• takeda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

          When I was working for an ad exchange, everyone had adblock installed in their browsers, I found that quite ironic.

          • shyguyblue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I used to develop ads (non intrusive things for home depot or go RVing) and i used ad blockers. When testing, i would just run private browsing with plugins disabled…

          • micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

            My IT department uninstalled it from my work laptop, and told me not to reinstall it because - and I quote: “The only browser IT officially supports is Google Chrome.”

            What makes this doubly stupid is that I’m a web developer. I literally can’t test my stuff on another browser…

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          7 months ago

          Officially only Edge is supported, but Chrome is tolerated. It’s a full MS environment.

          • reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Same here. The worst thing is in their justification of disallowing Firefox they listed that it was not an enterprise application. I get that it might be extra effort to support it but don’t list something factually untrue as a lame cop out for why you don’t want to.

            • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              7 months ago

              Was told it wouldn’t be allowed because you couldn’t restrict it using GPO… Until I told them they could absolutely apply those restrictions using GPO and even provided the ADMX templates.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Click on every single ad and banner, click “I agree” on every pop-up. Make that computer hate it’s life!

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          7 months ago

          At large organizations you’re generally not allowed to download much of anything without it passing through IT security and management first. If it’s a no, it will probably stay a no.

          • Flagstaff@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I work for a non-profit and they are way more lenient about what we would like to install as long as the job gets done.

          • datavoid@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just remember,it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission!

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Just to be clear, I mean it’s literally managed at the Group Policy level (in Windows server environments at least) and no amount of asking will suddenly give your user account permissions to be able to save files of any kind.

              You generally literally cannot download it without going through IT to get them to approve of and give your account access first.

              • datavoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Ya I forgot I have escalated device privileges and an admin account, which I definitely would have used for installing anything. Although I believe I can also skirt the rules using winget on a user account. That will probably get you in trouble however!

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you had uBlock origin already, you may have gotten a message through Chrome that it was no longer supported, so it’s been disabled, and gives you the option to remove it. However, I noticed you don’t have to remove it, and it can be re-enabled. However, I need someone smarter with adblockers than I to say if this is actually helpful and not hazardous.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          People are saying manifest v2 (the old API that ublock uses) will be gone soon, which I think should effectively make ublock unusable whatever you do unless you stop updating chrome maybe (which could open you up to a ton of security issues) ? Not sure, don’t care since I’ve ditched chrome long ago

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Is there any firefox based browser on android where I can have easy gestures for the arrow buttons? All the firefox versions I can find require me to do this in two clicks which for the way I browse is a pain in the arse. Can I fix this somehow?

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I just downloaded the Kagi Orion browser and I can install extensions from both Chrome and Firefox web stores!

  • Nanook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    194
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Google is not an IT company. It’s an advertising company. Surprised Pikachu, it blocks ad blockers.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because they are at the end of their growth phase and have entered their squeeze until dead phase.

      • Nanook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah it’s always been an ad company. And you are correct, blocking apps is new, welcome to the last stage in the ad-blocking arms race. Glad I degoogled my digital life a decade ago.

        • JimBarbecue@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hey, can you tell a little bit about your stack, what apps and services do you use? Also on phone? I guess in a decade you could work that out pretty well.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, but enshittification doesn’t happen all at once. And this is a textbook example of the actual meaning of enshittification.

  • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    But ublock origin lite is by the same dev… Not as many features but it conforms to the new rules and is still much better than not having a blocker if you use chrome or edge.

    • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Missing critical features:

      Filter lists only update with the extension, you cannot update them dynamically

      No making your own filters and thus no element picker for blocking annoyances on a webpage (a feature so good apple literally baked it into safari)

      No support for external lists (which means if you back up your own filters into a list you cannot easily reimport)

      No changing behavior on a per site basis

      A number of other features as well that are more strictly power user features but still really handy like dynamic filtering and strict blocking domains.

      If you have the option stop using chrome and edge, they are some of the worst options you could choose. Even outside of adblock and manifest v3 chrome is horrendous for data harvesting bullshit and edge isn’t great. If you don’t have the option because of an overzealous it dept or whatever and are forced to use it ubo lite is your best option probably and my heart goes out to you

      • Pamasich@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m a bit confused as an Adblock Plus user, why did the ublock dev drop those features? ABP uses manifest v3 too and it still has all of those. So it’s clearly not about them being impossible.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          According to Adblock Plus’ own blog post about the matter:

          With Manifest V3, Adblock Plus is required to limit how many filter lists we have available to users. We’ll have the ability to offer up to 100 pre-installed filter lists that you can turn on and off depending on your preferences. From these available filter lists, users will be able to choose 50 that they can keep turned on at any given time. We’re working to ensure that popular filter lists our users love are supported by us, and that any updates to these lists are brought to you by frequent new releases of the extension. This does mean that initially, our users will no longer be able to subscribe to any filter lists outside of what is provided in the extension.

          Re: Element Blocker:

          The Block element feature will continue to exist even after the Manifest V3 version of Adblock Plus officially launches. Manifest V3 does require us to adhere to limits with filter lists and user created blocking rules, so there’s a chance things may change in the future. However, we don’t have details quite yet! If you have any more questions about this or anything else, our support team are the best people to ask at support@adblockplus.org.

          So this says to me that baked in filter lists are now required, custom lists will not work, and Block Element is probably functioning illegally if it is indeed still functioning though that may change in the future in either direction.

          Changing blocker behavior on specific sites is the only thing in that list that I see UBO disallow and ABP not mention at all. Not sure why that was changed.

          • Pamasich@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Probably because of the Adblock Plus mention. It’s mired in controversy because of its acceptable ads toggle and requiring ad giants to pay for it. So I can imagine people downvoting comments that put it in a positive light compared to other adblockers.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You may be right, but whether you hate ABP specifically or not should be irrelevant to the question. The question was why other extensions - like Adblock - can have those feature but uBlock Lite can’t. What’s different?

              I’d also like to know, personally. I’d wondered the same thing.

      • OpenHammer6677@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        My work uses a web-based interface that’s very annoying to use on Firefox. I’m unfortunately tied to Chrome in the meantime, so uBlock lite is a lifesaver.

      • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Firefox was stubborn enough not to support H.265 till JUST recently and only on windows… Doesn’t work with my 4k security cameras as well as Chrome or Safari based browsers.

        • Yog-Sothoth@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          H.265 is patent encumbered. Blame the 2 or 3(?) patent pool holders (for-profit corporations, unlike non-profit -and-slowly-losing-market-share Mozilla) for not making it free to use for everyone.

          This is why AV1 is preferred, it saves bandwidth and there’s no threat of being sued into oblivion.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I take this as a sign that it genuinely still works to block ads and hasn’t sold out and become malware like those others that used to be popular.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    There’s a way to save your already-installed extension, in “Manage Extensions…” Enable dev mode, then Pack Extension.

    However the browser will probably just refuse to run it soon.

    Vivaldi, for what it’s worth, seems to still run uBlock Origin just fine. I am afraid to uninstall it now to test if it’ll re-install properly.

    My version: 7.1.3570.39 (Stable channel) (64-bit)

    Might be time to finally move to Firefox though, if Vivaldi doesn’t keep Manifest V2 support.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I wish Vivaldi wasn’t Chromium-based, because I think it’s the slickest browser out there.

        But it’s chromium, so it’s time to move on to Firefox regardless.

        Ladybird development can’t happen fast enough.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          By that argument the time was a long time ago then. Vivaldi still works with uBlock so nothing has changed on their end. I think it’s still reasonable to use Vivaldi until they are forced to Manifest 3. Despite being Chromium based they’ve always been privacy focused and vocally pro ad blocking. As far as the cult of Firefox, they’ve been showing their true colors lately. They are no saints and their biggest funder is Google. Never forget to follow the money. I’m not personally convinced that a switch on a purely ideological level is indicated.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    I really hope some team has been following the changes in Chrome/Chromium by Google to remove Manifest v2, and has been keeping a patchset that will undo the damage? Time to make a hard fork and get some funding to try to keep it going?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Multiple browsers have said they will keep support while the code is still there (in Chromium it’s still there, only disabled for now).

      When it is removed from Chromium, it’s probably going to disappear for most or all major Chromium browsers.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well I would seriously consider paying money to a team that keeps it there, if Chromium actually removes the code. I hope others will consider it as well. We need to fight this, even if it means paying some money to a foundation to do so.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      i expect at least the ‘big’ ‘non megacorp’ chromium based ones like vivaldi, opera, brave to keep mv2 as long as it is possible.

      but i can totally see google doing some serious mangling of the codebase to make patching-in mv2 difficult.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s the futile hope I suppose that antitrust cases going on against Alphabet might force Google to divest Chrome from its advertising arm, so that there’s no pressure to make this whole thing worse. Hah, in my dreams.

        • adarza@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          that would be funny, won’t happen–but funny af. google loses chrome, new owners revert mv2’s removal and go all-in on user control of their browser experience.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          On paper they gave the keys to the Linux foundation, but since they still pay most of the developers working on it the only thing it might achieve is taking resources away from Servo.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is 100000% a reason to split Chrome and the ad sales part of Google into different companies.

      It won’t solve the problem but the pressures end up being orders of magnitude different.

  • knexcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        They changed the phrasing, since in some jurisdictions “sharing anonymized data with partners” can apparently be interpreted as a sale of data, if they get something in return, even if it’s not a fiscal payment.

        But after the outrage that sparked, they’ve rephrased the policy again and wrote a lengthy article detailing the reasoning, which is at the very least plausible.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven’t actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes, because the definition of “sell data” varies by jurisdiction, and they can’t guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of “sell data” in some jurisdictions. In particular, California’s CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren’t actually selling data still fall under its definition of “sell data”.

            • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox?

                That’s not what they actually did, though. They revised the wording to clarify:

                You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

                For example, if you type something into the address bar, they need to have the permission to take your content (whatever you’ve typed) and send it to a third party (a search engine) to get autocompletion results.

                Here’s the blog post that clarifies the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

      • enthusiasm_headquarters@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I read about this too, and it worries me. Google has donated over a billion dollars to Mozilla over the years. That alone doesn’t scare me so much as it’s a blatant propaganda tool to deflect the antitrust sentiment that plagues them and will probably some day do its work of breaking them apart.

        Fortunately, there are numerous open source forks. I am currently using Librewolf, a fork of firefox focused on privacy and anti-tracking, and it has worked without a hitch. A couple of my extensions have required fiddling with to get right but it’s part of life if you care about these things.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I only use chrome for my work stuff, and that’s because I work with g-suite a lot.

      Chrome fucking sucks