this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
2081 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59629 readers
3105 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dju@lemmy.world 374 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 153 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!" —NeoWin editors, probably.

[–] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 61 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sounds about right for any news outlet. "Slams" is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (12 children)

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.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ragebait gets more clicks.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 274 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It's clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 120 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The title is misleading, or false.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 70 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Even better is FF mobile (on Android) supports full list of addons, including uBlock Origin.

The using the web without uBlock Origin is cancer.

[–] Miimikko@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Though not container tabs (yet)?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 150 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 98 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 59 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago (16 children)

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.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mars2k21@sh.itjust.works 115 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] send_cortical_nodes@startrek.website 16 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Can you share some examples of things that pisses off the FOSS space? Mostly just curious to understand more

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 115 points 3 months ago (14 children)

On the same day Google was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act...

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 31 points 3 months ago

Too bad nothing will come from that.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] uzay@infosec.pub 111 points 3 months ago

What the uBlock dev actually said:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/wiki/About-Google-Chrome's-%22This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported%22

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.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 81 points 3 months ago (10 children)

I recommend switching to another browser like Firefox or Librewolf.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 59 points 3 months ago (25 children)

So many kids with assigned school Chromebooks are going to get fucked over by this. You can apparently install Firefox on a Chromebook via the Google Play Store, but that was disabled on my daughter's Chromebook. I don't want her exposed to constant advertising while she's doing her schoolwork. It's bad enough that she's exposed to it the rest of the time just being in America.

[–] mwalimu@baraza.africa 48 points 3 months ago (9 children)

I think this is something most people rarely talk about but it strikes home to many of us. As a parent, I have a responsibility to defend my children against this persistent cognitive manipulation and experimentation. Just as I would not want a random stranger at the corner have exclusive attention of my kid and sell them insurance or grammarly or mesothelioma, I would also never want them to have that unfiltered access to my kids online. One can then say AdBlocks are a parental obligation.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Butterpaderp@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago (34 children)

I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago (1 children)

memories of Internet Explorer doing the same thing intensifies

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] numberfour002@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Understatement, I know, but I find this so annoying, and it certainly feels malicious.

I was just commenting the other day how ridiculous it is that google search results literally serve up malware to people via paid ads. My neighbor was running into issues where her computer kept getting "infected" and a full screen scam would take control, blaring out a loud message that her computer was infected with a virus, that it was infecting microsoft's servers, and she had to call them now to fix it.

After investigating, I found out that these types of scams are stored as blobs on Microsoft's cloud service, but the links are spread via ads in google search. When I tried searching for the exact search terms my neighbor was using on my own devices and my own network, I found out that google was serving me the exact same ads, aka sponsored links. They look like legitimate results for things that people search for, like showing what appears to be a link to Amazon when searching for a product, even the links will say "www.amazon.com".

Obviously I told my neighbor not to use Chrome and suggested some browser alternatives. I installed uBlock on all the browsers (including chrome) just to be safe. Then I showed her how to tell when things are ads, even when they are deceiving, and to never click on ads or sponsored links under any circumstances.

But it's definitely infuriating that they are serving up malware in their ads, don't respond to reports in a timely manner, are getting people caught in scams that they allow to advertise on their network but then somehow object to people managing those risks by blocking ads from untrustworthy sources, like google.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 42 points 3 months ago (10 children)

They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Already switched as soon as I learned of Google’s plans. They can go screw themselves for doing this. Firefox, the land of the free and open source!

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So now we need an adblock blocker blocker to unblock our adblockers

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Yo dawg, I heard you like adblockers..."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I switched to Firefox last year when talks of chromium manifest V3 First started popping up. I had used Firefox many years ago when Chrome was first coming out. I was blown away at how well it worked compared to old Firefox, plus how easy they made it to switch. I even changed my phone browser and my desktop browser ties in with it seamlessly. Very happy with the switch and I wish I had switched earlier.

Now, I just wish I could use it at work. Not sure how I'm going to block ads on my work browser.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Welcome to Firefox to anyone who is switching. I use a fork for Firefox (Floorp) Becuase I like it's features.

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