Is it just me, or the Chrome Devs are bossy cunts?
I've read it multiple times but I can't really understand what they're trying to say
>google is a literal data hoarder
>"extensions can't make use of your data"
Fucking hypocrites.
Sharing data your data is not good!
t. Google
Isn't it better if you just say the truth, that you're implementing this so it's harder to block ads, their revenue, the main motivation of everything Google/Alphabet does? I think it would be less of a PR disaster than this pitiful excuse.
>Does not say anyting
yea that is right we are making it better
"let's change that"
"here's what you need to know"
What's up with all these catch phrases?
agreed, this is rather problematic.
let's try to unpack this
DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT
Perfectlyspoken.com offers free English courses.
That Scott Adams guy calls it the "Thing Past the Sale" persuasion.
Google runs on advertising. They have an obvious agenda.
Well, time for me to switch back to lagfox I guess...
At least I will get to use Tridactyl!
>Google caring about your privacy
HAHAHAHAHA. Google makes all their money from ad revenue but yes goym it's for your safety and privacy.
about time FTC splits Google
Install Brave. It doesn’t have these problems. Adblocking is implemented at the browser level and not as an extension, as it should be.
And that's a good thing!
Does Brave have individual element blocking and a site whitelist?
pissing off devs and power users worked out well for firefox
Is the desktop version any good? I use the mobile one but I've never tried the desktop one
Except it's not catch all adblocking you cretin, (((approved))) ads make it through.
Doublespeak is common for SJWs and more so in SJW infested corporate world.
Is there a single decent non-scummy browser out there?
it doesn't
the mobile version is 100x better than the desktop version.
Lynx, linksh, but you get maximum control with just using telnet
I believe waterfox. It has a few marks to its name by crazy schizos that critisize everything, but for the most part it does its job well
>Up to date
>no sudden changes or unwanted extensions
>no tranny politics
>allows any extension you install, doesn't need a signed certificate for extensions to run, if you trust the source that's good enough.
>literally the same as firefox in all the good bits
>has the based old UI that was taken out of firefox to make it look like windows 10, no stupid flat design bullshit
>can be spoofed to look like regular firefox to avoid being tracked for a unique UA string, as all browsers should.
What are you talking about? Brave has stricter adblocking than default Ublock Origin. For example, Origin blocks a few known Facebook tracking scripts by default. Brave blocks all Facebook scripts by default except ones that cause major issues such as logging in.
>multiple anchorman gifs
>not one elf 'throne of lies'
I ask so little.
Just go firefox. Even though they have a string of SJW issues, theyr'e the only real alternative to Chrome based browsers and they've stayed true to their original design mostly.
wtf i love google now
Still baffles me on how Brave's lower level adblocking is still worse than Gorhill's.
They know they're about to get raked over the fucking coals and are doing as much damage as they can before it happens.
Do people actually believe anything is gonna happen to big tech companies? Does anyone actually think jack shit is gonna happen? Who are you people and what the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm switching to a different browser once they kill adblocking
Fuck those faggots
and grab the bull straight by the horns
this post is for the guy who enters a thread and mouses over replies
I already don't use it.
Chrome has *never* had proper ad blocking.
NEVER.
>jewgle speaking on the dangers of sharing data
NANI?!
>He's literally too stupid to install a single addon that eliminates literally all ads
The absolute state of Trannyfox users.
Considering that Mozilla already crippled add-ons once to make them more like Chrome's to make them "safe", how long until the next update where Firefox will make ad blockers "safe" too?
Firefox no longer has useful ad blocking.
Chrome has never had the ability to blolck content before it was downloaded, ever.
Even with uMatrix - scripts are downloaded just not run.
>he thinks google are going to remove ads
nigga, i don't know what bait you're smoking but sharing is caring
Unless the extension is taking data parsed through it and actively harvesting and uploading it to a server for malicious purposes, I don't see the problem with how adblocking extensions currently function. Google trying to act like they're ethical when it comes to users' data and privacy is also boggling and it's clear they're trying to backpedal on the original initiative of breaking adblock extensions altogether and it's very disingenuous to paint it as a concern for the security of users' data.
waterfox, the guy just doesn't do politics and the whole point of the browser now is to support multi-process in addition to both extension types
some people will bitch because "it's just firefox with different settings" but firefox has gone back and undone your changes to settings before and they'll keep doing it, so not having to recheck everything is a definite plus
also whatever said
let's not forget to touch base before we go ahead
Your face can touch base with my ass the next time we are at the water dispenser.
that's how you know they're your friend
Fuck I hate them. That and the tag... Why is Google so fucking horrible to the ones that made them what they are?
Fuck you.
That makes no sense, because they will still allow read-only access to the old API, so the spying shit extensions can still do that.
>The more companies with my data the better!
Even if you're in to some weird decentralized data hoarding security measure, more companies of varying levels of scrupulousness having my data is a good thing, is a hard sell.
Even if you just want to make the argument that competition to Googles ad services is good, it's still a pretty weak argument.
(and that's a good thing)
extensions wont be able to see and modify DOM? what?
chrome devs is clearly lying with this image.
currently you can subscribe to an content loading event, observe url and cancel this if needed. but chrome devs want to implement something like hosts file to block content.
that's the problem, because
1. the number of rules is limited
2. ublock use more advanced rules to determine if content needed to be blocked than chrome's suggested API.
so the authority over the definition of what an "ad" is slips away from the third-party independent developer and into the warm, gentle and delicate hands of google-mommy?
FIREFOX
hr will hear about this qualitative transgression asap
Jimmy you diversity hire I AM HR.
Fuck off braveshill
Most addons and all good ones are open source. You can check them for telemetry and change them if you want.
they want to break current API so devs have to rewrite their software and half through realize that 80% of the content is no longer accessible and the end user has to disable 20 options hidden behind four layers of menus.
>being in control of your software bad!
fuck you, barbara, you fucking tranny
Charlie you black and white printer that's not okay to say we'll have to send you to a mandatory 5 day diversity course.
Firefox. Mozilla is retarded and pozzed, but it isn't actively malicious like Google.
Stupid and malicious are so close together they might as well be the same thing.
leftists sociolect.
ad blocking is theft anyway
for paper newspapers (back in the day) 80% of income came from ads, the rest was from subscriptions and circulation (loose sales).
If ad blocking is theft, then it's time to make theft legal.
/thread
I don’t mind ads. I block ads because they can be malicious and I just can’t risk ruining my workstation. How about instead of toying with blockers google gets off their fat ass and improves browser security to the point where malicious ads can’t infect my host.
So what you are saying is we should finally once and for all get rid of any and all javascript? I wholeheartedly agree. But still fuck ads. Ad companies will have to pry adblockers from my cold dead hands before I give them up.
Some sites have annoying ads, I just close them and look for similar content elsewhere. Blocking ads is blocking what pays for the site to remain open. The alternative to ads is pay walls, but even in pay walls ads might be used to increase revenue. People who are for GPL don't want people to use their code to profit themselves without giving anything back, this is what ad blocking is. You take the content and block ads which pay for the content. Sounds immoral to me.
Honestly we should. Or use some method that isolates js events from the host.
Pay for content creation/creators-employees, pay for offices, pay for servers and url. This all goes away if everyone started blocking ads, it would make buisness with free, but sponsered, content unsustainable.
So I should be ok with harming my computer to view content? That doesn't seem like a fair trade. What YouTuber Or newspaper is worth infecting my machine over?
Well adapt or die then. Even with the fetish for muh free markets people somehow just lose their shit when shit media companies are dying because they're unsustainable.
Honestly if most big media companies died nothing of value would have been lost at all.
How does an ad harm your computer? How do youtube ads harm your computer?
I use macos and linux. I don't ad block. Scanned macos for malware and nothing was found.
Here's why that is a good thing.
Kindly do the needful and tell me what I need to know
Pay for muh garbage clickbait reporting, more clicks keeps us afloat, fuck this model, if you have good content people will donate to keep you profitable, relying on ads breeds yellow journalism
Honestly this. The actual journalists are all still fine, the only thing dying is boulevard shit and stuff like the huffington or whatever those shit excuses for clickbait collections are called. And even mentioning those in the same sentence as actual journalists is stretching it pretty fucking far.
>Look at me, I am the Snowden now.
I hope I'll live long enough to see their GoogleAss™ stretched by anarcho-capitalism.
Child words for the pleb to understand.
>But it would make our business unsustainable!!
Why do people always bring up this concern trolling? Literally who cares about your business?
Why wouldn't they be? Typical Dany syndrome, they've been told they are right for so long they now fundamentally believe that everything they do is right.
Then don't ad block and don't go on sites that use ads.
YouTube does not make a profit. Introduction of ads have helped YouTube shrink the deficit and helps YouTube creators dedicate themselves to creating content.
You wanna dedicate yourself to making youtube videos about politics, technology, gaming, food... whatever it pays your bills so you can be your own boss instead of working at Micky D's. PewdiePie didn't want to work in industrial economics, he found it dry, he liked games and game commentary. He started a YouTube channel. He didn't make any money or have many followers but he did what made him happy. Now he's a millionaire, that would not be possible without ads.
No more adblockers on forks that dont switch over unless you install that shit manually or they make their own shitty CWS.
GG NO RE
>>The more companies with my data the better!
Unironically true and right. Much better than only one company with it. It's why you never bank with just one company or only have one job.
I prefer the term "paid blogger".
Nah, I'll continue to block ads.
If you want to make a living, open a fucking SubscribeStar.
>don't go on sites that use ads
Sure thing I will just avoid 95% of the internet all to fund some trust fund kids that desperately want to be seen as "JoUrNaLiStS" for their clickbait top 10 anime fights websites.
Success is not a basic human right and I will refuse to disable my adblocker for any website even if they handed out the cure for cancer for free just on principle alone.
>Literally who cares about your business?
I don't run a business. But I'm not a commie so I do care about businesses, they are good for the economy, they employ people, and the create tax revenue for things like police, fire dept., (in my country) healthcare, business regulators, consumer protection, judicial system, infrastructure like water and roads, government R&D, science, etc. the self-employed, employed and business are the ones that pay for a functioning government in any nation in western Europe.
>We're making them safer....
>for advertisers!
He went from doing something actually useful to becoming a professional shill for useless entertainment products. His entire channel is an advertisement. That isn't a desirable outcome.
I only care about good businesses.
If your business cannot survive without ads, it's not a good business, as such I don't care about it.
Cucklord : The Post
>look, there are a bunch manchild social parasites and degenerates in 1st world countries. this wouldn't happened without ads!
thank you, now i hate ads even more.
Why does their avatar look like the chrome logo buttfucking the chromium logo?
And I'll say it again, success is not a basic human right. If your company can't compete you only deserve one thing and that is to die and make way for a better one. And don't even compare clickbait websites and "JoUrNaLiSts" to basic infrastructure or healthcare.
You said you didn't like content that are paid for by ads, you prefer content funded by donations as you deem it higher quality. Than use sites that rely on donations only. Also, do you donate to GPL projects? I sense you are just cheap and want to have your cake and eat it to. You wanna take but not give.