Technology

37724 readers

631 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

396

Chrome will block one of its biggest ad blockers (www.pcworld.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] [email protected] 73 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

With this change, extensions can “only” alter/inspect/redirect/block 30,000 domains if they use the webRequest API. That’s not enough to build uBlock Origin with, but at least there’s limit now.

That seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 20,000? Or 300,000? What the hell is this limit even for? Even malware can still target 10 domains and do some significant damage. So, what the hell is the point?

Remember, politicians don't pass racist laws by directly saying they are excluding PoC into the law. They do it by targeting commonalities that happen to apply to PoC.

Google isn't going to flat-out say they are blocking uBlock Origin. They are going to do it by implementing "security features" that just so happen to target only uBlock Origin.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"For the security" is starting to sound a lot like "for the children". I hope this works out better than secure boot. When these new ideas emerge that have, let's call them, "side effects" like disabling ad-blockers or preventing Linux from being installed I am suspicious.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

if google cared, they'd vet ads and ad links, and guarantee their safety and security.

if google cared, they'd put a stop to seo 'optimizers' and scammers scoring top positions on serps.

but google doesn't care about anything other than their profits and share price.

adblockers can affect both of those. they're using the weak cover of 'security' enhancement to neuter them.

existing adblockers provide more safety and security than what can be realized by the shift to mv3.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago

This is the most succinct, unbiased explanation I've seen for this change. Thank you for this! It's good to know there's an unintended security improvement in their otherwise brazen attempt to kill ad blockers on Chrome.

Fuck Google.