We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the …
My dad used to watch TV and I always wondered why given how shit it was, nothing but ads. He told me about how great it used to be when he was a kid. I can’t help think the same thing is happening now with the internet. It’s dying. It’s already shit compared to 10 years ago and I only see it getting worse. Our generations will cling to it remembering what it used to be though, just like he did.
We will have services to scrape the internet to cleanup the garbage.
The difference between linear tv (that your dad watched) and the internet is that there is no alternative to the latter.
This article has some misinformation in places. Like it claims Vivaldi’s ad-blocker cannot be investigated further because the project is closed source, but the only closed source part of Vivaldi is the UI (approximately 5% of the total code). The ad-blocker C++ code is published along with the other 95% of the browser’s code.
You don’t think a tarball dump is harder to investigate than a CVS repository? I never claimed it was impossible to investigate further, just that it was harder to.
Where is the misinformation?
But that’s not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):
Vivaldi users point out that the built in blocker is noticably worse than uBlock Origin, with some guessing that Vivaldi doesn’t fully support uBlock Origin filterlists (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi’s source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it’s closed source. This is not true.
But it is, because making users download a 2GB repo and looking through the code, or crafting custom filter rules to investigate how rules work is harder than looking at a hosted source code repository (like what Brave has).
Where is the misinformation?
(Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.
Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of “so” in the sentence you typed?
I’m asking you what the misinformation is. Is this harder to investigate because the software is closed source? In my mind undoubtedly yes. I know it was harder for ME to investigate because it wasn’t open source - no open issue trackers, SCM repository, whatever.
So please tell me why what I said was misinformation - I’m really curious.
I’m not the person who you’re replying to (just another reader) but I felt misled after reading the clarification here in the forums that the source IS available for the adblock portion. I was under the impression (from your article) that the users could not inspect the code at all because of the same wording the person calls out. If they (and obviously others like myself) were misled by the writing, would it not be better just to fix it instead of arguing?
You really felt misled that it was harder to inspect? What makes you think I have the expertise to inspect this? I’m not even a user and I wouldn’t know where to start to find the ad blocker within that tarball. Would you?
In any case, I clarified why it was harder to inspect - to me it felt obvious that being closed source made it harder to investigate. The fact that it is also shared source really has no bearing to the general observation, especially since we’re talking about a 2GB tarball where I don’t even know where to start. And I’m a pretty technical person.
How would a user easily investigate this vs. an open source browser?
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.
I can see why you think this is not entirely implied. But I also don’t think that it’s incumbent on them to have laid it out with such specificity. You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render closed source projects less accessible.
It takes a little squinting, sure, but the internet is a better place when we read things charitably, and I don’t think such fine grain differences rise to the level of straight up misinformation.
I mean, there are some real whoppers around here on Lemmy. There’s no shortage of crazy people saying crazy things, I just don’t think this rises to that level.
You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render it less accessible.
Not when they use the conjunction “so”. If they’d used “and”, then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using “so” as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of “therefore”, so it’s like saying “Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain’t it.
Not when they use the conjunction “so”. If they’d used “and”, then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using “so” as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of “therefore"
You’re technically correct in your narrow focus on the conjunction “so,” but you are missing the bigger picture. Yes, “so” generally functions as a logical connector like “therefore,” meaning that the first statement is directly causing the second. Their sentence could be read as “Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate,” which isn’t a comprehensive or precise statement on its own.
But that’s a pretty pedantic take. The point that they were making doesn’t rely on an exacting technical breakdown of the closed-source nature of Vivaldi. Rather, they’re making a general observation that closed-source projects tend to be harder to investigate. With that in mind, the use of “so” is informal and reflects a broad conclusion that aligns with general knowledge about open vs. closed-source software. Closed source inherently implies limitations on access, which, while not exhaustive in this single sentence, still holds weight in the general sense.
“Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
Why is it an inaccurate statement?
What user are you thinking of?
I was actually under the impression the whole browser was closed. Thanks for the clarification
It is, it is just source available. Still closed source.
No worries, it’s not surprising you thought that because there are quite a lot of people out there like OP who spread complete misinformation about browsers they dislike/don’t use.
WaterFox!
In an ideal world the headline would be “Google kills Chrome by preventing users from blocking ads”.
And then what? The google funded firefox?
Yes. The Google-funded Firefox that won’t take away your ability to block ads. Any other questions?
Why are they working with google to screw up our privacy?
How are they doing that? They’re simply making money by putting Google search as the default. Changing it literally takes a few seconds.
They developed the “privacy sandbox” together. And in terms of cashflow, they depend on that google money. They’re in trouble without it
And in terms of cashflow, they depend on that google money. They’re in trouble without it
That’s irrelevant. The only thing important is what they have to do for that money, which is setting Google as the default search engine. This only “hurts” you if you don’t take 15 seconds to change the default.
Well, yes, technically. But then again, if google decides to stop doing that firefox can’t pay for it’s staff or infrastructure. Really, they have an incentive to listen
They developed the “privacy sandbox” together.
Yeah that’s not true.
Chrome came up with that feature a while back. Now firefox is adding the same. And then later I learned it was a cooperative effort, just not under the same name
I finally switched to Firefox when I couldn’t remove the ads on my casual browsing. Now I’m told Firefox isn’t cash money either? Wtf is going on here.
forks of firefox still keeping things going such as mullvad browser, waterfox, librewolf
If the other main Chromium based browsers can figure out (or keep in the instance of having their own extension stores) how to support for V2 extensions. Then it would be easier to recommend replacing Chrome to normies and other folks with those options. As one of the main issues comes down to lots of sites (especially stuff like school or work) doing the modern version of IE and are coded to really only work with Chrome.
I was advising customers to just use Edge if they needed Chrome for those reasons. And a lot of them did since it meant not installing extra programs. Though it is currently hard to recommend Edge due to MS seeming to find more and more “features” to add that make shit really annoying and scummy. It is like they are trying so hard to make it not worth using at all. So Brave and Vivaldi are the new options I tell people about.
Brave’s main downside (IMO) is the crypto stuff maybe confusing/pointless for folks. Vivaldi’s main downside (and upside for users that love it) is how overwhelming levels of customization settings. But they both don’t have their own extension stores. Opera could also work since they have their own extension store. I hate how it and the GX version love to automatically set themselves to launch on Windows startup (fuck all of them that try to do this as well).
you guys notice this strategy lately of announcing something bad, and dragging it on to soften the outrage?
tech companies seem to be doing it a lot. microsoft with windows recall too.
This has been done for decades. It is PR 101, and it is done to indoctrinate and subsequently normalize XYZ onto the average consumer/citizen.
In Marketing, you get taught that the average person has a memory of 3 to 6 months for issues like this, at the most. So, if you can afford to stretch something for longer, than acceptance on average, will always go up. Attention span are short. In other cases, it alleviates any cases of legal liability. Since no one can say they were not warned.
It has always been a common strategy. Aim for the extremes, and then move to your actual goal to seem reasonable and make the opposition think they won.
uBlock may have enough support to start their own maintained fork, and be the upstream for all the other quiet browsers. That dude is like THE ONE GUY that makes chromium sane, and doesn’t even take donations?!
That’s madness, I was literally about to donate to him today but I check the site you’re absolutely correct. No donations :(
I love how they gave a TL;DR right at the beginning of the article, it made me stay and read the rest out of respect for the author.
Google lives of the ads (among the things), of course a browser they develop is going to screw the add-ons that block ads. Solution: avoid google if you want an ad-free internet.
Edit: typo
deleted by creator
Brave is the offspring of “libertarian” (sociopathic authoritarian billionaire supporting JD Vance) Peter Thiel.
https://marketrealist.com/p/who-owns-brave-browser/
Thiel, among other things, founded palantir, facial recognition software used by police worldwide.
https://www.palantir.com/platforms/
He hates the western world. Hates democracy.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-peter-thiel-214490/
Openly states his plans to destroy the economy and implement a crypto financial system.
And, this is true, he’s the current president of the bilderberg group.
https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2024/participants-2024
He is not your friend.
He should never be trusted.
Brave is not the private browser you think it is.
By supporting brave you are supporting an authoritarian technocratic state.
deleted by creator
Which lines of its libre software source code are malicous?
Which line of chrome is malicious?
Jfc.
Here’s a cherry, now you don’t have to pick any.
Google Chrome is not libre software.
Why are you making it about that question in particular? There’s a lot of topics that have been raised here, notably Google’s Chromium project, the way it’s killing ad blockers, the way that other browsers also use chromium, people associated with those browsers.
In this range of subjects I’m not sure what the significance is of elevating this libre software question above everything else.
I don’t love Peter Theil by any means, and his association with any project is, to my mind, enough to completely discredit it.
But I get a little worried when it starts turning into references to the bilderberg group, and whatever that link is to NCIO.ca is just completely nuts, low evidence jumping to conclusions.
He certainly has crazy ideas that I want no part of, but I think it crosses the line into conspiratorial to suggest he was instructed by Germany to act as a foreign agent to sabotage the global economy.
Nico was a mistake, I meant to link another site. Granted. You can look for yourself that it was thiel who called for the run on the bank. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/14/founders-fund-run-silicon-valley-bank
But bilderberg group is real. Very real. (They had a meeting here, once https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/kanata-hotel-hosts-high-level-power-group-1.601298 )
And thiel is president.
Also, if you can find his manifesto (I’m having a hard time locating it ) he openly states everything i said.
Also :
https://time.com/6092844/peter-thiel-power-biography-the-contrarian/
Thiel taught this class at Stanford and then turned it into a book called Zero to One. He talks about how companies are better run than governments because they have a single decision maker—a dictator, basically. He is hostile to the idea of democracy. That’s pretty scary when you consider the role the companies that he’s been involved in play. Facebook, I’d say is the most influential media entity in the history of humanity, but he also has a major stake in several defense contractors, including SpaceX
Brave is a series scam company
Which is chromium. The article is specifically talking about chromium based browsers and how you’ll lose access too.
deleted by creator
Before Brave better use https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
deleted by creator
If you read others comments, they explain why Brave is not a privacy Browser. You just need to use the good and open source addons for the chromium based alternatives that provide exactly the same or even better than Brave. Brave lies pretty much.
deleted by creator
I’m not going to do the research for you, I already read enough to know what Brave is, and I assume that’s why you got that many downvotes on your main post here. If you want me to leave you in peace, don’t reply.
deleted by creator
Brave also uses chromium.
What pisses me off is seeing more and more “You need to upgrade your browser for this site!” when using Firefox.
Having to use a spoof header gets frustrating frequently too.
I haven’t seen such warnings for years anymore
I haven’t seen this warning in 6 years
In my head I respond “you need to upgrade your website to handle my rad browser, fellas”
You want free and private internet - Ok You don’t want ads - Ok So who is going to give you something for free and why?
I don’t mind ads so much. What I don’t want in invasive tracking and collection of every scrap of data they can to push ads on you. Give some dumb ads based on the damned contents of the page and I would be fine. But no, ads is basically a synonym for tracking these days.
Ad block is the number one thing you can do on the Internet to reduce your risk to exploits, phishing, etc. The US government recommends the use of ad block specifically for this reason. Usage of ad block is basic internet security hygiene.
I know what adblock is and how works, I use, that doesn’t change the fact it is just ruining free internet, if everyone used adblockers google, youtube, gmail and all other apps would not be free (you think why youtube ads are getting longer and longer?) If you use something for free, you either abuse someone’s work, or you sell your data, no free things on this world.
FOSS Communities:
Ok So who is going to give you something for free and why?
People who value the ability to do publish information, or engage in personal expression, for starters.
Funny as the internet was designed as being free.
Maybe just educate yourself a little. In general, not just about that.
Oh well? I think you should educate yourself a little, it was never designed to be free, it was designed for army for long distance fast and reliable communication, later evolved to be a service, no service is free, providers aren’t gods to give you anything for free.
I knew it will be downvoted, but you have to realize, nothing is free in this world kids, I don’t like it too, but it is what it is.
Bro’s paying for grep.
Ok boomer
*zoomer
limp dick attitude is how we got here… good job champ
disgusting bootlicking
nothing is free
Plenty of things can be and are free at the point of service/point of consumption/utilization.
That’s all they need to be. And they’re just has to be enough willpower to do that from enough people.
This world is what ever we make it, and literally everything we need to live is free, from water to food to shelter. The earth literally just does all that.
You’re paying for the air you breathe? Lots of things are free. Capitalists who want you to pay for what you shouldn’t will try to convince you otherwise.
posted on social media developed for free using a standard specced out for free running on servers people are allowing you to use for free…
Whether or not current models are sustainable is beside the point. Obviously they aren’t, ad blockers weren’t developed for shits and giggles but to stop increasingly intrusive practices.
If you’ve got no purpose hosting a website, don’t. We don’t need you.
