this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1159 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59366 readers
3594 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
[–] spookedintownsville@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Most "Chrome-only" web applications I have to use I can get around just by changing my user agent string and everything works fine. I try not to use that stuff when I can, though.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

This is my experience. They are just taking your default agent and throwing up a message because they can’t be assed to do minimal testing in FF.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Some of the older stuff is indeed that way, but there are more and more features which Firefox can’t support. Web-based custom keyboard configuration tools, tools to flash phone firmware, and one niche MiniDisc tool all are chrome-only things I’ve had to open Chrome to use

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

we are really really better off without features that grant any website such deep access to our systems just by a single click, trust me. this is a security nightmare, especially looking at people who don't understand computers and those who instant allow permissions by reflex.

[–] spookedintownsville@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

tools to flash phone firmware

Yep. Forgot I had to use Chrome on Windows to flash GrapheneOS.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

you don't have to, there's no need for that. they have a normal flashing tool too

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wait is this real? That's hilarious

[–] spookedintownsville@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

https://grapheneos.org/install/web#prerequisites

Technically it works on Linux, but I didn't feel like installing a Chromium browser to do it at the time.