5 ms·

Haven't used any chromium in years, hence the question. Is uMatrix not available on their addon store?

ffpip 6y ago
In my experience uMatrix and uBO work better in Firefox compared to Chromium. You don't have to completely reload the whole page to see what's blocked or hidden. They can also block the sneakiest trackers that hide behind other domains. Not possible in Chromium. Chromium mobile doesnt even have addons because they are shit scared of adblockers.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Chromium mobile doesnt even have addons because they are shit scared of adblockers." Paradoxically, I'm kind of half-happy to hear this. It means that finally a large number of users are using adblockers. For many years the standard theme of many threads on adblockers was that companies like Google didn't care about them because too small a percentage of their users used them for it to matter. Now finally there are enough adblocker users for it to hurt their bottom line, and that means that there are more people than ever who clearly just don't want to see ads. That gives me hope that there will some day be anti-advertising legislation, and that we might not even need adblockers... some day... some day...
  - bad_user 6y ago
    I think your hope is misguided. People dreamed of an Internet where sharing of information was free (as in freedom). Then DRM happened. And even if DRM cannot be 100% reliable, being broken by design, it's reliable enough, plus in the US at least it's a felony to break it. And as years go by, we see more DRM, not less. This happens, because the practice is normalized, and because small inconveniences are taken care of (usually by monopolies winning the market—e.g. you stop complaining that alternative e-book readers don't work, when everybody is using the Kindle or the Audible apps). Similarly, for the open web — the action has been moving on mobile devices. A majority of people now consume content via mobile devices. So what do you see? More websites? Or more apps? And for all ad-blocking happening at the DNS level (e.g. Pi-hole), how long do you think it is before apps start doing DNS over HTTPS on their own, bypassing the OS's stack? This is a wack-a-mole game, and the big publishers have enough resources to push for both technical and legal changes for outlawing ad-blocking. I'm actually surprised that content blockers remained legal thus far. But the writing is on the wall IMO. --- There's also another side of this coin. I see more and more people on HN complaining that articles are submitted from publications that are setting up paywalls. People also hate paying for content. And even those that pay for content, they don't recognize what an incredible privilege it is to afford it. Either content is monetized somehow, or the only content that we get will be content created by hobbyists, in their spare time, for free, while working a regular job. Well I for one don't want a world in which the poor don't get access to online resources, or a world in which people can't make ends meet doing what they love.
    - specialist 6y ago
      In the spirit of "Yes, and...": I've been chewing on an alternate narrative. Firstly, I don't think any of us anticipated preferential attachment. Even despite the popularity of "six degrees of separation" and other graph related notions. Clay Shirky's essay about Power Laws was my first exposure to the idea. Here's Kotte's meta entry: http://www.kottke.org/03/02/weblogs-and-power-laws http://www.kottke.org/03/02/weblogs-and-power-laws Everyone complains about how "the web" we got is broken. It wasn't until very recently that I understood that Ted Nelson's Xanadu vision, an often imagined alternative timeline perfect web, requires centralization. Um, is this really what we want? Because that's what we're getting. Incrementally, fitfully, inevitably. Your warnings about DRM times infinity. Also the libertarians, anarchists, technophiles behind "the web" thought we'd have micropayments. Instead, we got advertisements and freemium. I don't know if micropayments, or prepaid wallets, or subscriptions, would be less toxic. But it couldn't be any worse.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > Either content is monetized somehow, or the only content that we get will be content created by hobbyists, in their spare time, for free Yes, that's why we need to make it impossible to monetize content.
      - bad_user 6y ago
        I definitely like the free labor of others.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        Yes, because when it comes to creative works, it produces much better results than professional labor.
- URfejk 6y ago
  Here you have experimental extension-support version of ungoogled-chromium on Android: https://uc.droidware.info/extension.html https://uc.droidware.info/extension.html
bad_user 6y ago
uBO and uMatrix on Firefox are more capable. For example, uBO on Firefox can block trackers masquerading as first-party requests. Also Google is going ahead with deprecating the necessary APIs in Manifest v3, going with a Safari-like model for content blocking, which is far less capable. Soon uBO, uMatrix, Privacy Badger won't be possible at all on top of Chrome.
- sexpositivepriv 6y ago
  Well obviously if Apple is doing it then by HN logic it's good and virtuous and the right thing to do so Google copying Apple here must be good as well. Ok, Apple apologists, please tell us why Apple doing this is to good and virtuous thing to do.
- timbit42 6y ago
  Including Opera, Brave, Edge, etc.?
  - marcthe12 6y ago
    Yes except brave because as locking is done as a patch instead of extension
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Brendan Eich said Brave will keep the older API. Opera and Vivaldi said they'll consider it.[1] [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-...

In my experience uMatrix and uBO work better in Firefox compared to Chromium. You don't have to completely reload the whole page to see what's blocked or hidden. They can also block the sneakiest trackers that hide behind other domains. Not possible in Chromium. Chromium mobile doesnt even have addons because they are shit scared of adblockers.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"Chromium mobile doesnt even have addons because they are shit scared of adblockers." Paradoxically, I'm kind of half-happy to hear this. It means that finally a large number of users are using adblockers. For many years the standard theme of many threads on adblockers was that companies like Google didn't care about them because too small a percentage of their users used them for it to matter. Now finally there are enough adblocker users for it to hurt their bottom line, and that means that there are more people than ever who clearly just don't want to see ads. That gives me hope that there will some day be anti-advertising legislation, and that we might not even need adblockers... some day... some day...
- bad_user 6y ago
  I think your hope is misguided. People dreamed of an Internet where sharing of information was free (as in freedom). Then DRM happened. And even if DRM cannot be 100% reliable, being broken by design, it's reliable enough, plus in the US at least it's a felony to break it. And as years go by, we see more DRM, not less. This happens, because the practice is normalized, and because small inconveniences are taken care of (usually by monopolies winning the market—e.g. you stop complaining that alternative e-book readers don't work, when everybody is using the Kindle or the Audible apps). Similarly, for the open web — the action has been moving on mobile devices. A majority of people now consume content via mobile devices. So what do you see? More websites? Or more apps? And for all ad-blocking happening at the DNS level (e.g. Pi-hole), how long do you think it is before apps start doing DNS over HTTPS on their own, bypassing the OS's stack? This is a wack-a-mole game, and the big publishers have enough resources to push for both technical and legal changes for outlawing ad-blocking. I'm actually surprised that content blockers remained legal thus far. But the writing is on the wall IMO. --- There's also another side of this coin. I see more and more people on HN complaining that articles are submitted from publications that are setting up paywalls. People also hate paying for content. And even those that pay for content, they don't recognize what an incredible privilege it is to afford it. Either content is monetized somehow, or the only content that we get will be content created by hobbyists, in their spare time, for free, while working a regular job. Well I for one don't want a world in which the poor don't get access to online resources, or a world in which people can't make ends meet doing what they love.
  - specialist 6y ago
    In the spirit of "Yes, and...": I've been chewing on an alternate narrative. Firstly, I don't think any of us anticipated preferential attachment. Even despite the popularity of "six degrees of separation" and other graph related notions. Clay Shirky's essay about Power Laws was my first exposure to the idea. Here's Kotte's meta entry: http://www.kottke.org/03/02/weblogs-and-power-laws http://www.kottke.org/03/02/weblogs-and-power-laws Everyone complains about how "the web" we got is broken. It wasn't until very recently that I understood that Ted Nelson's Xanadu vision, an often imagined alternative timeline perfect web, requires centralization. Um, is this really what we want? Because that's what we're getting. Incrementally, fitfully, inevitably. Your warnings about DRM times infinity. Also the libertarians, anarchists, technophiles behind "the web" thought we'd have micropayments. Instead, we got advertisements and freemium. I don't know if micropayments, or prepaid wallets, or subscriptions, would be less toxic. But it couldn't be any worse.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Either content is monetized somehow, or the only content that we get will be content created by hobbyists, in their spare time, for free Yes, that's why we need to make it impossible to monetize content.
    - bad_user 6y ago
      I definitely like the free labor of others.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        Yes, because when it comes to creative works, it produces much better results than professional labor.
URfejk 6y ago
Here you have experimental extension-support version of ungoogled-chromium on Android: https://uc.droidware.info/extension.html https://uc.droidware.info/extension.html

bad_user 6y ago

uBO and uMatrix on Firefox are more capable. For example, uBO on Firefox can block trackers masquerading as first-party requests. Also Google is going ahead with deprecating the necessary APIs in Manifest v3, going with a Safari-like model for content blocking, which is far less capable. Soon uBO, uMatrix, Privacy Badger won't be possible at all on top of Chrome.

sexpositivepriv 6y ago
Well obviously if Apple is doing it then by HN logic it's good and virtuous and the right thing to do so Google copying Apple here must be good as well. Ok, Apple apologists, please tell us why Apple doing this is to good and virtuous thing to do.
timbit42 6y ago
Including Opera, Brave, Edge, etc.?
- marcthe12 6y ago
  Yes except brave because as locking is done as a patch instead of extension
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Brendan Eich said Brave will keep the older API. Opera and Vivaldi said they'll consider it.[1] [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-...