this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1149 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59641 readers
2694 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There's still Vivali which is Chromium based and still supporting V2 extension (like uBlock) until June 2025. Its not a full fix, but its a stay of execution. That said, I'm a FF primary user.

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm already mad about having to potentially abandon my highly customized Vivaldi should ublock lite not work up to my standards

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Is a combo of ublock lite and Vivaldi's own blocker insufficient? They made updates to allow custom lists, I think. What about a network wide blocker like a pihole or adguard.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I have no idea why people are downvoting it.

[–] funkajunk@lemm.ee -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Vivaldi isn't entirely open source, if that matters to you.

Brave would be my recommendation, I just disable the crypto stuff.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Brave's CEO is so anti-gay, he dished out 4-figure checks to fight gayness.

I'm not a fan of that, and Brave has issues with being Chromium-based, like Vivaldi.

[–] RedStrider@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

this reads like a yo mama joke

[–] theorangeninja@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago

Roughly 92% of the browser’s code is open source coming from Chromium, 3% is open source coming from us, which leaves only 5% for our UI closed-source code.

https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/

Only the UI part is not open source.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Brave is a series scam company.