What I’m scared is publishers taking this as a reason to simply start banning Firefox and other browsers.
There’s already plenty of business web apps that require chrome. I specifically use a business focused web app that not only requires Chrome, but ONLY CHROME ITSELF and no chromium derivatives. That’s the first time I’ve come across that. I had previously seen chrome requirements, but they worked just fine on ungoogled chromium. Not this one, nope. Regular Google Chrome and nothing else. wtf is that garbage.
You can get past these with a user agent, lying about which browser it is. However, they aren’t testing for other browsers, so their site maybe as buggy as hell. As yet Firefox doesn’t do a WINE and match Chrome, bug for bug, so sites work as intended. Google have cause IE6’s return.
An ecom site decides to block 5% of web traffic and potential sales?
Now tell the marketing team you are turning away 1 in 20 potential customers because (well, not really sure why) and see what they have to say.
Glad I have firefox as well but also looking forward to a cool new project called Ladybird. https://ladybird.org
Not sure if its the right one but glad there are more projects out there trying to jump into the game. (I know extensions are a long way off for it but i see it as hope.)
Also please consider running pihole or adguard home. Or any other full home DNS add blocker. It will help.
Ladybird looks great! Very much looking forward to an alpha linux release so I can use it and give all kind of feedback.
Looks like what I’d want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.
if it’s* the right one
I honestly can’t wait to see how this plays out. Only Chrome, chromium and edge in their pure forms have dedicated to doing this. Most of the Chrome forks have said they’re going to fork and keep it running. It’s certainly going to give Firefox a shot in the arm, but there’s no lack of other competition either.
I don’t know how long the forks will be able to backport new features to their forked codebase.
I think the only sensible solution is to just switch to Firefox.
Eventually Firefox will switch to V3 anyway so it’s kind of just delaying the inevitable.
It sucks that this is the future of the Internet.
Manifest v3 is already supported in Firefox (they must support it to keep the extension ecosystem alive), but they implemented it without the user-hostile restrictions.
Oh, I wasn’t aware of that, I thought the user-hostile restrictions were inherent to Manifest v3 and they were unavoidable.
Okay, maybe just maybe Firefox squeaks by unharmed then.
edit: I literally just had someone else tell me just now that “It’s not something that can be worked around. It’s specifically a design feature of manifest v3 to restrict these types of things.”
So which is it? I’m kind of getting mixed signals here.
edit 2: Oh, it sounds like Google has additional arbitrary restrictions on content blocking functionality, beyond what Manifest V3 itself has.
It’s probably 95% of windows users then who are affected by this.
Especially those at work who can’t install their own software.
Oh yeah easily.
Let this be my warning to Google that I will never go back to their browser when they do. Challas! ✌️
I reckon they’re absolutely shaking with fear by your warning.
I am user. Hear me roar!
Glad I’ve finally migrated to firefox…
I’m warning Google that Google Chrome may soon be disabled on my devices.
Yeah, we saw this coming. When Manifest v3 first talked about.
Google an ad company are killing ad blockers. Yeah, that sounds right.
MV3 doesn’t kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.
Some of these “features” that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.
The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.
Then allow a savvy user to choose to keep MV2 mode via an opt-in control instead of depreciating years of hard work by non-malicious extension authors. uBlock Origin is, in fact, the ONLY browser extension I use in Chrome, as Firefox is my main browser.
I agree they should have tried to find more ways to keep the old behavior. MV3 rollout has already been delayed for a long time, and now users merely get a message. I’m not sure that the community (mostly Google contributors) won’t give in or try to find a way to keep MV2. However, what was done with MV2 can now be done with MV3 with native messaging or other network tools… I think the concern is that allowing an exception makes it much easier for a malicious extension or software to get users to agree not realizing what they’re agreeing to. Furthermore, the declarative approach is actually preferable by many. You get most of the same features without exposing all your traffic to an extension.
From my understanding, MV3 kills vital features of ad-blockers in that
- Some filtering rules do rely on the ability to read the content of the webpage, which can’t be migrated, per the FAQ linked in the article
- The declarative API means an update to the rules requires an update to the plugin itself, which might get delayed by the reviewing process, causing the blocker to lag behind the tracker. It might not be able to recover as quickly as uBO in the recent YouTube catch-up round.
-
uBOL GitHub does a pretty good job of explaining some challenges, and some of them are better tracked in the issues.
-
Your second point isn’t accurate though and MV3 does support dynamic rules.
-
And yet the likelihood of Google publishing a malicious extension is quite low. Not sure why you’re so adamant about defending their shitty anti-adblock actions, making excuses for a mega corporation.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, Arch Linux, NixOS, Flathub, etc. all end up publishing malicious software in their stores and package managers. It is inevitable. If you’re not worried about sandboxing then you might as well proxy all your traffic using third party software.
Gee, what a shame. Good think I switched to FireFox. Hey, does anyone know how to make chat work on FireFox?
deleted by creator
So, what they’re saying is: Chrome will have severely decreased functionality and users will no longer be able to protect themselves from sketchy ads that contain scams, malware, and other nefarious bullshit (often hosted on Google’s own ad networks)?
Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.
Nope
Yep. Facts.
You seem to be struggling with the term “facts”
Is your feelings facts to you? Which fact specifically am I struggling with? Do you have anything concrete to say at all or are you just going to keep being vague because of feelings?
Whew, kinda weird to find a Google employee on lemmy. I would have thought there were rules against that in the would employee handbook.
I don’t work for Google. Are you in a cult or an anti-opensource PR firm? Why would that be your first instinct in response to facts? Go read the beginners guide to MV3. Maybe you could learn a thing or two before talking about feelings.
You gave no facts, just opinions.
And if you aren’t aware, astroturfing is a thing.
I gave you facts about MV3. It is also explained at the beginning of the uBOL GitHub page which even acknowledges MV3 adds protections to users with some filtering tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs can be implemented in other ways but it is more work and would require other software. I am not here saying Google is perfect or that MV3 is perfect, but it does make installing extensions more secure for the average user. If you don’t agree then be specific. This vagueness that you keep utilizing without providing any details at all to try to make a point is a clear sign that you honestly have no clue what you’re talking about.
Yeah, that’s not even how Ublock Origin fucking works, what a hilariously ignorant take.
Did I say that the author of uBlock Origin actually reads your traffic? No I didn’t, so stop the bad faith arguments. I said that MV2 exposed users to malicious extensions that were able to do that. Most features of uBO work fine with uBOL. Not everything does though, and I do acknowledge that. I’m just saying MV3 does make a majority of users safer overall.
Seeing all your traffic is required for an ad blocker to function correctly.
An ad blocker doesn’t need to see your traffic to function. That is the point of the declarative APIs. It is supposed to help protect users from malicious extensions and some forms of malicious software.
Bring back Internet Explorer.
That’s one way to say that you like the smell of lead-based gasoline.
Firefox my beloved.
Librewolf, my beloved.
This is the first I’ve heard of LibreWolf. Is it compatible with Windows 7? And also, why is it good?
Looks like it should run on Windows.
Edit: sorry, didn’t read far down enough. It’s only built for Windows 10, but they recommend this?
Main features: … Continued support for NPAPI plugins like Silverlight, Adobe Flash and Java
Picture this in your minds eye: a Windows 7 machine running a browser with still working Flash and Java plugins, connected to the internet in 2024.
what do you see?
i see a flourishing ecosystem of worms, viruses and rootkits, all trying to be the one species to get to be the one who does the most damage to the prey species, the common user.
Sounds like an interesting experience to me. Admittedly I hadn’t looked that far into it. If Win 7 is a must I’d say just go with latest Firefox.
You really shouldn’t connect windows 7 to the internet.
A summary from its site and known technical details:
- no telemetry by default
- includes uBlock Origin
- has sane privacy-respecting defaults
- prepackages arkenfox user.js
- relatively well-maintained fork of Firefox that keeps up with upstream
- No major controversies AFAIK
As for Windows 7, nobody should really need to install Librewolf anyway on such a device. No device running Windows 7 should have access to the internet at this point. If you are asking about compatibility intending this use case, you have bigger problems to worry about than your choice of browser. If you just need to view HTML files graphically, even Internet Explorer or an older firefox ESR will do.
If you use a DNS solutions you can block all the telemetry shit. Frankly FF has been phoning home in a lot of undesirable ways for many years even before this, like most browsers.
Firefox is no longer an adversary to Google for the browser market, if it ever was. FF has become a vassal of Google that with its tyranny is dictating the course of the internet, such as WEI that as far as I know it was abandoned at least for now.
At least link the full article and not just the headline… smh. Here is also the follow-up article with comments from Firefox’s CTO. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Firefox-defends-itself-Everything-done-right-just-poorly-communicated-9802546.html
You’re overreacting. Firefox knows their users. I am a huge “stan” for Firefox, but I will delete it like a time traveller if they make it impossible to ignore ads. I will salt the earth and poop on Firefox’s grave and actively avoid it everywhere… However. If I’m wrong, there will be a Next Thing…
Yeah I’m using Fennec, which doesn’t have that. But as long as it’s a flick of a switch to disable, I don’t really mind. Still a million times better than manifest v3.
Not entirely true.
Saying this about any corporation’s product is guaranteed not to age well.
Yeah, it’s strange just how readily the blinders go up wherever Mozilla is concerned. They’re a corp, just like any other; if they had the money and leverage, they’d be just as aggressive as Google. Have people already forgotten that time they laid off 200+ employees and then gave all the execs bonuses?
E: Apparently y’all have forgotten. In 2021, Mozilla laid off a few hundred employees. CEO’s salary doubled that year. Fuck Mozilla, they’re no more your friends than Google or Microsoft; they’re the same evil, just smaller-scaled evil, is all.
But they haven’t threatened to undercut ad blocking yet, so as a comparison they are better.
Absolutely, but Mozilla is pretty much owned by Google anyway, and falling in love with these companies as wide eyed fanboys never looks good when they eventually turn.
I wouldn’t say “owned”, but the rest… yeah:-(
Who provides the majority of their funding?
It’s okay to like them while they do good and then change your mind when they turn evil.
You forgot to also mention that they are a cult where you get attacked if you say anything negative about Mozilla.
You forgot to not shill for an actual corporation
I’m not shilling for anyone. If you want to discuss actual technical details I’m happy to do so. If you’re here just to share your feelings absent facts then I don’t care what you have to say.
“this is way safer for users” may as well be feelings. It’s not backed up by anything but a clear boner for Google
It is literally explained in the first part of the uBOL GitHub page:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home#description
It’s like you haven’t even done the most basic research that anyone with anything useful to say would do. Why?
Mmm mmm mmm, Bill Cosby tells me to love my puddin’ pops!
…i feel sleepy…
I rlly hate how some sites don’t work on Firefox
Which sites?
Snapchat
And nothing of value was lost.
I need it for one of my irl friends
Have you reported issues for them? It’s in the menu somewhere. If Mozilla get a lot of reports for particular sites, they reach out to the webmaster and try to work with them to improve Firefox support - usually by removing proprietary Chrome-only features or by removing reliance on Chrome bugs that don’t exist in Firefox.
You can also report the issue at https://webcompat.com/, just search to see if it’s already been reported first.
You can do that?
Yeah. Just double-checked on my computer. Open the menu then click “Report broken site” near the bottom.
The more people use Firefox, the more web devs will be forced to ensure their website works on Firefox.
User agent switcher. I have zero issues since using it.
I’m showing my age, but back when IE was basically the only browser and Firefox (Firebird back then) launched, people often lamented that things didn’t work in Firefox. The solution? People used Firefox and web developers were forced to make their shit work in Firefox. When Chrome came out, suddenly we had three real options and the way to make everything work? Open Standards.
Now, Chrome is in the position IE was back before Firefox came around. How ever will we make sure things work in Firefox??? Use Firefox. If enough people dump Google’s malware browser, the web has to go back to supporting multiple browsers through open standards.
Very firefox, very legal very cool.
I’m not worried about this at all. I don’t use Chrome anyways. I use Brave. It has a built-in ad blocker that works pretty well and I don’t see that going away.
