We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the …
I love how they gave a TL;DR right at the beginning of the article, it made me stay and read the rest out of respect for the author.
Google lives of the ads (among the things), of course a browser they develop is going to screw the add-ons that block ads. Solution: avoid google if you want an ad-free internet.
Edit: typo
What pisses me off is seeing more and more “You need to upgrade your browser for this site!” when using Firefox.
Having to use a spoof header gets frustrating frequently too.
In my head I respond “you need to upgrade your website to handle my rad browser, fellas”
you guys notice this strategy lately of announcing something bad, and dragging it on to soften the outrage?
tech companies seem to be doing it a lot. microsoft with windows recall too.
This has been done for decades. It is PR 101, and it is done to indoctrinate and subsequently normalize XYZ onto the average consumer/citizen.
In Marketing, you get taught that the average person has a memory of 3 to 6 months for issues like this, at the most. So, if you can afford to stretch something for longer, than acceptance on average, will always go up. Attention span are short. In other cases, it alleviates any cases of legal liability. Since no one can say they were not warned.
thanks for the answer. it really helps to understand whats happening when I notice this stuff. id like to be better at it, where can i start in an approachable way?
also how do we even defend from it?
It has always been a common strategy. Aim for the extremes, and then move to your actual goal to seem reasonable and make the opposition think they won.
This article has some misinformation in places. Like it claims Vivaldi’s ad-blocker cannot be investigated further because the project is closed source, but the only closed source part of Vivaldi is the UI (approximately 5% of the total code). The ad-blocker C++ code is published along with the other 95% of the browser’s code.
You don’t think a tarball dump is harder to investigate than a CVS repository? I never claimed it was impossible to investigate further, just that it was harder to.
Where is the misinformation?
But that’s not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):
Vivaldi users point out that the built in blocker is noticably worse than uBlock Origin, with some guessing that Vivaldi doesn’t fully support uBlock Origin filterlists (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi’s source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it’s closed source. This is not true.
But it is, because making users download a 2GB repo and looking through the code, or crafting custom filter rules to investigate how rules work is harder than looking at a hosted source code repository (like what Brave has).
Where is the misinformation?
(Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.
Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of “so” in the sentence you typed?
I’m asking you what the misinformation is. Is this harder to investigate because the software is closed source? In my mind undoubtedly yes. I know it was harder for ME to investigate because it wasn’t open source - no open issue trackers, SCM repository, whatever.
So please tell me why what I said was misinformation - I’m really curious.
I’m not the person who you’re replying to (just another reader) but I felt misled after reading the clarification here in the forums that the source IS available for the adblock portion. I was under the impression (from your article) that the users could not inspect the code at all because of the same wording the person calls out. If they (and obviously others like myself) were misled by the writing, would it not be better just to fix it instead of arguing?
You really felt misled that it was harder to inspect? What makes you think I have the expertise to inspect this? I’m not even a user and I wouldn’t know where to start to find the ad blocker within that tarball. Would you?
In any case, I clarified why it was harder to inspect - to me it felt obvious that being closed source made it harder to investigate. The fact that it is also shared source really has no bearing to the general observation, especially since we’re talking about a 2GB tarball where I don’t even know where to start. And I’m a pretty technical person.
How would a user easily investigate this vs. an open source browser?
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.
I can see why you think this is not entirely implied. But I also don’t think that it’s incumbent on them to have laid it out with such specificity. You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render closed source projects less accessible.
It takes a little squinting, sure, but the internet is a better place when we read things charitably, and I don’t think such fine grain differences rise to the level of straight up misinformation.
I mean, there are some real whoppers around here on Lemmy. There’s no shortage of crazy people saying crazy things, I just don’t think this rises to that level.
You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render it less accessible.
Not when they use the conjunction “so”. If they’d used “and”, then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using “so” as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of “therefore”, so it’s like saying “Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain’t it.
“Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
Why is it an inaccurate statement?
What user are you thinking of?
I was actually under the impression the whole browser was closed. Thanks for the clarification
No worries, it’s not surprising you thought that because there are quite a lot of people out there like OP who spread complete misinformation about browsers they dislike/don’t use.
It is, it is just source available. Still closed source.
I finally switched to Firefox when I couldn’t remove the ads on my casual browsing. Now I’m told Firefox isn’t cash money either? Wtf is going on here.
forks of firefox still keeping things going such as mullvad browser, waterfox, librewolf
In an ideal world the headline would be “Google kills Chrome by preventing users from blocking ads”.
And then what? The google funded firefox?
Yes. The Google-funded Firefox that won’t take away your ability to block ads. Any other questions?
Why are they working with google to screw up our privacy?
How are they doing that? They’re simply making money by putting Google search as the default. Changing it literally takes a few seconds.
They developed the “privacy sandbox” together. And in terms of cashflow, they depend on that google money. They’re in trouble without it
And in terms of cashflow, they depend on that google money. They’re in trouble without it
That’s irrelevant. The only thing important is what they have to do for that money, which is setting Google as the default search engine. This only “hurts” you if you don’t take 15 seconds to change the default.
Well, yes, technically. But then again, if google decides to stop doing that firefox can’t pay for it’s staff or infrastructure. Really, they have an incentive to listen
They developed the “privacy sandbox” together.
Yeah that’s not true.
Chrome came up with that feature a while back. Now firefox is adding the same. And then later I learned it was a cooperative effort, just not under the same name
My dad used to watch TV and I always wondered why given how shit it was, nothing but ads. He told me about how great it used to be when he was a kid. I can’t help think the same thing is happening now with the internet. It’s dying. It’s already shit compared to 10 years ago and I only see it getting worse. Our generations will cling to it remembering what it used to be though, just like he did.
You want free and private internet - Ok You don’t want ads - Ok So who is going to give you something for free and why?
Ad block is the number one thing you can do on the Internet to reduce your risk to exploits, phishing, etc. The US government recommends the use of ad block specifically for this reason. Usage of ad block is basic internet security hygiene.
FOSS Communities:
Funny as the internet was designed as being free.
Maybe just educate yourself a little. In general, not just about that.
Oh well? I think you should educate yourself a little, it was never designed to be free, it was designed for army for long distance fast and reliable communication, later evolved to be a service, no service is free, providers aren’t gods to give you anything for free.
I knew it will be downvoted, but you have to realize, nothing is free in this world kids, I don’t like it too, but it is what it is.
Bro’s paying for grep.
posted on social media developed for free using a standard specced out for free running on servers people are allowing you to use for free…
Whether or not current models are sustainable is beside the point. Obviously they aren’t, ad blockers weren’t developed for shits and giggles but to stop increasingly intrusive practices.
You’re paying for the air you breathe? Lots of things are free. Capitalists who want you to pay for what you shouldn’t will try to convince you otherwise.
