- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.
(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).
At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).
You must log in or register to comment.
I still use Chrome on Android, but with the system wide Adguard adblock app. Works great! It even has a Tampermonkey style script injector. It’s my must have Android app next to ReVanced Manager.
Google has a browser now?
Chrome was started by google
I’m wondering how Apple will handle this in Safari.
Why did they let an extension that blatantly undermines their goals onto the chrome store in the first place?
It sorta protected Chrome’s monopoly in the browser world for years. Now that they’ve established that monopoly firmly, it’s time to crack down on things that diminish monetisation.
aka the “extinguish” phase I believe
We need to add a fourth E:
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, Enshittify.
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish <-- you are here
Waiting for Mozilla to shoot their own foot again
Didn’t they just announce recently that they were going to work more with advertisers? https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/
How to improve online advertising: Step 1: remove all online advertising
People completely misunderstand this feature (which is only a temporary prototype anyways), and I think that’s entirely Mozilla’s fault. They do a really poor job explaining it.
Usually ad networks implement sophisticated tracking, which works in a highly invasive way. They need the telemetry to watch their campaigns. Firefox now offers the option to collect a minimal amount of data for them and inform the network indirectly.
This is a good thing for the end user. The trackers are not needed, you gain privacy. Disabling the option makes it so you’re instantly tracked MORE.
Mozilla shouldn’t have staged this as an opt-out of the new system. You actually OPT-IN to networks running their old scripts on your machine to collect your telemetry:
[ ] Allow ad networks to run their own telemetry
(Beta functionality, some advertisers may still run their own trackers, even when this option is disabled.)
That would be the same thing, but communicate what it’s doing.
The fact that advertisers like Meta might be on board with this should be exciting to people. That they are even considering giving up so much data and now only receive a single number of impressions per campaign is very unexpected.
Also, none of this matters if you block ads anyways. If you don’t load the ad, neither the networks script runs its telemetry, nor does Firefox increase the counter for the campaign id.
If you’re wondering what’s every involved party’s gain in this, an interesting read is the IPA white paper, where the overall design targets for the system are stated: Interoperable Private Attribution (IPA), 2022
In particular:
In designing IPA, we set out to find a win-win-win solution for cross platform attribution measurement that met our goals across privacy, utility, and competition.
• Privacy: data collected about the user is minimized, protecting the end-users privacy. • Utility: the telemetry process is unified and simplified across all platforms, reducing the costs • Competition: it will be an open, standardized system, accessible to everyone
Just to be clear, I dislike the way Mozilla rolled this out. They already have a “Studies” checkmark that people can enable if they wish to participate in stuff like this. That Mozilla treats this prototype differently is actually not ok, and breaks trust with their users. But as far as I’m concerned, this is a completely separate topic from the update content, which I wish to be successful.
Firefox now offers the option to collect a minimal amount of data for them and inform the network indirectly.
This is a good thing for the end user.
I’m not sure that collecting data is actually a good thing for the end user, but to each their own I suppose.
Yeah, the reason they could be collecting data, is to feed it to an AI.
i think the key word is option
It’s an improvement over the current systems. Incremental improvements to the state of things can be a good thing too.
again?
Before chrome became massively popular, Firefox was very popular. ie was still the most used browser back then
Make sure to shit on them every fucking time anyone says the name “Mozilla”, that’ll help us not have anything except Chrome in a couple years.
It’s fine, there are open source projects underway. If any one of them gains traction, it could happen to Mozilla what happened to Unity with Godot. Here’s to hoping they get their act straight sooner tan later.
Oh, bullshit. There is nothing that has 1/100th of the effort that goes into gecko, because maintaining a web browser is ridiculously difficult. You’re living in a dreamworld if you think any other project is within a lightyear of Firefox.
idk why people think that these foss projects will be fully finished super quickly every time mozilla or google does some stupid shit. firefox exists solely because of googles funding due to web browsers being expensive/difficult to maintain. the effort being made for ladybird is amazing, but holy shit we are NOT gonna be at the ‘firefox and chrome alternative’ level unless they gain massive funding.
maybe i should get back into gemini
👍
What about waiting for Google to shoot their own foot again, even though that already has happened numerous times?
They just did, they are gonna work more with advertisers.
When is this happening? I’ve been telling my wife and kid that they need to stop using chrome for a year, but ublock is still working for them and blocking YouTube ads. They are the type that won’t switch until it becomes a problem for them.
I think that’s the point: Google has been shutting down Manifest V2 extensions one step at a time, and it’s been experimenting with anti-ad-block tech on YouTube with one user group at a time.
One of the reasons why I left chomium based browsers even ungoogled chromium (I use chromium alongside firefox but mainly firefox)
If only banks and government websites moved their asses and stopped mentioning Internet Explorer for one more time…
Browsers with in built adblocker or system wide AdGuard.
DNS ad blockers are not sufficient to block all ads and often overly broad. So they have much higher rate of false positives and negatives compared to in-browser ad blockers. Differentiating between ads and useful content based on domain names will become more and more difficult. Both might use some url from the same cloud provider, and blocking those breaks a lot of stuff.
AdGuard is not a DNS blocker
Maybe you are looking for SpamGuard, TrojanGuard, VirusGuard, MalwareGuard, SpywareGuard, RansomWareGuard, etc. instead.
It’s both a browser extension and a DNS filter.
https://adguard-dns.io/kb/general/dns-filtering/#how-does-dns-filtering-work
Edit: It seems the apps can act as a VPN to filter traffic.
deleted by creator
You where talking about “system wide AdGuard”, which is not the browser addon, but an app that uses DNS blocking, be it by either letting people set DNS servers manually, or automatically through VPN. Their VPN does not break TLS connection by inserting custom certificates and MITM proxies, so they cannot read/modifiy content.
It might be possible to use TLS breaking proxies for systemwide ad blocking, but even that wouldn’t help, because nowadays a lot of content and ads are loaded dynamically via javascript. So a browser is required to filter ads.
Or Firefox?
porque no los dos? I use both and there are things uBlock can catch/block that AdGuard Home doesn’t seem to be able to. That said AdGuard makes mobile pages readable, when most these days are a complete nightmare of ads
I was talking about AdGuard, not AdGuard Home.
I misread system wide as network wide. My mistake. FWIW, I still prefer a network wide and browser plugin (ublock and privacy badger) combo.
Those are trash and DNS adblocking does not work on YT either. Garbage advice 0/10
No, you’re wrong.
The lack of HVEC/h.265 support is kind of a deal breaker in firefox (windows nightly builds don’t count as done). I need it to view h.265 security cameras and the occasional movie streamed via browser.
Edit: For those suggesting multiple browsers I could just use Edge if I wanted to… still better compatibility as it is essentially chromium.
I have a list of other things that don’t work reliably in Firefox such as various video conferencing tools so no, I am not going to switch to Firefox as my primary browser again anytime soon.
I was a Firefox user for many years but there are too many daily things I use now that prevent me from using it as a primary browser for work and causal use.
Cool thing is you can run multiple browsers. So just use Chrome for your cameras and Firefox for everything else.
Why would I use multiple browsers if I can achieve nearly everything in one? I would much rather use Edge or Safari for everything than Firefox plus another browser.
Because Edge has also moved to Manifest V3 and Safari uses WebKit which doesn’t have the same degree of blocking. I mean, you do you, enjoy your ads.
True, but the other argument is just try adblock lite, it works fine… It isn’t as powerful but I would rather have a fully functional daily browser than one with lesser video playback and conferencing functions.
Use Chromium for the security cameras, and use something sensible for all your normal browsing usage?
I guess, but the comment is a direct assertion against Firefox growing from this change. You sort of prove my point by suggestion another sub variant of the chrome ecosystem.
Well I’m guessing you want that codec for a reason, but I would just use something I can actually use in Firefox.
guessing you want that codec for a reason
It is the default most widely used codec for devices and video 4K and higher resolution. It is just what nearly all new / modern cameras come with. You don’t really get a choice.
deleted by creator
I guess when edge stops supporting v2 you’ll just look at ads then
I won’t
Ad block lite does a good enough job without me changing to be honest, again the point being is that there are more problems with me using Firefox as a primary browser than ad blocking benefits.
Nice try, Satya
Doesn’t uBlock Origin already have a Manifest V3 version of the extension?
That’s uBlock Origin Lite, which the developer already stated is grossly inadequate for ad blocking.
thr manifest v3 version is basically ublock origin lite, whoch has extremely limited control of what you can and cant do.
Yeah, but it sucks, because of the heavy constraints of MV3
Yes, though the devs don’t even like it
uBO Lite.
Not my jam, lacks the power of the original.
Yes, but capabilities are reduced.
deleted by creator
suddenly 20 new chromium forks appear
Huh, where’d those come from, I wonder. 🤔
I just installed Postmarket OS on my Arm based Chromebook, to be able to switch to Firefox.
Wasn’t there just an article about how Mozilla is claiming ublock origin shouldn’t be supported anymore and another one claiming they’re starting a focus on ads?
I feel like we’re entering a really shitty time for the Internet… Tie that in with Microsucks Recall feature and computing in general is going to suck…
I don’t want to go touch grass!!
The closest I can find is
Which is only the “lite” version (which really has no reason to be used in firefox) and was likely based on an improper scan. Which happens constantly and is usually an email and a few days of waiting rather than immediately going to the press.
If you can find something about Mozilla actually being anti-adblock or disabling manifest v2 that would be incredibly useful. But maybe be aware of what is going on before vaguely making major claims?
IIRC Mozilla doubled down on their v2 support when Chrome announced the shift to v3. But then the Chrome monopoly judgment came down and with it a lot of speculation on Google dropping their funding of Mozilla, so maybe Mozilla could be changing its tune to either protect or find a replacement for that funding? Nothing of substance is happening yet, it’s still all speculation, but I do hope nothing like that does happen.
Mozilla has been diversifying for ages, it’s what stuff like buying pocket was all about. They should be making around 100m off the side hustles by now, plenty to keep the lights on, but still a small sum compared to the 500m they get from selling the default search engine spot.
Also, just as a reminder: Mozilla doesn’t exist to make money for Firefox, Firefox exists to make money for Mozilla’s general internet charity work.
Yeah, the “lite” version should only be in the Chromium Store and its for support of the garbage better know as manifest v3 that is better off going to the scrapheap.
In fact, uBlock Origin is one of the officially recommended extensions by Mozilla
uBO Lite was incorrectly flagged as violating policy by someone at Mozilla, but rather than appeal that decision in any capacity at all, the developer just removed the add-on entirely without responding to Mozilla. The original decision was almost certainly just an error.
