we need an adblock blocker blocker to unblock our adblockers
“Yo dawg, I heard you like adblockers…”
The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.
I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome’s add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did
ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.
