Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
86 replies, posted
Guess I'll be turning off chrome updates and swapping to Firefox at some point in the future.
I've loved chrome ever since it came out but this is just disappointing. Ublock has literally been the saving grace on so many sites as ads only get more intrusive and make me want to buy things less- especially when they pop up on YouTube videos.
With every thing Google does, I hate them more and more. I feel like their only competent department is their AI division.
that's one way to rapidly lose market share i guess? the tech unsavvy people already don't use adblock so everyone else will immediately jump ship
Firefox doesn't have the greatest track record in recent years when it comes to respecting their users
Mozilla faces blowback after slipping Mr Robot plugin into Firef..
That's my personal reason for preferring Waterfox, icecat, etc. to the original.
Alright cool. I'll swap to Firefox then.
Regarding pi-hole, I set it up the other day but I'm having trouble finding lists that work as well as uBlock without it breaking a lot of websites.
Anyone got any they recommend?
Don't forget about Pi-hole
Comment from the ghacks article that provided a (very) likely motivation behind this.
>One of the main issues with the suggested change is that it made to support AdBlock Plus compatible filters only and would limit filters to 30k."
I know why they did this. Adblock Plus is being developed by the Eyeo GmbH. The business model of eyeo GmbH is to put advertisers who pay them a decent chunk of money, in order to be put on eyeo GmbH's whitelist. Being on the whitelist is a good thing for advertisers, as that means that all of their ads come through despite the adblocker.
Google is one of the major clients of eyeo GmbH, having paid them 25 million Euro in order to be put on their whitelist, according to Sascha Pallenberg, a German blogger who exposed the shady business model of the people behind Adblock Plus.
Adblock Plus is thus favored by Google, as they are corrupt. Raymond Hill, developer of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, isn't corrupt. Google's failure to bribe him into submission is why he is now being put at a disadvantage.
Our reaction to this should be a shit storm without equal, and if that doesn't work, boycotting Chrome.
By allowing 30K filters, Google ensures that only a tiny minority will switch to other browsers, as that's "just good enough" for a decent browsing experience. Forbidding adblockers is not possible just yet, but Google is moving in that direction, by killing off legit offerings such as uBlock Origin first, leaving only their minions (eyeo GmbH) in the market for now.
Iirc, Waterfox still hasn't adopted the new Quantum UI (not sure about the layout engine itself) and still supports XUL plugins (which Firefox dropped like a year ago now).
Basically, Waterfox is now for those who liked Firefox before Quantum.
If you don't like Quantum or even Australis, then there's Pale Moon.
Tbh, not sure if this is an ignorant statement, but what reasons are there for even using Chrome over Firefox?
This isn't final yet, so if Chrome users rile up enough of a shitstorm this will likely turn the tide.
You can also always switch to another Chromium form probably.
Me as a Firefox am less concerned since Mozilla really made progress overhauling their browser recently.
Also to the people equating the Mr. Robot add-on controversy on the same level as the constant shit Google pulls an their browser platform,
this isn't even the same league of bullshit.
They tried making a single sign-in in Chrome automatically affect Google webpages by syncing cookies "for convenience", too and back-pedalled only after community outreach.
They are actively banning add-ons from their add-on store that is against Google's own strategic interest.
You can also bet your ass they use any synced browser history for their ad analytics garbage.
Firefox is a sensible choice for your privacy, the standard Chrome browser just isn't.
From some limited and rare experiences I've had, some pages either worked worse or didn't even work at all in Firefox, whereas they worked as intended in Chrome.
For instance, back when I used to use Firefox, Rabb.it didn't work at all. Its player just would not load. I disabled all extensions, tried again, still didn't work. Same with adjusting various settings. Meanwhile, I put the page in just about any Chromium based browser (Brave/Vivaldi/Chrome), and it worked just fine.
What's even more ironic is that the way Rabb.it works is through their own web browser client, and that client is based on Firefox.
Given the majority of the internet today has sites designed around Blink and Webkit, some fuckery with pages working properly could potentially be expected with Firefox. Definitely not often though, we aren't talking Opera's Presto days where you'd almost always come across a broken website.
Yeah there is a lot of sites that are designed entirely around Webkit, especially with Web apps. I primarily live in Firefox, but I do have to leave Chrome open for a few webapps (and especially Google apps). They just sometimes run like garbage or don't work at all.
Kind of reminds me of the old IE web app days. You'll have to leave Chrome installed just for those certain apps to work.
If I switch to Firefox, will all of my bookmarks, passwords, etc. from Google transfer over? I've been using chrome for years, and I have so much shit saved on there.
Most browsers will offer an import the first time you start them up. I'm sure you can find out how to do it with a quick internet search.
Given that's it's still an open issue and the devs seem to be open to talking about it, I'm going to reserve any judgment on it till it actually gets deployed. They've talked about shrinking the API base for a bit for security, and it's possible that it's just a side effect that's being blown up. Plus given that Firefox has always been more of a ram hog and clunkier than chrome, I'll wait before switching to anything.
Also is it just me or hasn't there been stuff in the past where there's been a panic about chrome/chromium hampering adblockers and it's turned out to be nothing?
I wouldn't necessarily categorize everyone that uses uBlock Origin as people who particularly give a shit about safety or security. A large majority of them just want to skip YouTube ads or block pop-ups. UBO is not some obscure plug-in for the IT-minded. I think plenty of people who use UBO are people who do business with Google.
It hasn't been this for literal years at this point. Besides, all browsers use a lot of memory today due to the extensive sandboxing and increasingly complex JS being used around the web.
Using RAM isn't a bad thing, the OS will reallocate it should it be unused even if it's "allocated" and another program wants it.
Also as of Quantum, Firefox is a lot faster than it ever has been and I can leave it running for weeks without any memory issues.
I prefer the look of Quantum mostly, its much nicer looking then Chrome.
every time I need to use chromium, I just open a webpage in steam, works alright
What they've done for certain is that sometimes I get a playback error for a couple of seconds on Youtube when using Opera with UBO. Video starts eventually though, so no biggie, but sometimes instead of error there's an ad. BTW, I haven't tried using Youtube on Firefox recently, I should check if the same problem persists.
For the sake of speed and safety? How about not getting a virus or malware just by visiting a website because an ad wasn't vetted and had the shit embedded? Ublock Origin IS safety
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.