~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:

Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.

Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

  • @Dju@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2761 month ago

    Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):

    I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/

  • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2061 month ago

    They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It’s clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.

  • @watson387@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1141 month ago

    I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.

      • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        431 month ago

        Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn’t work on other browsers, where they failed to test.

          • Victor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            381 month ago

            Out of principle, I refuse to pretend I am not browsing with Firefox. 🦊❤️✊ Let website statistics show! And I will boycott sites that break due to not testing on multiple browsers!

            • teft
              link
              fedilink
              English
              81 month ago

              I thought like that until youtube started intentionally slowing firefox identifying clients. As soon as I changed my user-agent to match chrome’s the speed was back to normal.

              • @MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                51 month ago

                Lol I blocked all but essential JS on YouTube with NoScript and never faced any problems at all. Videos load just fine without extra penalties.

    • @cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 month ago

      Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.

      • @flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I worked somewhere like that back in the 2008-2010 time frame. Thankfully, there was a extension, I believe the name was “IETab”, that would spawn a new tab in Trident (IE’s browser engine). So you could set certain sites to launch in one of those tabs and everything else would use standard Firefox. None of the people I supported were any the wiser. They just thought everything worked in Firefox.

        Granted it was only that seamless because Windows already had that rendering engine built in. There are some extensions that do something similar with Chrome, but because of more modern security standards and whatnot you have to install extension helper applications which is gross.

    • @ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      Are you sure that it was Firefox itself? I find the few times something like that has come up, it was because of extensions (like adblocl, actually).

      Delta’s website started blocking me due to using Dark Reader, apparently something about detecting that the contents of the page were being altered. And another site worked fine when I disabled unlock; I assume because it was blocking loading some .js that was actually being used for something other than just ads.

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        331 month ago

        They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).

        It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.

        As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.

        It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.

    • @Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s ruling. They are a direct competitor.

            • @Raxiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              91 month ago

              One of Googles biggest competitor’s is the company “Meta” which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
              When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to “Facebook” which was the name previously used by the corporation now called “Meta”.

              Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.

              Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to “up the ante” by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.

              Regardless, the “joke” has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.

                • @boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  41 month ago

                  They were explaining on how the joke flew over your head. If there’s reason to think anyone in this exchange is a bot, it’d be you, because you can’t really understand jokes even when they’re explained to you. Though nowadays, even bots understand jokes, ChatGPT can explain them fairly well.

  • @Mars2k21@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    911 month ago

    This has been a long time in the making…hopefully Firefox will see a market share increase. Google is doing this right as they get slapped by an antitrust ruling ironically lol. If you haven’t already just go ahead and switch, if you like Lemmy you’ll probably like Firefox as well.

    Side note: I try not to be negative here, but this would be a great time for Mozilla to get their act together as an organization. Love Firefox and the idea, but Mozilla has been pissing off the FOSS space for a while now with their decisions. If they’ve improved in recent years, disregard this.

    • @PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The tricky part is that Google isn’t wrong about Manifest v3 increasing security for some people. Just allowing any extension to access the full URLs from a webpage is honestly pretty sketchy for most things that aren’t adblockers. Think about Beth in accounting who has 27 bloatware toolbar extensions installed on her home PC, which are happily collecting her full browser history and sending it off to gods know where. Manifest v3 is targeted at increasing security for those users, by making it more difficult for extensions to track you.

      The issue is that it also makes ad blocking virtually impossible, because the blocker is forced to just trust that the browser is being truthful about what is and isn’t on the page. And when the browser (developed by one of the largest advertisers in the world) has a vested financial interest in displaying ads, there’s very little trust that the browser will actually be honest.

      The issue is that there’s not some sort of “yes, I really want this extension to have full access” legacy workaround built in. Yes, it would inevitably be abused by those scummy extensions, which would just nag idiot users to allow them full access. And the idiot users, being idiots, would just do it without understanding the risks. Even if Chrome threw up all kinds of big red “hey make sure this extension actually needs full access and isn’t just tracking your shit” warning flags, there are still plenty of users who would happily give bloatware full access without reading any of the warnings. But it would also allow ad blockers to continue to function.

      • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 month ago

        The single biggest security improvement you could make for Beth in accounting would be to install UBO. Where do you think she gets all those shitty toolbar extensions? That’s right, from ads.

        This is targeted at destroying adblockers because Google is, first and foremost, an ad serving company. That’s their business model. It incidentally improves security for certain users in certain edge cases, because they need some kind of figleaf of legitimacy.

        • @helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 month ago

          Ads and crappy installers, all though that seems less common than it used to be. I can’t say if that’s a general trend or tunnel vision due to me not installing crapware.

      • @x00z@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        If it was about security then they should simply block Manifest v2 extensions from their store or at least start doing some actual verification of the extensions they host. Taking away freedom claiming it to be for security is almost always a lie.

  • _haha_oh_wow_
    link
    fedilink
    English
    661 month ago

    I recommend switching to another browser like Firefox or Librewolf.

    • @ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I love Librewolf currently but I worry it’s going to stray too much from what it originally was like Waterfox and others ended up doing, and then end up randomly breaking compatibility with certain plugins or introducing other issues.

      Right now, Librewolf is the best way to experience Firefox. Will that still be the case in 5, 10, 15 years? That remains to be seen. I hope it’s still the best way to experience Firefox years from now. Having to change browsers every so often does suck tbh.

      • @xavier666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 month ago

        Those are jumping to Librewolf from Firefox, keep the following things in mind

        • It’s a privacy first, usability second browser
        • It’s not a browser for your grandparents. You have you take some steps to give it the same functionality as Firefox
        • Good news is it removes a lot of Mozilla cruft
        • Browser fingerprinting, which allows websites to recognize an individual user, is disabled on this browser. This feature greatly enhances privacy.
        • But it means it will ‘slightly’ break some websites. Nothing very serious but certain QoL features will be missing at first. Eg. When downloading a software, it can’t determine which OS you are using.
        • You can enable browser fingerprinting and get those QoL features back.

        Hope you have a good experience on Librewolf. I’ve been using it for the past 1 year and it’s fine.

      • @fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        Meh.

        Librewolf already breaks loads of websites with it’s fingerprinting resistance - just get used to turning it off.

        In any case, you already need a chromium fork handy for all the sites that just plain don’t support firefox any more. I’ve run in to weird issues in firefox that don’t arise in chromium several times in the last month. This is going to get much worse.

        As for changing browsers. I don’t care very much. I don’t use many browser features like bookmarks or passwords.

        • @ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Which websites did you run into issues with Firefox? I haven’t had any issues with any websites. I do think you’re right that it’s probably going to get worse over time, but maybe not if more people make the switch to Firefox.

          • @fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            booking.com is the worst I’ve encountered. There’s a captcha type anti-bot thing that I can’t pass with firefox. I think it uses canvas.

            edit: another I use all the time is called echo360. It’s the platform my university uses to host lecture videos. The player just plain doesn’t work in firefox - blank screen.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    481 month ago

    So many kids with assigned school Chromebooks are going to get fucked over by this. You can apparently install Firefox on a Chromebook via the Google Play Store, but that was disabled on my daughter’s Chromebook. I don’t want her exposed to constant advertising while she’s doing her schoolwork. It’s bad enough that she’s exposed to it the rest of the time just being in America.

    • Mwalimu
      link
      English
      351 month ago

      I think this is something most people rarely talk about but it strikes home to many of us. As a parent, I have a responsibility to defend my children against this persistent cognitive manipulation and experimentation. Just as I would not want a random stranger at the corner have exclusive attention of my kid and sell them insurance or grammarly or mesothelioma, I would also never want them to have that unfiltered access to my kids online. One can then say AdBlocks are a parental obligation.

    • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 month ago

      It’s normal for system admins to not let their users install non-whitelist software

      You should PTA to switch from Chrome to Firefox

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 month ago

        I think it’s very unlikely that they would pay for the IT department to install Firefox on every Chromebook. You’re talking 14,000 students in this county and only the kindergartners don’t get Chromebooks.

        • @_tezz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 month ago

          You might be surprised! This type of change is usually automated and centralized, so an administrator shouldn’t ever have to even touch any of those Chromebooks. Might be worth having a chat with your school administrators.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 month ago

            My own daughter is in online school now (it’s still a public school, it’s just not in a physical location) so she can use her own computer… but I have to do the user agent switcher thing because the school’s own website testing software isn’t Firefox-compatible. And the school is run by evil Pierson who basically has a monopoly on American public schools, so I’m guessing that’s true for all of those Chromebooks out there too.

            Still, I might suggest it to them anyway just for the benefit of the other kids.

            • @CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 month ago

              Yeah, they sign major contracts that have a lot of stipulations so they get the best deals since theyre govt funded. This backfires, ofc, by locking them into bad products.

              Im not saying dont try, definitely do.

        • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 month ago

          Should be able to do either remotely or by including it in the image

          I imagine personal work is saved to a server not locally

          But it doesn’t hurt to try

        • @GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -21 month ago

          That’s really wild to me. They give each grade school student a chromebook? That is honestly terrifying.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 month ago

            Why is it terrifying? A lot of kids don’t have computers of their own and this gives them access to the internet. It’s also, in my opinion, a far better way to give kids tests than filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper.

            I mean I wish there were other good, cheap options, but there aren’t.

            • @GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 month ago

              I really hate to “back in my day” this but we had computer labs for that when I was younger. And that didn’t require giving a monopoly company my name or any other information about me. And I wasn’t being ad-tracked all day long going to websites.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 month ago

                Computer labs aren’t going to help the kids going home at night to study and I don’t really think shuffling kids into a computer lab every time there’s a test in any class makes much sense.

                • @CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 month ago

                  I mean, both can be true if we’re living in a cloud-based world.

                  Schools can provide workstations and households can either opt in to using their own computer at home or be assigned a laptop or laptop credit. Choice is the important part here, and limiting kids choices at the benefit of major oligarchy organizations sucks big floppy donkey dick.

    • @suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 month ago

      How about a DNS-based ad-blocking service? NextDNS is pretty good and not expensive. You should check if you can set custom DNS servers on that Chromebook, though.

  • @anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 month ago

    The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.

    I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome’s add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did

  • @numberfour002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 month ago

    Understatement, I know, but I find this so annoying, and it certainly feels malicious.

    I was just commenting the other day how ridiculous it is that google search results literally serve up malware to people via paid ads. My neighbor was running into issues where her computer kept getting “infected” and a full screen scam would take control, blaring out a loud message that her computer was infected with a virus, that it was infecting microsoft’s servers, and she had to call them now to fix it.

    After investigating, I found out that these types of scams are stored as blobs on Microsoft’s cloud service, but the links are spread via ads in google search. When I tried searching for the exact search terms my neighbor was using on my own devices and my own network, I found out that google was serving me the exact same ads, aka sponsored links. They look like legitimate results for things that people search for, like showing what appears to be a link to Amazon when searching for a product, even the links will say “www.amazon.com”.

    Obviously I told my neighbor not to use Chrome and suggested some browser alternatives. I installed uBlock on all the browsers (including chrome) just to be safe. Then I showed her how to tell when things are ads, even when they are deceiving, and to never click on ads or sponsored links under any circumstances.

    But it’s definitely infuriating that they are serving up malware in their ads, don’t respond to reports in a timely manner, are getting people caught in scams that they allow to advertise on their network but then somehow object to people managing those risks by blocking ads from untrustworthy sources, like google.

  • @Swarfega@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    321 month ago

    They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead

  • @ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 month ago

    Already switched as soon as I learned of Google’s plans. They can go screw themselves for doing this. Firefox, the land of the free and open source!

  • @FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 month ago

    ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.

      • @FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        I use waterfox. They are independent again since last year and their big thing besides privacy is that they carry over a lot of stuff from Firefox that was scrapped with the proton design.

      • @sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        not the original commenter but FLOORP, BABYYYY!!! let’s go let’s get this floorp action come on floorp is the best reign supreme for a thousand years floorp woooooo