guess which all-powerful tech monopoly is breaking ublock origin (and umatrix, and likely many other similar add-ons, such as noscript) in their browser, which happens to be the most popular browser in the world?

who could have foreseen this? who would ever think that an advertising company's web browser would end up breaking compatibility with an ad blocker? frankly i'm shocked

@lynnesbian so cool that ublock and nano defender also use chrome as their primary platform and firefox support is tangent at best

awesome great

@v0idifier Not for Nano, which isn't even in AMO. And I don't know if it's still the same way now, but back when ubo and ub matrix were launched for Firefox it was seen as a secondary platform.

I"ll admit things might have changed for ubo and gorhill, I haven't been keeping track, but I know things haven't changed for Nano. You can't even get Nano adblock for instance on Firefox.

@radicalrobit @v0idifier i believe firefox is a primary platform for ubo these days

but i could easily be wrong since chrome has a fucking monopoly on browsers

@lynnesbian Lately I've seen uBlock origin also failing in other sites too (facebook and reddit). Any ideas if that is related?

@lynnesbian This looks more like incompetence than malice to me. The (laudable, imho) goal of V3 extensions is to make it possible to build useful extensions without giving them total control over everything on every page. The V3 spec is in the feedback phase and is receiving useful feedback about it’s limitations. If no changes are made to the spec to address these concerns, that’s when I’ll start getting upset.

i like a few comments down where the chromium devs are like
"please stop talking about this in public and email us instead where we can safely ignore it"

@catoutofbed @lynnesbian This is legit a problem, though; it's good to have a place where official bug and feature discussions happen publicly.

Having the entire internet rampage in and yell about it doesn't effect a sit-in. Instead, it just makes the official discussion go elsewhere, more private.

So I don't think it's inappropriate to say "let's take the larger discussion elsewhere".

@varx @lynnesbian its mostly that theres no public facing discussion of an issue that affects a lot of people
this feeps less like a good faith "lets talk about this" and more like a roundabout way to stop talking about this while pretending otherwise

i get why having a public discussion in comments isnt great but moving it behind the scenes is suspicious in this case

@lynnesbian Is it the same advertising company that made a big deal of vocally supporting Do Not Track and then never actually did support it in practice because users had the gall to actually turn it on?

Maybe some sort of Sherlock Holmes could deduce some sort of pattern here?

@lynnesbian @frumble It seems as if my last year‘s decision to switch back to Firefox came just at the right time.

@lynnesbian from their document, DeclarativeNetRequest section:
>and b) we can prevent or disable inefficient rules
while i like the idea (because injecting custom js to every page just doesn't feel right), that "we can disable" is... worrying.


They moved it to here:

I really like the comment someone made about Chrome no longer being a "user agent" if Google exerts this much control over what it can do.

@00dani @lynnesbian that's basically the conclusion they came to. If the user no longer controls the browser, it is a corporation agent, not a user agent.

@lynnesbian let's make chrome what IE used to be, it's not from M$, there's no way all the bad things happen again. Google is not evil you know.

Yeah man, that was unpredictable.

@lynnesbian It is time to rise again, my firefox fellows! We must topple another monopoly in this time of trials! Chromium components are not acceptable!

(how anyone thought using a browser made by google in the first place I didn't get in 2008 and still don't, maybe others will come around now at last)

@lynnesbian The Chromium-muBlock discussion is going well... </sarcasm>

The comments in this screenshot weren't deleted by their authors, I bet.

@lynnesbian absolutely love this comment:

> Time to fork chromium

yup. that's gonna be useful, and get you as far as all ASOP forks have come

@lynnesbian once again im glad i switched back to firefox but also yeah, time to fork tf out of chromium

@lynnesbian That's why I still keep on going with either #firefox (where uBlock Origin still works well) or #brave (which is chromium based but has ad-blocking baked right in)... 😐

@lynnesbian This means that ad blocking is becoming sufficiently mainstream that it's beginning to have an impact on Google's bottom line.

@bob @lynnesbian

OR that Chromium is dominant enough now that the Microsoft browser no longer exists and can finally act freely as an overlord to their peasants. Mozilla should take this as an opportunity to stop their fall.

@bob @lynnesbian It's funny how so many people's almost instinctual response is "lol, Im on Firefox" as if it is some sort of safe shelter, when Google effectively controls Mozilla through it's pocketbook as well.  Without Google's money, Mozilla dies.  Google is almost 85% of their funding according to their last financial statements.

At this point Firefox exists solely as an anti-trust shield.
@lynnesbian I have always thought the future was network-wide ad blocking, like with the pi-hole project.

@carbontwelve that only works to an extent, though, and it's orders of magnitude more difficult to set up than ublock origin

@lynnesbian Pfft, and this browser calls itself a "user agent". Ain't no user agency in removing adblock capabilities. After the arguments I've read against this change, if it continues to be implemented, we'll know for certain it was malicious intent and it should be considered a hostile action. There's more than one way to fix the bug where extensions can subvert timeout limitations.

@lynnesbian I think many users might switch to firefox then
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Lynnestodon's anti-chud pro-skub instance for funtimes