There has to be google engineers here. Does this just fall on deaf ears? I realize it’s a massive corp but imagine high ranking staff have a say and input. Maybe they don’t and Sundar isn’t worried about that. Or they do a simple cost analysis and short-term they see the benefit and are willing to to risk long term erosion that maybe be minimal.
Weird returning to Firefox, but I did and there is nothing in chrome I miss.
FAANG engineers in general are remarkably well informed as to who is buttering their bread.
You may assume that Google engineers are excruciatingly aware (particularly after several rounds of layoffs) that their continued paychecks and stock grant value depend on continuing to firehose advertising into the face of the general public from every possible angle.
It's a giant corporation. Everyone who had a managerial role in one of these mega corporations should know how such decisions are made. Sundar sees finance numbers, numbers go up if we do strategy x (block adblockers) , someone gets a promotion for turning these numbers up. It's simple as that. Those people have no clue and don't care about how you hackers here use chrome.
by now they have made tons of user-hostile changes, just to see the line keep going up, they know that there is a loud vocal minority, but most users are totally fine with MV3 if they even notice a change at all.
Why do you think in the anti-trust lawsuit they're desperate to avoid Chrome divestment? A project that on the surface surely must be a massive cost center for them that doesn't benefit their advertising arm one bit. No sir, made out of the goodness of their hearts and given away for free for nothing other than promoting the open web.
Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non Google ads. Most users probably won’t care enough to change browsers or many won’t really notice
> Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non Google ads.
That's the best way to get antitrust breathing down your neck.
So, with talks of Google monopoly ramping up, either this is extremely shortsighted and reckless, or they will choose to not throw oil on the fire and will not go down that road.
There's some chrome attestation stuff I've been starting to see for implementing security related services. The support for that is probably bundled with this manifest v3 thing? Or is the device attestation separate? If they are bundled, Firefox will disappear even more in corporate and probably at home too.
It really is amazing how things have come full circle from the point where chrome positioned itself as a "Libre" alternative to the IE near-monopoly
There was a point between IE and chrome when Mozilla was always in the near-foreground offering alternatives to every internet hegemony, right around web 2.0, kinda makes me optimistic for the internet to see a resurgence of recommendations
Uh, YT on FF is unusable now. They'll show the "adblockers not allowed" message if you have Ghostery enabled. Even if you disable that, they will add tons of artificial lag on things like key input, clicks and screen draw speed. I know it's artificial because it worked fine for years and then one day....
It was called "Project Hug". Based on the different sources it contained credits for all the google offerings such as Ads, Youtube and Google Cloud in exchange for keeping apps on the Google Play platform.
I don't ship any Electron app at $dayjob so while I could afford to sit on a high horse I don't think it's warranted. Electron really isn't an issue, it doesn't really help Chrome's position as a browser in any meaningful way. It doesn't drive people to use the Chrome "chrome" which is where the money is.
It's why despite Edge being built on Chrome they're pushing it hard because owning the space around the browser window is the goal.
Situation: People are getting fat from choosing to eat too much bacon
"Pitiful, though with a thankfully straightforward cure. We arrest all pig farmers, meat packers and delivery drivers while inspecting all refrigerated cargo at checkpoints. We shall demolish any restaurant serving pork, blame each person who has ever eaten a slice regardless of their health, and demonize every salty and fatty food."
"Yes, my stance is drastic. But once we remove the burden of choice from our citizens, they will be empowered to make new, more valuable decisions with their life. Bacon will never be a problem again."
New situation: People have quit bacon and started smoking cigarettes
The bigger question is how the Chromium forks are going to respond long-term. I suspect the APIs enabling ad blocking are only going to get more clamped down requiring additional work for forks.
That is easy talking from Brave as long as it is still a config flag, then after a compile-time flag. Once the internal APIs for MV2 or where MV2 get removed or changed it becomes very difficult to maintain. Never mind the possible security issues you introduce, but won’t get so quickly discovered, because Brave is a smaller target.
Like I said before, Brave even has a better solution because it has a uBlock compatible ad blocker _built in straight into its core_ (but its disabled by default). Same block lists, same safety assurances.
Although I still use Firefox with uBlock as my daily driver at home, Brave with block lists and Shields is right next to it (and I use it as my daily driver at work). It works pretty damn well!
Policy-installed extensions can continue to use the WebRequest blocking APIs on Manifest V3 [1], so I would expect that the underlying code for the API would remain available for forks to use.
How can I swap ^W and ^D in Firefox? For Chrome I found an extension that works (…worked?) fine, the only thing for Firefox I found would be compiling it myself, which I find a much worse experience than compiling Chromium myself (neither of which I like doing)
^w is delete word in vim/bash/everywhere else. It’s terrible whenever I accidentally type this in the browser and the window closes. I typically close terminal windows with ctrl-d so I have this mapped in my browser as well. It’s really muscle memory and I do not want to change it
Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse cursor is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent) applies a vector translation so when trying to click something like a button or menu, the cursor needs to be about 100 x-y pixels away from the target. Only Firefox native UI is affected. These are My_First_Program.app tier bugs that should not exist in mature, 20 year old software.
Phoenix 0.1 didn't have this many beginner bugs. Mozilla has lost its way and only continues to exist because Google funds them to be a paper tiger competitor. Opera sold out to the Chinese. Microsoft gave up and now simps Google. Apple only supports their own platform. What is left?
Maybe I wasn't clear - this bug affects me personally, it's not some random tale I read in a forum. No, it doesn't affect the site or page rendering at all. Only the Firefox-native dialogs - like the bookmarks dialog and the hamburger menu - are affected. The bug is likely in XUL. Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through Bugzilla, make an account, etc. only for the bug to be ignored for years like the others...
> Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through Bugzilla, make an account, etc. only for the bug to be ignored for years like the others...
So, if no one reports the bug, how do you expect the bug to get fixed? Instead, you just keep harking back on that unfixed bug whenever Firefox conversations come up and you can be like "but this bug has been around and no one has fixed it"
I've seen the exact same problem on my mother's Mac and it's making her crazy. Haven't found a corresponding bug report, but it's sort of reassuring she's not alone with that annoying bug
> Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse cursor is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent) applies a vector translation so when trying to click something like a button or menu, the cursor needs to be about 100 x-y pixels away from the target. Only Firefox native UI is affected. These are My_First_Program.app tier bugs that should not exist in mature, 20 year old software.
While I've not noticed that myself, just yesterday I noticed something similarly weird.
I had a Safari window that was persistently half the screen width and height away from where the mouse was. As in: click to drag, and the whole window jumped half the screen down and to the right, so I couldn't get it to any other quadrant of any screen. Fixed on restarting the app.
I don't know if that was an app bug or an OS bug, but in either case it's Apple's fault.
I’ve been using Firefox on OS X since forever (never jumped to chrome and back) and I’ve never experienced this. Is there a bug report? Surely this would get a lot of attention.
They also fired a whole bunch of software engineers (including everyone working on Servo), and then massively boosted their executives' salaries, so that was certainly something.
If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. If you spend it on beer or buy Jacuzzi I'm happy too. If you chose to spend it on other projects ill be excited to learn what they are.
Do you use any of that? Is there anything there I should be using? (honest question) It seems premature to donate to things I don't know.
> Solo helps entrepreneurs expand their web presence with a suite of AI-backed tools for building websites, optimizing for SEO, and showcasing your best work.
> Solo will instantly create a beautiful website so you can grow your business.
> Improve brand visibility: SEO keywords are automatically added to help drive search traffic. View statistics by connecting a Google Analytics account.
I'm very biased no doubt, it reads like I donate to progress the commercial web, more canned template websites, product SEO and to promote the use of google analytics. I'm sure it is awesome to some people, to me it is the opposite, I'm sure it is a project that should exist some place but I don't want to pay for it.
I mean Llamafile is great and is built on fantastic tech, but no I definitely want my Mozilla money to go to Firefox, not what Thing is currently in vogue by Mozilla execs.
huh? of all the bugs in the world, ladybugs are among the most popular, the majority of them are harmless and prey on agricultural pests. at least where i come from the association with "ladybug" is "cute".
Are you one of those guys[1] who doesn't understand files and folders?
Seriously, the only thing you're exhibiting is your abject ignorance of Windows and possibly computers in general which are not something you should be proud of.
If you want a Chromium based browser Brave has a uBlock-esque blocker built right into its core but it's disabled by default because "Brave Shields is enough protection" (it isn't, given the stats I see when enabled). Anyway, you can turn it on and it uses the same blocklists uBlock uses aswell.
Vivaldi would not stop offering to sign me into google automatically on sites that support it, it kept re-enabling it somehow. How this is enabled on a privacy-aware browser is beyond me. Brave is pretty good once you disable all the crypto stuff.
I don’t want to switch from it, especially to Firefox, so much. It’s in little things like context menus, gestures (don’t tell me about that “crx” extension crapware), tab order/cycle behaviors, downloads ux, bookmarks ux, customization, etc etc.
These “default” browsers always feel like Crysis 3 gameplay wrapped into a primitive text adventure interface.
Both Brave & Opera have built in adblockers that are not dependent on Manifest to run. I haven't played with Opera too much, but Brave lets you add custom lists and works quite well. Combine that with a DNS based adblocker such as HaGeZi [1] or OISD from free DNS providers like ControlD or NextDNS and you'll be golden.
Yeah, I don't get all this fuss. I mean, if you block ads then do you think Chrome will also stop reporting to the mothership? Of course not. Use Firefox and simple be done with all this hoohah.
Unfortunately Firefox is slower than chromium and the devtools are worse. I used Firefox for years because I hate google. I eventually gave up, that’s how bad ff is.
Yeah, I'm used to the Firefox ones and whenever I use the chrome ones they seem fine, worse in some ways but better in others (device emulation) while being a little unfamiliar.
People who remove v2, own ad networks, develop chrome and write standards are the same people. It’s new age mafia, cancer of the internet and they do everything for you to not be able to just spin off a fork.
Forget about forking, just offering a build of Chromium for a single platform and architecture that gets the security updates in time is a lot of work.
I have always found Bitwarden to be the best one after trying many alternatives. One thing that stood out is how its phone app works seamlessly with FaceID/Fingerprint. From logged out to login is as smooth as allowing your phone to use biometrics.
Bitwarden seems to be getting updates often as well which I value in a security conscious product.
Using a proxy to do DNS blocking has significant failures modes. They wont work on youtube because youtube uses the same endpoint to serve the videos and ads for starters.
Brave CEO once said some mild hurty words about a fragile group, and so the lefty hive must not publicly support his endeavours (whilst using his JavaScript all day long lol).
There has to be google engineers here. Does this just fall on deaf ears? I realize it’s a massive corp but imagine high ranking staff have a say and input. Maybe they don’t and Sundar isn’t worried about that. Or they do a simple cost analysis and short-term they see the benefit and are willing to to risk long term erosion that maybe be minimal.
Weird returning to Firefox, but I did and there is nothing in chrome I miss.
FAANG engineers in general are remarkably well informed as to who is buttering their bread. You may assume that Google engineers are excruciatingly aware (particularly after several rounds of layoffs) that their continued paychecks and stock grant value depend on continuing to firehose advertising into the face of the general public from every possible angle.
Google is an advertising agency. It's a miracle blockers lasted this long.
It's a giant corporation. Everyone who had a managerial role in one of these mega corporations should know how such decisions are made. Sundar sees finance numbers, numbers go up if we do strategy x (block adblockers) , someone gets a promotion for turning these numbers up. It's simple as that. Those people have no clue and don't care about how you hackers here use chrome.
by now they have made tons of user-hostile changes, just to see the line keep going up, they know that there is a loud vocal minority, but most users are totally fine with MV3 if they even notice a change at all.
Why do you think in the anti-trust lawsuit they're desperate to avoid Chrome divestment? A project that on the surface surely must be a massive cost center for them that doesn't benefit their advertising arm one bit. No sir, made out of the goodness of their hearts and given away for free for nothing other than promoting the open web.
Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non Google ads. Most users probably won’t care enough to change browsers or many won’t really notice
> Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads while still allowing ad blockers to work for non Google ads.
That's the best way to get antitrust breathing down your neck.
So, with talks of Google monopoly ramping up, either this is extremely shortsighted and reckless, or they will choose to not throw oil on the fire and will not go down that road.
> Google is deliberately doing this to break ad blocking for Google ads
If so, they are doing a crap job of it because uBlock Origin Lite successfully blocks all of the search ads on google.com
If only Stalin knew!
There's some chrome attestation stuff I've been starting to see for implementing security related services. The support for that is probably bundled with this manifest v3 thing? Or is the device attestation separate? If they are bundled, Firefox will disappear even more in corporate and probably at home too.
~$ cat /etc/chromium/policies/managed/ubo-policies.json { "ExtensionManifestV2Availability": 2 }
Will save you for another year.
Come join the Firefox revolution!
Try Firefox Nightly for the native sidebar vertical tabs. That and native tab containers make Firefox work really well for me.
It really is amazing how things have come full circle from the point where chrome positioned itself as a "Libre" alternative to the IE near-monopoly
There was a point between IE and chrome when Mozilla was always in the near-foreground offering alternatives to every internet hegemony, right around web 2.0, kinda makes me optimistic for the internet to see a resurgence of recommendations
Uh, YT on FF is unusable now. They'll show the "adblockers not allowed" message if you have Ghostery enabled. Even if you disable that, they will add tons of artificial lag on things like key input, clicks and screen draw speed. I know it's artificial because it worked fine for years and then one day....
That definitely shows why Google isn't abusing its monopoly powers, and why it shouldn't be broken up.
It’s so weird to observe how Alphabet doesn’t seem to even try to keep its parts separated.
Amazon at least tries keeps its companies separated from each other. AWS account teams doesn’t know what Amazon teams do and vice versa.
While Google Cloud account team constantly gets involved with Workspaces, Ads and Google Play related stuff.
If I remember right just few years ago Google was told to stop giving cheaper prices on Google Cloud based on customers Ads and Google Play revenue.
> While Google Cloud account team constantly gets involved with Workspaces, Ads and Google Play related stuff.
Not sure what you mean. Do you have a couple of concrete examples of that?
> If I remember right just few years ago Google was told to stop giving cheaper prices on Google Cloud based on customers Ads and Google Play revenue.
This one you've definitely just made up.
> This one you've definitely just made up.
It was called "Project Hug". Based on the different sources it contained credits for all the google offerings such as Ads, Youtube and Google Cloud in exchange for keeping apps on the Google Play platform.
Different repots on this: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/google-reportedly-paid-activis... https://gizmodo.com/google-denies-its-project-hug-bribed-20-... https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
I see offers (or “ads”) for Google Ads inside of the Google Cloud Platform Dashboard all the time.
Everyone that is shipping Electron garbage, and has focused on Chrome as The Best Experience, is to blame.
I don't ship any Electron app at $dayjob so while I could afford to sit on a high horse I don't think it's warranted. Electron really isn't an issue, it doesn't really help Chrome's position as a browser in any meaningful way. It doesn't drive people to use the Chrome "chrome" which is where the money is.
It's why despite Edge being built on Chrome they're pushing it hard because owning the space around the browser window is the goal.
Situation: People are getting fat from choosing to eat too much bacon
"Pitiful, though with a thankfully straightforward cure. We arrest all pig farmers, meat packers and delivery drivers while inspecting all refrigerated cargo at checkpoints. We shall demolish any restaurant serving pork, blame each person who has ever eaten a slice regardless of their health, and demonize every salty and fatty food."
"Yes, my stance is drastic. But once we remove the burden of choice from our citizens, they will be empowered to make new, more valuable decisions with their life. Bacon will never be a problem again."
New situation: People have quit bacon and started smoking cigarettes
You dropped this:
/s
The removal can be bypassed until June 2025: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1/manif...
This is just kicking the can down the road.
The bigger question is how the Chromium forks are going to respond long-term. I suspect the APIs enabling ad blocking are only going to get more clamped down requiring additional work for forks.
Brave has committed to do what they can as long as they can. But unsure how long and what that really turns out to be. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
That is easy talking from Brave as long as it is still a config flag, then after a compile-time flag. Once the internal APIs for MV2 or where MV2 get removed or changed it becomes very difficult to maintain. Never mind the possible security issues you introduce, but won’t get so quickly discovered, because Brave is a smaller target.
Like I said before, Brave even has a better solution because it has a uBlock compatible ad blocker _built in straight into its core_ (but its disabled by default). Same block lists, same safety assurances.
Although I still use Firefox with uBlock as my daily driver at home, Brave with block lists and Shields is right next to it (and I use it as my daily driver at work). It works pretty damn well!
Policy-installed extensions can continue to use the WebRequest blocking APIs on Manifest V3 [1], so I would expect that the underlying code for the API would remain available for forks to use.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/w...
Bypass Chrome altogether. Use Firefox.
How can I swap ^W and ^D in Firefox? For Chrome I found an extension that works (…worked?) fine, the only thing for Firefox I found would be compiling it myself, which I find a much worse experience than compiling Chromium myself (neither of which I like doing)
What do those do?
^w is delete word in vim/bash/everywhere else. It’s terrible whenever I accidentally type this in the browser and the window closes. I typically close terminal windows with ctrl-d so I have this mapped in my browser as well. It’s really muscle memory and I do not want to change it
By that same logic, ^w is used as close window everywhere else
Firefox on ChromeOS sucks though. Just went through this, tried Canary, etc. Went back to Chrome.
Bypass ChromeOS alltogether. Use a different Linux distro.
Get a real computer.
Just ChromeOS? Firefox on Mac sucks.
Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse cursor is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent) applies a vector translation so when trying to click something like a button or menu, the cursor needs to be about 100 x-y pixels away from the target. Only Firefox native UI is affected. These are My_First_Program.app tier bugs that should not exist in mature, 20 year old software.
Phoenix 0.1 didn't have this many beginner bugs. Mozilla has lost its way and only continues to exist because Google funds them to be a paper tiger competitor. Opera sold out to the Chinese. Microsoft gave up and now simps Google. Apple only supports their own platform. What is left?
Can you provide a link to a bug report? I've been using FF on macOS for years and haven't noticed that. Maybe it's just a bug on a random site?
Maybe I wasn't clear - this bug affects me personally, it's not some random tale I read in a forum. No, it doesn't affect the site or page rendering at all. Only the Firefox-native dialogs - like the bookmarks dialog and the hamburger menu - are affected. The bug is likely in XUL. Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through Bugzilla, make an account, etc. only for the bug to be ignored for years like the others...
> Unfortunately I am too busy to dig through Bugzilla, make an account, etc. only for the bug to be ignored for years like the others...
So, if no one reports the bug, how do you expect the bug to get fixed? Instead, you just keep harking back on that unfixed bug whenever Firefox conversations come up and you can be like "but this bug has been around and no one has fixed it"
FWIW I used to experience the same thing sporadically on Mac, about 10 years ago. Not just you - but a rare bug.
Been using Firefox as my browser since 0.2 (Minefield, Phoenix was later) on Mac since around 10.3 and I don’t recognise what you’re seeing at all?
I've seen the exact same problem on my mother's Mac and it's making her crazy. Haven't found a corresponding bug report, but it's sort of reassuring she's not alone with that annoying bug
Thanks for confirming I'm not crazy.
> Here is one example: Firefox's tracking of the mouse cursor is broken, and often (yes, it's inconsistent) applies a vector translation so when trying to click something like a button or menu, the cursor needs to be about 100 x-y pixels away from the target. Only Firefox native UI is affected. These are My_First_Program.app tier bugs that should not exist in mature, 20 year old software.
While I've not noticed that myself, just yesterday I noticed something similarly weird.
I had a Safari window that was persistently half the screen width and height away from where the mouse was. As in: click to drag, and the whole window jumped half the screen down and to the right, so I couldn't get it to any other quadrant of any screen. Fixed on restarting the app.
I don't know if that was an app bug or an OS bug, but in either case it's Apple's fault.
How did we get to this?
I’ve been using Firefox on OS X since forever (never jumped to chrome and back) and I’ve never experienced this. Is there a bug report? Surely this would get a lot of attention.
For me, the scroll randomly breaks and stops work all together for a minute.
If only Mozilla (the parent organization) wasn’t horrible.
Can’t a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser?
What's so horrible about it? I don't like how they're pampering to the ad industry now but other than that I think they're pretty decent.
They also fired a whole bunch of software engineers (including everyone working on Servo), and then massively boosted their executives' salaries, so that was certainly something.
If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. If you spend it on beer or buy Jacuzzi I'm happy too. If you chose to spend it on other projects ill be excited to learn what they are.
https://future.mozilla.org/projects/
Do you use any of that? Is there anything there I should be using? (honest question) It seems premature to donate to things I don't know.
> Solo helps entrepreneurs expand their web presence with a suite of AI-backed tools for building websites, optimizing for SEO, and showcasing your best work.
> Solo will instantly create a beautiful website so you can grow your business.
> Improve brand visibility: SEO keywords are automatically added to help drive search traffic. View statistics by connecting a Google Analytics account.
I'm very biased no doubt, it reads like I donate to progress the commercial web, more canned template websites, product SEO and to promote the use of google analytics. I'm sure it is awesome to some people, to me it is the opposite, I'm sure it is a project that should exist some place but I don't want to pay for it.
The web browser can still be infinitely improved.
I mean Llamafile is great and is built on fantastic tech, but no I definitely want my Mozilla money to go to Firefox, not what Thing is currently in vogue by Mozilla execs.
Clicked the future projects link. Thought the DidThis project sounded interesting. Aaaannnddd it's already a dead project as of 2 months ago.
> Can’t a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser?
Here’s to hoping LadyBird remains non crazy and can be relevant by the time of their planned alpha release in 2026.
To be honest it needs a different name if it’s going to hit critical mass adoption with the average consumer.
What's wrong with ladybird?
Netscape, Edge, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, All have a pop appeal to them (the names)
"Ladybug" makes a reference to a bug. And not a thrilling one.
It's bird though, not bug.
Ladybird is the UK term for what Americans call Ladybugs
huh? of all the bugs in the world, ladybugs are among the most popular, the majority of them are harmless and prey on agricultural pests. at least where i come from the association with "ladybug" is "cute".
Mozilla let's me use ublock origin, Google doesn't.
Mozilla can't be worse than google (or brave/opera etc)
I think you need to be a little bit crazy to enter the browser space. It's not for the feint of heart.
*faint of heart
What are your qualms with Brave Browser?
I'm not convinced that it's much more than a Chrome skin with an integrated crypto scam.
I've used Brave for years. Never used any of the crypto features. It is just a solid, privacy-based, chromium-based browser.
You don't have to use the crypto features.
when the defense of a project is that you can turn off the bad features, you aren't really making a chase better than say chrome or anything else.
A product built on trust, shouldn't involve having to go turn off untrustworthy elements.
The crypto part isn’t something you turn off. It’s buried in a menu somewhere. For all intents and purposes, it’s a pretty elegant UX.
and its really easy on MacOS, you just have to run
Another case where windows makes simple things unnecessarily cumbersomeYou can’t edit config files on Windows from the terminal?
Not really an expert but PowerShell always seemed kind of more “powerful” and/or complex than bash
These are the instructions for Windows from OP's reddit post: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/29...
So much more complicated.
It's a one liner in Powershell
New-ItemProperty -Path "HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome" -Name "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" -Value 2 -PropertyType DWORD -Force
>So much more complicated.
Are you one of those guys[1] who doesn't understand files and folders?
Seriously, the only thing you're exhibiting is your abject ignorance of Windows and possibly computers in general which are not something you should be proud of.
[1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/students-do...
Powershell is more equivalent to Python than BASH TBH
If you want a Chromium based browser Brave has a uBlock-esque blocker built right into its core but it's disabled by default because "Brave Shields is enough protection" (it isn't, given the stats I see when enabled). Anyway, you can turn it on and it uses the same blocklists uBlock uses aswell.
> "if you want a Chromium based browser'
There is also Vivaldi:
https://help.vivaldi.com
Vivaldi would not stop offering to sign me into google automatically on sites that support it, it kept re-enabling it somehow. How this is enabled on a privacy-aware browser is beyond me. Brave is pretty good once you disable all the crypto stuff.
Alas, it crashes every time I try to import my Chrome profile.
Any reference or instructions on how to do that?
Discussion (119 points, 79 days ago, 62 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178
I guess Vivaldi awaits the same fate.
I don’t want to switch from it, especially to Firefox, so much. It’s in little things like context menus, gestures (don’t tell me about that “crx” extension crapware), tab order/cycle behaviors, downloads ux, bookmarks ux, customization, etc etc.
These “default” browsers always feel like Crysis 3 gameplay wrapped into a primitive text adventure interface.
Happened to me a couple of days ago. I installed Ublock Lite and it seems “good enough”.
It doesn’t do content blocking unfortunately.
For the vast majority of users Lite does the job just fine.
I'm superlatively surprised Google has followed through on what it has promised to do over and over again.
"I'm surprised they did what they said they would do" will be the anthem of 2025 unfortunately
Both Brave & Opera have built in adblockers that are not dependent on Manifest to run. I haven't played with Opera too much, but Brave lets you add custom lists and works quite well. Combine that with a DNS based adblocker such as HaGeZi [1] or OISD from free DNS providers like ControlD or NextDNS and you'll be golden.
[1] https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists?tab=readme-ov-file#...
Yeah plus Brave on iPhone auto blocks ads. No extensions or configuration needed. Not sure if Firefox does that.
I'm using Brave and have no idea why you got downvoted. People are talking like Chrome and FF are the only two things on Earth.
The silent downvote curse spreads.
Can someone kindly speak up and explain?
What's wrong with talking about Brave?
I downvote comments that disregard the hn guidelines.
“Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”
Friends don't let friends use Chrome. Use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best with Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
Yeah, I don't get all this fuss. I mean, if you block ads then do you think Chrome will also stop reporting to the mothership? Of course not. Use Firefox and simple be done with all this hoohah.
> I mean, if you block ads then do you think Chrome will also stop reporting to the mothership?
I'm mostly interested in improving my browsing experience. Viewing the web without an adblocker is a nightmare, it makes some websites nigh-unusable.
The privacy issue is an issue, but it's not one that actively prevents me from reading things online.
> The privacy issue is an issue, but it's not one that actively prevents me from reading things online.
Yet.
Blocking malvertisements is a matter of safety, I personally find the privacy aspect secondary to that.
Unfortunately Firefox is slower than chromium and the devtools are worse. I used Firefox for years because I hate google. I eventually gave up, that’s how bad ff is.
I think that Firefox dev tools are better
My average friend doesn't care about devtools, only if they can watch YouTube in silence
Yeah, I'm used to the Firefox ones and whenever I use the chrome ones they seem fine, worse in some ways but better in others (device emulation) while being a little unfamiliar.
The webextension dev tools are better too, imo.
Could someone explain in simple terms, what’s so tricky about spinning off a v2-compatible chromium fork?
People who remove v2, own ad networks, develop chrome and write standards are the same people. It’s new age mafia, cancer of the internet and they do everything for you to not be able to just spin off a fork.
So what would they do?
Forget about forking, just offering a build of Chromium for a single platform and architecture that gets the security updates in time is a lot of work.
Chromium is maintained by the largest ad company in the world.
Reminder: uBlock and uBlock Origin are different extensions from different developers.
Lame.
Try using NextDNS to block ads entirely instead of just in Chrome.
Also, duck.com has a browser extension that can do this. You could also just use their browser instead.
DNS-level blocking is more or less what Chrome's more limited API allows you to do. Full-fat adblockers can do a lot more.
Wipr for the win, Chrome nevermore.
Last time I tried Wipr+Safari, it didn't match the power of uBO+Chrome.
The irony is it isn't for the win(dows)
Seriously, what is a good alternative to Chrome's password management? For lazy end users.
I set up Bitwarden for my dad who keeps forgetting his passwords. It seems to work well on his PC and Android phone.
I have always found Bitwarden to be the best one after trying many alternatives. One thing that stood out is how its phone app works seamlessly with FaceID/Fingerprint. From logged out to login is as smooth as allowing your phone to use biometrics.
Bitwarden seems to be getting updates often as well which I value in a security conscious product.
1password if you are willing to pay for it. If you’re not, Bitwarden is just as good and it’s free / open source.
Thank you all for the suggestions.
Chrome is trash, download Firefox and never look back.
Oh no! That's really disappointing!
Just use Firefox ffs.
yeah same... but then i got an ad for Pie, which i guess works to block youtube ads
Switch to ublock origin lite. It's pretty much as good. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
People who are strongly suggesting firefox have probably not been in a relationship.
People suggesting that using uBlock Lite and not Firefox with full uBlock, probably not has been in an abusive relationship.
or have, and that's why they can recognize the warning signs that op can't.
What can uBlock Origin do that one couldn't do with a sufficiently sophisticated SSL-terminating forward proxy?
Remove elements added dynamically without entirely blocking the script that produces them.
provide a UI within the browser chrome
Using a proxy to do DNS blocking has significant failures modes. They wont work on youtube because youtube uses the same endpoint to serve the videos and ads for starters.
Brave seems to work well with its privacy shield and a button to turn scripts off as-needed.
People only focus on Firefox as an alternative. Am I missing something?
Brave CEO once said some mild hurty words about a fragile group, and so the lefty hive must not publicly support his endeavours (whilst using his JavaScript all day long lol).
I haven't the first clue about the politics but I'm guessing the response is more toxic than the original message.