this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1159 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59627 readers
3425 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
[–] LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I understand where you're coming from. It's never happened to me, but if a website didn't work with Firefox, I would just assume it's a shit site ran by rookies who know nothing, and move on to a different site. I understand most people don't have that kind of principle though.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not that the site doesn't work in FF, it's that casting the stream from that site to a remote TV in the house is only possible in chromium, at least with my current device setup. If I just watch on my computer, I watch in FF.

[–] LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, you did say that. I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I've never tried that, and you're the first I've seen to mention it. I concede to your argument.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I'm in the slow process of replacing devices with HTPCs then I won't need to cast anything. Unfortunately computers and time don't grow on trees.