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
@radicalrobit i think firefox support is great tho?
@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.
@a_breakin_glass the official addon store for mozilla.
@lynnesbian yeah, I almost fell off my chair …
@lynnesbian Lately I've seen uBlock origin also failing in other sites too (facebook and reddit). Any ideas if that is related?
@lynnesbian they make fun of me for using Firefox stable but I have tree style tabs and adblocking so who’s laughing now
@a_breakin_glass older versions of Firefox allowed add on devs to change more of Firefox on their own with permissions but Mozilla changed that for the latest versions.
@lynnesbian if there is something sketchy you can do with software, I assume that facebook amazon and google are doing it as much as possible
@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.
@jamesgecko one can only help, but i wouldn't put it past google
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"
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 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.
@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 i hope that is sarcasm...
@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: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c26
> 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 I've switched to Opera...
@OlivierSchyns opera is chromium based, so this will impact opera too
@lynnesbian I didn't know ! Thanks for the notice.
I'll switch to Firefox then.
@lynnesbian long live Firefox!
@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.
@succfemboi we can only hope
@firstname.lastname@example.org's anti-chud pro-skub instance for funtimes