Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.
Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.
The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.
Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.
I‘m really anxious for firefox as google is the main financier afaik.
It is a worry. I think we might end up needing to pay for Firefox ourselves.
I will happily donate.
If, of course, money won’t go to the CEO.
Not sure firefox will be on our side after the recent ad tracking debacle. If they implement one more anti consumer feature I‘m jumping ship.
Jump ship to what? Not like there’s s lot of choices out there. You could always try LibreWolf.
Librewolf is just a reskinned Firefox.
Netscape Navigator and Opera raise their hand
Well, Opera is also based on Chromium.
Do they still pass everything through a spy proxy to “speed up” browsing?
Wait, Navigator still exists?
Nah, it’s Firefox now
look up ladybird. we may soon have a 3rd browser!
Looks promising. Lets see where it goes. https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird
It’s hard to take a project seriously for championing our privacy if the only communication options are Discord & Microsoft Github
Feel free to offer hosting something else for them. Be the change you want to see.
There are free (both kinds) options to these problems if they can’t afford it—and that still isn’t an excuse to require all coms go thru US-based proprietary services with big privacy implications.
Although I‘m not a fan of the options either, the implications regarding the project are minimal and I wasnt talking about the money. Hosting communications platforms isnt easy. It requires the team to change their habits besides their already challenging tasks of producing usable software.
Being the change you want to see does not implicate money, it implicates you contacting them, talking about their reasons, convincing them the comfort loss of non big tech platforms is worth it and only them it becomes a question of money.
Contact how? When you cut yourself off from the FOSS com options to build FOSS projects, you are unwelcoming to those actually using the tools whose philosophy match your project—just not your communications for some reason. There isn’t a listed email address or a gateway or bridged room.
The few teeny, tiny projects I have, I welcome emails & XMPP chat for anyone that wishes to collaborate which doesn’t require anyone to create an account on any particular service.
For those still not getting it, it is as wild as saying you need to have a Facebook account to communicate to a project as these services are all on the same level of propriety & lacking in privacy.
You‘re barging into open doors mate. You should still accept that the best way of changing things is taking up responsibility. You can definitely open an issue regarding their communication choices and propose changes.
And again, they probably have an ongoing community on the existing platforms which means bridges will be necessary which means proprietary platforms will listen in on all convos on bridged platforms.
You cant make people do the thing you think is best. You can only help them.