this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
1945 points (97.8% liked)
Memes
45731 readers
1203 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it baffles me that people are still using Google Chrome.
Most people don't use an ad blocker and most people don't even know this drama exists.
Which makes it weirder why take a grudge against us.
It's a recession and suddenly the money lost to adblockers matters.
Reddit tried to force me ads down the throat and I just stopped using it. Yeah, it's hard, but I ended up having more time for myself. I don't get to send silly Videos to my friends as often, but who gives a fuck. At least I get time to hoover and shit
Guilty, I'm ootl. Can someone explain why my Everything feed is all about browsers?!
Here’s the TLDR version:
Most users (at least in my observation, in the instances and communities i’m on) on Lemmy are privacy minded, open source fans, linux enthusiasts , etc.
Google is evil and will suck up any data they can find on you and sell it to anyone that will give them a buck. Lemmy users don’t like that. (me either)
Google also makes a lot of money selling ads that are crafted for your likes based on the data they steal from you. Lemmy users also don’t like that (me either).
Ad blockers will hamper some (not much) of google’s ad revenue so they don’t like them. many users use Ad Blockers ( I use an ad blocking DNS server)
Recently Google announced that their Chrome browser would not allow ad-blockers because it’s changing the functionality that ad-blockers use (Google sucks, don’t use Google stuff)
So that is why it’s showing up an Lemmy a lot right now.
I searched but could not find any announcement. Can you link where they say they won't allow adblock?
It's not like they actually announced it. They wouldn't do something so suicidal. However, they have changed the code API that add-ons like adblockers use under the guise of "keeping people secure"
These changes have essentially neutered adblockers so they're only 10-20% as effective as they once were.
Firefox has gone out of their way to speak out against this, that it doesn't help privacy or security quite as much as they say and ensures their browser still includes the code required to make add-ons like adblockers work properly.
Firefox isn't the only option, but most other browsers are based on chrome. Meaning they don't have a lot of options. Some have opted to build their own adblockers directly into the browsers, howeever those adblockers aren't as good options as having an unaffiliated add-on that we can swap out if it gets dirty, and starts taking money from advertisers to deliberately stop blocking specific ads from them.
brave is a particularly bad offender. It specifically actually only blocks ads that don't come from its own ad service - using adblockers as a means to stop other ad services from competing with it.
You guys are talking about the removal of manifest v2. According to a reddit post in ublockorigin. The lite version will be very limited compared to the regular version. Fortunately, Firefox still works, and it won't be an issue for a while(on mobile and desktop)
https://tech.co/news/google-chrome-ad-blockers-2023
It, and Google's own blog, says June.
We're way past June and adblockers still work?
“ In June 2023, the Chrome Web Store will no longer allow Manifest V2 items to be published with visibility set to Public. All existing Manifest V2 items with visibility set to Public at that time will have their visibility changed to Unlisted. In January 2024, following the expiration of the Manifest V2 enterprise policy, the Chrome Web Store will remove all remaining Manifest V2 items from the store. “
Looks like existing ones might still work until January?
You've already got some answers, but the recent drama is specifically about a Chromium-centered API, called Web Environment Integrity.
It has been found on a Google engineer's Github account, and iirc it's being tested on Chrome.
It's basically web DRM.
The idea is that the API allows websites to require browsers to guarantee they are unmodified through a "third-party" attester, like Google SafetyNet (or whatever the fuck it got rebranded as) does.
Imagine if you were trying to access a mobile-only website on your PC, by changing your HTTP user agent string;
the website would refuse to serve you the page, and tell you "I don't trust you, are you really a Google Pixel?".
A real Pixel's browser would ask Google Play to vouch for it, and the website would trust Google Play (due to cryptographic shenanigans and whatnot); your browser, however, would not have an attester that:
That doesn't sound too bad.
But, what if the attester can check your browser's extensions, and tell the website that you're running an adblocker (which is WEI's explicit goal)?
What if it also checks your system's running processes or applications?
What if you ran a debloater script for Windows, and the attester decided that a lack of ads in the start menu was sus?
What if it detected VPN usage? I know some governments that wouldn't like that, I bet they would like it if VPN users would be denied access to half the web...
If the comment about VPNs is true, I will lose touch of half of my friends and families that live in Iran. This is truly evil..
It's "true" in the sense that it could happen in theory, Google is (allegedly?) planning to use WEI for forcing people to see ads rather than China-firewalling the web; also, WEI was still under development last time I checked.
Whether the attesters that end up being universally trusted will poke around to check for VPNs is up for speculation, for now.
Even then, this is just an API for websites. If you use other means of communication, you'll be fine.
I noticed my YouTube become extremely slow. I was using edge for watching videos. Chrome eats the ram and this ad block makes it easier to just switch. The next attemp would be how to avoid them showing use chrome whenever I google or use gmail or so.
I'm from the Philippines and I can explain why, at least here, most people still use chrome. Over here, we're much more concerned about our money and time over our rights and privacy, which means we usually just choose the most convenient and cheap money-wise, which is why the majority of us still use chrome and why the government here can get away with so much shit. we don't care about our rights not because we're being given bread and circuses, but because we're too busy making a circus out of ourselves so we can buy bread.
I don't think that's good excuse. Firefox is free and installing it takes less than 10 minutes.
Don't underestimate people's lack of motivation to switch. Sadly Firefox doesn't come pre-installed on any major phone brands.
I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.
Yes, it's quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don't have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.
Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they're more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.
They're also not even making excuses. They're simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.
Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it's not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they're reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.
Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.
I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.
Fair enough! It does take a lot of time to build an understanding of the issue here and I failed to take that into account. I realize not everyone has that sort of time, inclination or even general interest in the subject and that privacy is not exactly at the top of values for most people.
Still, I think people as individuals are still at least a little bit at fault for the way things are, though certainly the most of it falls on the system that fails to teach people about this sort of stuff and on the corporations that take advantage of that lack of knowledge.
I guess I let my frustration get the better of me in my comment. Sometimes it feels like there's this massive fire raging in the middle of the city and just a handful of us are trying to put out at least a tiny proportion if it while the rest just don't care about it.
Anyways, thank you for the well-written response, kind stranger, and for making me self reflect!
You got it! We all need a little reminder to take context into account sometimes. And I do appreciate what you were trying to do, which is promote privacy. It's a laudable goal, and one that I encourage you to continue. Just remember to meet people where they are, instead of where you want them to be. ;)
it's not about how easy it is to install it's that it has to be installed at all. Over here we prefer phones as there's a lot of cheap phones here that only cost less than $100, and since most phones here come preinstalled with chrome, even if firefox is free and all, why go through the hassle of having to go and install it when Chrome's already there?
most people here have a mindset of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" which explains a lot of things wrong in this country.
Lol. The privacy bits are what always make me doubt people who say they use iOS for privacy reasons. They'll scream that and then install every google service they can on the same phone.
Most people just use the default browser on their phone, even in developed countries. Add to that Google's constant nagging to switch to Chrome which has a powerful effect at keeping their dominance.
Chrome is the new IE, some websites only work on it, and i keep chromium for the same reason i had ie back then, to be able to use those sites.
I use Google Docs a lot and the only reason I haven't uninstalled Chrome is that, for whatever reason, the fonts don't display right on Firefox. They used to years ago but I suspect they changed something to negatively impact other browsers.
Fonts look fine here under FF:
https://i.imgur.com/49rQvIH.png
Great translate feature. Instant.
Why? It does everything a non-techie would expect from browser and it performs well, why switch to something else?
That said I think Chrome is a terrible Chromium based browser. Edge and Vivaldi in my opinion are much better options. Edge for most folk and Vivaldi for more adventurous types.