It would mostly piss off the more techy folks. And maybe speed up development of the various open source browser projects out there. And help get them to sufficient level to be real viable alternatives.
Chrome on Android does not support extensions at all. It's still the biggest mobile browser. Sure, it will make a lot of technical people mad, but a lot more won't care.
Sadly I suspect that may change. Manifest v3 was added to FF in 109 which is why I am on ESR and will probably stay on it as long as I can. Mozilla get funding from Google and that could potentially come with the price of blocking ad-blockers using manifest v3 at some point.
We've always said the same thing about the Firefox for Android extension ecosystem.
Despite Mozilla's explicit denial of the intention to kill extensions on Android, there is an allow list that effectively bans almost all extensions on Android.
There is no justification for this; extensions work just fine on Firefox for Android, which can be tested using the nightly and jumping through a few artificial hoops.
tl;dr: There's little evidence that there will be any big news once adblockers get finally axed on Firefox.
Regardless of who the patron is, that's still a patronage operation, rather than a freestanding commercial enterprise.
(I'm not defending market-based approaches, nor do I think they're well-suited to all domains, and most especially not information services. But I am pointing out the relationship of Mozilla to its Daddy Moneybags. I sincerely hope better alternatives will be found.)
I sort of want a client that does the exact opposite. Click on all ads in the background and provide bogus randomized client data, in essence costing companies money for no gain and rendering advertising useless.
As much as I like adnauseam's mission, it seems to hide ads less reliably than ublock origin. I'd imagine some need to be visible for the click spoofing to work?
> Google has removed ad blocking and privacy extension AdNauseam from its Chrome Web Store, and has taken the unusual step of flagging the extension as malware, thereby preventing AdNauseam from being used by those who have installed the software via Chrome's developer mode.
Available for firefox and chromium-based browsers though.
Tools like this exist, but by using them you run the risk of having your IP flagged by anti-fraud tools and potentially blacklisted. Not because those tools have an issue with the specific tools involved, but because that kind of behavior makes it look like you're running a click farm.
It could also have negative repercussions for the sites whose ads you're "clicking" on, but whether that's a pro or a con depends on your opinion of each site :P
The problem is those blocklists sometimes get shared with other companies doing more broad bot management stuff, which could end up getting you blocked (or soft blocked) from other forms of content.
Trying to log in to your streaming platform of choice? Have fun solving three extra CAPTCHAs because your IP has a history of "bot" activity. etc etc etc
What are the privacy implications if you switch the search to use duck duck go or something else in Chrome? I kind of naively thought that would give you privacy but I need more information.
Im no Google shill, but the results DDG returns are terrible. I suspect for search to work well, the engine needs to know a bit about the user - especially if localising the results is important to you.
Using a search engine efficiently is a lost skill these days and has been replaced by search engines knowing more bout you and making assumptions about your search intentions.
Given that half of users report search modifiers have ceased working entirely with Google, and many other engines don't handle them well if at all, the skill isn't lost so much as impossible to apply.
DuckDuckGo may not be tracking you on their website, but Chrome is tracking you all the time. A majority of companies partnered with Google to get data on what sites you visit, and what data Google can share about you.
Not just that, Chrome also doesn't respect your privacy settings across some websites especially owned by Google:
The details about that lawsuit in the link do not seem like google is subverting anon mode to me. They just use usual cookie tracking, so they can track you if you are logged in to some site that uses google analytics (ie analytics isn't turned off, but when you start anon mode you have a clean slate and all is deleted at the end).
I was more worried about was google adding a hidden tracking cookie when I delete all my cookies somehow identifying me. Or was the browser sending all my traffic to google directly somehow.
If we have a lawyer in the room, would tortious interference with a contract or the DMCA anti-circumvention clause apply here? (Setting aside the question of jurisdiction.)
My understanding is there are hundreds of invidious instances on hundreds of different domains. If they somehow get GitHub to take the codebase down there’s many alternative repo hosts invidious could set up on within an afternoon.
49 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36250582 (8 days ago, 22 comments)
Technically my submission was a dupe, though there still seems to have been substantive discussion.
Why should users think they own their whole screen, after all? "We estimate we can sell up to 80% of the visual field before inducing seizures!"
Despite Mozilla's explicit denial of the intention to kill extensions on Android, there is an allow list that effectively bans almost all extensions on Android.
There is no justification for this; extensions work just fine on Firefox for Android, which can be tested using the nightly and jumping through a few artificial hoops.
tl;dr: There's little evidence that there will be any big news once adblockers get finally axed on Firefox.
(I'm not defending market-based approaches, nor do I think they're well-suited to all domains, and most especially not information services. But I am pointing out the relationship of Mozilla to its Daddy Moneybags. I sincerely hope better alternatives will be found.)
It's Blipverts all over again
I didn't know there was another, hopefully someone will mention it?
Available for firefox and chromium-based browsers though.
It could also have negative repercussions for the sites whose ads you're "clicking" on, but whether that's a pro or a con depends on your opinion of each site :P
Trying to log in to your streaming platform of choice? Have fun solving three extra CAPTCHAs because your IP has a history of "bot" activity. etc etc etc
Don't use Chrome
Not just that, Chrome also doesn't respect your privacy settings across some websites especially owned by Google:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-to-face-5b-lawsui...
They also are going to block your AdBlockers from blocking ads with Manifest V3
I was more worried about was google adding a hidden tracking cookie when I delete all my cookies somehow identifying me. Or was the browser sending all my traffic to google directly somehow.
It is Chrome anyway.
My understanding is there are hundreds of invidious instances on hundreds of different domains. If they somehow get GitHub to take the codebase down there’s many alternative repo hosts invidious could set up on within an afternoon.
As the invidious developers already explained, they did not agree to any eula or sogn any contract