Google is weakening ad blockers as part of their MV3 extension standard and this will trickle down into all Chromium browsers. Built in ad blockers lack features compared to uBlock Origin as well.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    Or use UBO-Lite? MV3 has some limitations but I’m tired of people acting like it ruins ad blocking when it doesn’t.

    • unhappy.termite@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Afaik, UBO lite only updates filter lists when the extension updates, has no element zapper/picker, no per site switches, and no dynamic filtering.

      If you can live without these features, then good for you. But there’s no need to get frustrated about our claims just because we need better ad-blocking and privacy functions than you.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Then build them. There is nothing about MV3 that stops you from improving things. I don’t blame you from wanting good ad blocking, as do I. But I also don’t want every MV2 extension being able to read my network traffic.

        • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          There is nothing about MV3 that stops you from improving things.

          … Yes there is? That’s the point? MV3 doesn’t allow dynamic list filtering, that’s why those features don’t exist on UBO

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Dynamic list filtering doesn’t mean what you think it means. You can add and update block lists without having to update the extension.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      For situations where you’re forced to use chromium browsers it’s better than nothing, but abandoning chromium browsers is the right thing to do. An example of a situation where you can’t is an IT policy preventing you from using Firefox.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Abandoning Chromium browsers does nothing to improve security or privacy. I certainly encourage people to try Firefox and other browsers as they become available, but it’s mostly just a matter of preference in what features you want. If you want maximum privacy with Chromium or Firefox then you’re going to use policies, flags, etc. Otherwise both are prone to telemetry.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why do you act as if telemetry is the worst thing that could possibly exist in a browser? You admit that it’s subjective about everything else but put telemetry on an objective pedestal. Chromium has an absolutely insane market share. Google controls Chromium. That means Google is controlling how a massive majority of people see and interact with the Internet. It allows them to unilaterally define de facto web standards. No amount of forking to disable telemetry is going to change that.