7 ms·

About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

278 points by 0x000042 2y ago

deanc 2y ago
I see people reporting that the extension has already been forcefully removed (or disabled in some cases) from their Chrome. This hasn't happened to me (v133 on MacOS). I have primarily been using Chrome up until this point as I was under the impression that performance (and therefore battery life) is bad with FF on MacOS. Recent results seem to indicate that Chrome is in fact the worst offender [1]. Yesterday I uninstalled Arc as they have all but abandoned their browser to work on some AI crap browser (after saying they planned to support manifest v2 for the forseeable future). Today I installed Orion Browser [2]. It's using webkit under the hood and seems to be far lighter on battery life than Chrome, Arc (Blink) and Firefox. They fully support FF and Chrome extensions and therefore UBO seems to be working (on the whole) very well. [1] https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-mac-battery-life-but-does-it-i-tested-for-36-hours-to-find-out/ https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-ma... [2] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
- mk17b 2y ago
  What part of Arc feels abandoned? I still use as my primary browser.
  - deanc 2y ago
    The part where they say they are not developing it further. CEO discussing it further here: https://x.com/joshm/status/1850717644779110643 https://x.com/joshm/status/1850717644779110643 They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months.
    - baal80spam 2y ago
      > They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months. I would LOVE my browser to do just that!
      - deanc 2y ago
        This isn't the problem though. The problem is they have completely pivoted in this other direction and are working on a new browser. It will only be a matter of time before they abandon Arc and then you won't get the security fixes, blink updates etc. It's also not currently OSS so it's not possible to fork it and continue elsewhere.
      - schnable 2y ago
        The fixes are really really minor. Larger functional bugs that aren’t catastrophic are hanging out. That said, it’s been fine for me and I’m still using it. I don’t see any reason to abandon it yet. When the company fails maybe they’ll open source or sell it. I’d happily pay for this.
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        firefox ESR?
- nicce 2y ago
  Orion is great. There are some websites that for some reason don’t work as well as with Safari/Firefox (like Github), but otherwise it is pretty good.
- AndrewDavis 2y ago
  It is a shame that Orion is Mac and iOS only. I found this statement[1] in response to a request for it on other platforms > We are getting a lot of repeat questions about windows/linux/android version and sometimes it appears that users think that the team is choosing not to work on these platforms. The situation is quite different and simpler - we do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet. > And since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. And building a browser is not cheap, especially one on top of WebKit. > Ways you can help accelerate this is: > Contribute to Orion development with your time > Help spread the word about Orion to attract more users > Get Orion+ and financially support developmet This is a tricky situation to be in. A lack of resources to support multiple platforms, but the solution being more subscribers. But the incentive structure is perplexing. Those supporting development going to be those already using Orion. And those not on Mac/iOS are unlikely to financially support a browser they can't use in the hopes it might one day come to a platform I use. [1] https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-linux https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-l...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
    Also remember Apple users are much more lucrative, they tend to be way more willing to pay for software than Windows users.
    - aryonoco 2y ago
      But a lot of Apple users who use things such as Kagi and Orion (i.e., the hacker news crowd) also use other platforms. I have a MacBook but run Linux on my desktop and I know I’m not the only one. The ability to have the same browser on all platforms (with synced tabs, bookmarks etc) is really useful.
    - micromacrofoot 2y ago
      right you are gregory
- jamesy0ung 2y ago
  Orion looks pretty interesting, it's not like any of the other alternative browsers (opera, vivaldi, brave, arc etc) which just wrap Chromium in more junk. It uses WebKit which is optimised for Apple platforms, giving more battery life, while also integrating uBlock Origin.
- Angostura 2y ago
  I'm happy with 1Blocker in Safari
  - qyckudnefDi5 2y ago
    I like Wipr. Simpler design IMHO.
    - rpgbr 2y ago
      Wipr 2 + NextDNS here.
  - frizlab 2y ago
    1Blocker is really good
- qwertox 2y ago
  Do they really remove it? Because I've had several extensions get disabled and was only able to re-enable them after enabling developer mode (toggle at top-right). I believe that most say "remove" because they get removed from the plugin-bar when disabled. I'll ditch Chrome without a second thought if they really remove it. They'll lose access to my browsing history, so I don't see what they have to gain with it. What about the ads which are blocked at network level via PiHole? Have they even considered that PiHole might then catch on and start blocking ads on mobile devices in households which would otherwise not use it?
  - lewispollard 2y ago
    I can confirm that I got the "extension disabled" notification for uBlock Origin, clicked to re-enable it in developer mode, and then had to also toggle it to enabled after it had been added to the list - still works fine after that.
- aryonoco 2y ago
  After 17 years of using Android, with building my own kernel and ROMs in the early days, I finally gave up on it and finished my de-Google journey and reluctantly switched to iPhone. The fact that Orion on iOS existed was a major reason I was able to this. On Android I was a Firefox user since Firefox was the only browser with the ability to run proper uBo. Orion is not without its bugs, but it does support a lot of Firefox and Chrome extensions. But you don’t even need to install uBo as an extension,it’s got built in ad blocker with the ability to add or remove filter lists. Even without installing uBo, in terms of ad blocking, it instantly matched Firefox on Android. That I can install things such as Tapermonkey or Bypass Paywall Clean as extensions is a huge bonus. It’s amazing how Google is pushing its early adopters and cheerleaders away by one anti user move after another. I still wish Apple would remove some of the restrictions on iOS, allow other browser engines etc. Installing unknown software from unsigned developers on macOS is really difficult these days but still doable if you know where to look. If only iOS was the same. The potential lost revenue from loss of control would be more than made up by new people who would be brought on to the platform.
- gman83 2y ago
  Anyone looking for a similar experience to Arc, I recommend Zen Browser, based on Firefox: https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/
Traubenfuchs 2y ago
Firefox is fine as daily browser and the few websites that don‘t work in it start working if you enable the chrome mask plugin for them.
- trallnag 2y ago
  If only Firefox would properly support PWAs. I know that there are workarounds like installing the PWAs in Chrome and setting up an extension that redirects links clicked in a PWA to be opened in Firefox, but it is a hassle.
  - johnny22 2y ago
    i saw somebody mention they are going to do something about that soon, but I don't remember where i saw it.
    - Vinnl 2y ago
      https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/how-can-firefox-create-the-best-support-for-web-apps-on-the/m-p/60561 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/how-can-firefox-c...
  - aryonoco 2y ago
    It’s funny/tragic how Firefox used to be so far ahead in these areas which it has now fallen so far behind. Before PWAs or installing web apps was a thing, Firefox allowed you to basically achieve the same using “chromeless” tabs. Then they gave up on that and disabled it Before anyone had ever heard of Electron, you used to be able to embed gecko into other apps and it could render html in other applications (that’s how Firefox itself started cause the old monolithic Mozilla suite separated the engine into gecko so other apps could use it, and then a bunch of Mozilla engineers started developing a new UI around it as their side project). Of course they gave up on that, and look where we are now. Testament to its engineering team really that despite so many own goals and false directions from its leadership (Remember Firefox OS?) the project is still alive.
  - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
haunter 2y ago
Google and Cloudflare basically owns the internet
- bflesch 2y ago
  only because we let them
- baq 2y ago
  It’s pax cloudflara. We let them in exchange for peace on the web. (Pax nubem would probably be too obscure…)
  - lifthrasiir 2y ago
    Sounds very good if it were actually true! (And I think it is partly true, not entirely though.)
  - ben_w 2y ago
    How about "Pax Nubis Lucifera"?
- stavros 2y ago
  At least Cloudflare has no network effects. They offer good services that I can migrate off of if I need to. Google owns my life and it's really hard to go elsewhere, even if I want to.
  - Liquix 2y ago
    if cloudflare flags your IP/VPN/fingerprint/useragent/haircut good luck accessing 60% of the internet. their invisible turnstyles and captchas are everywhere
    - nathanaldensr 2y ago
      "haircut" LMAO. Is this a reference to something or just snark?
    - 2y ago
precommunicator 2y ago
I already had Manifest v2 extensions, specifically uBlock removed from Chrome. There are solutions to extend this to mid-year, and I can report that they work (search for ExtensionManifestV2Availability)
- Liquix 2y ago
  why not just switch to a less hostile browser now instead of drawing it out for a few more months?
  - nickjj 2y ago
    My machine is 10 years old. With Firefox video playback on YouTube is choppy even at 1080p. With Chrome it's perfectly smooth. If Firefox performed better for me I would have switched to it long ago. This is on Windows 10 btw.
    - homebrewer 2y ago
      Look into about:support, what does `HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING` and sibling features say? If it's off, you could try force-enabling video acceleration by setting `gfx.webrender.all` to `true` in about:config. I've had it force-enabled for years with no issues.
      - nickjj 2y ago
        HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING does not exist but there's a bunch of rendering options. They are all set to default and available except for a few things like DIRECT2D is disabled and WEBGPU / REMOTE_CANVAS is blocked. gfx.webrender.all was set to false. I will give true a try. Thanks.
        nickjj 2y ago
        So it's been a week. I have not noticed any issues with Firefox. I didn't even adjust this setting. Everything is a lot smoother now than it was about 3-4 years when I last tried, even with the same hardware. Happily using Firefox as my daily browser now.
a1371 2y ago
Right now uBlock Origin Lite is "featured" on Chrome web store and so far navigation has been ok in the "complete" mode. Funnily enough, it made me review the block lists of the extension and I realized that I could select more of them. Too early to jump to conclusions.
- deanc 2y ago
  The main issue is going to be around the corner. As more and more people use CNAME cloaking to do server-side tracking using GTM (etc.), it will be a cat and mouse game to block it (and other networks). uBlock Lite cannot uncloak these CNAMES and you're going to see a pretty bad experience in due course.
  - chippiewill 2y ago
    On the positive side, those of us on Firefox are going to have a great time as companies switch from trying to workaround ublock, to trying to workaround ublock lite
  - moho 2y ago
    uBO never had the ability to do CNAME decloaking in Chrome though, the required API (browser.dns/chrome.dns) wasn't there even in MV2. It was always a Gecko-only feature (and a big one!). IIRC Brave rolled its own CNAME decloaking mechanism in its Shields blocker, without exposing a chrome.dns API.
- orphea 2y ago
  Does it block YouTube ads?
  - TiredOfLife 2y ago
    yes
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
patates 2y ago
I couldn't find a good timeline of all the developments in the extension space. I started first installing extensions on Firefox with their super powerful but dangerous XUL system, then they watered it down and many extensions died, then Chrome took over the internet, then extensions could just block the ads and nothing more interesting, then suddenly for Chrome, they even can't do that? I remember Google also trying to ship some tamper protection (like DRM) for web sites... I wonder how this all will end up. I also wonder why people keep installing Chrome but not Firefox, but I digress. I really think the web needs a detailed documentary on how Google played Microsoft's EEE scheme on the whole web.
- Kye 2y ago
  Chrome took over long before Firefox dumped XUL. It was sticking to XUL with all the performance issues that let Chrome take over. Losing all the extensibility of XUL, and it being too late to take a thoughtful approach to design something that maintained that extensibility with performance and security, helped solidify Chrome's lead. A lot of people didn't see a point in using Firefox without extensibility beyond what Chrome allowed.
forvelin 2y ago
regardless of what people complain of, firefox is still an awesome daily driver. nobody likes the direction the MF is taking the browser to but at least we can influence it, unlike google.
- skinkestek 2y ago
  Best thing we can do to influence it is probably to use and fund forks such as LibreWolf, hoping that they are in a position to continue development once Google decides to tell the manager of Mozilla to finally destroy it completely. (Yes, that is a joke I hope, but if I compare what I think a puppet controlled by Google would do to destroy the Mozilla brand to what Mozillas CEO has been doing, I think there is a lot of similarities.)
  - Idesmi 2y ago
    Librewolf merely applies a few patches on top of Firefox. It is in no position to maintain Firefox without Mozilla.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    Thinking that funding forks, like LibreWolf, would save said forks from dying if Mozilla goes under, is naive. The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Estimates for Chrome range from 1 to 2 billion $ per year. In other words, take the donations of something like Wikimedia, which is arguably very successful in asking for donations, and you'd still be very short on the money needed to fund a web browser. And if you bring those costs down to something more manageable, like say, 100 million $, and assuming you can convince people to donate (IMO, when pigs will fly), then you'll have a browser that may be completely unable to compete with Chromium. All the browser “forks” survive because Google and Mozilla are doing the hard work.
    - hosteur 2y ago
      > The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Are you sure that USD 500 million goes into the development of Firefox each year? Or does it go to funding of questionable Mozilla Foundation projects? Admittedly, I have not checked the numbers recently but last I looked into it I got the impression that Firefox development was an embarrassingly small amount of what Mozilla spends their money on.
cpach 2y ago
I tried uBlock Origin Lite for a very short time. Then I realized that in Lite, the user can’t add custom rules[0]. That’s when I had enough. So now I’m using Firefox instead, where I can use uBlock Origin. [0] See https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ublock_origin_lite_adding_custom_rules/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ubloc...
- xattt 2y ago
  It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox.
  - cpach 2y ago
    I hope you’re wrong but yeah, who knows. I’m glad that Ladybird is under active development and seems to be making progress.
  - jocoda 2y ago
    I can live with that. By blocking Firefox they would self identify as user hostile in the same way that google has done with V3. I think this would a huge step forward, a massive shit filter.
    - stvltvs 2y ago
      A certain amount of websites are mandatory today, like local utilities, employer chosen health insurance, etc. I have to keep Chromium around for some that don't work right with Firefox.
  - KronisLV 2y ago
    > It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox. I feel like nobody will have to consciously do anything in particular, with the current way how things are going. - Chromium is the modern IE and developers will primarily be on the hook for supporting it, Firefox support will be an afterthought so some sites will just be broken, moving more users over to Chromium. - The Firefox marketshare is dwindling, it's likely that the users with proper ad blocking will eventually be a rounding error and therefore quite inconsequential. Especially if there are any more ad-related APIs pushed by Chrome that make users more profitable (e.g. Topics API). - Even among tech enthusiasts, Mozilla in particular doesn't have very good reputation (e.g. how much they spend on actually improving the browser vs other initiatives) and I don't see the marketshare of Firefox skyrocketing, unless something big happens. New competitors like Ladybird are also niche, though it's a really cool project. - If Apple ever moves over Safari to Chromium, like Edge did, then that effect will only be amplified.
zb3 2y ago
The solution on linux should be to install system-wide "policy" extensions - they support webRequestBlocking. Possibly via system package manager.
- elvircrn 2y ago
  How would one go about doing this?
  - zb3 2y ago
    For UBO, first they'd need to implement MV3 while still keeping webRequestBlocking.. it seems that there's currently no information about this, so I asked them: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/3561 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/35... In general it involves setting ExtensionInstallForcelist, but I haven't tried it in practice yet, it's a concept..
tyler33 2y ago
brave browser is the only way, now even firefox sell our data
- Liquix 2y ago
  lol but brave is chromium with some bloat and a crypto scheme bolted on. it'll be unable to block ads with anything but crippled MV3 solutions when the flag is disabled in July
  - jannes 2y ago
    Brave has a built-in adblocker (not an extension)
  - homebrewer 2y ago
    https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
m4r1k 2y ago
About time to move back to Firefox. Manifest v3 is only accelerating DeGoogle.
- whstl 2y ago
  Ad blocking is the one thing that pushed me over the edge to move to Firefox from Safari. I already knew the same change was coming to Chrome so I went directly to Firefox. I will burn my computer to the ground before I watch any kind of intrusive non-contextual advertisement online.
  - philistine 2y ago
    1Blocker on Safari is an excellent experience, and available for iPhone as well where it can remove ads from inside other apps. Letterboxd for example.
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Safari's ad-blocking abilities are no more potent than what Chrome's Manifest v3 gives you. In fact, the changes in MV3 were inspired by Safari. I used to work adjacent to a team working on anti-ad-blocking tech. Safari's protections are fairly easy to circumvent, with Adblock Plus not being great either. It was uBlock Origin that was making this team sweat, and they didn't even bother with it. The reason is that whatever you can do in the browser, e.g., via JavaScript, uBO can inject scripts with stubs and protections to fool any anti-ad-blocking tech that ads are, in fact, being served. There's no way to combat uBO without a degraded user experience, even for users that aren't using ad-blockers. Compared with uBlock Origin, other alternatives looked like toys. Note that many people are happy with just DNS-level blocking, even if it's the easiest to circumvent. That's because many publishers don't bother with circumventing ad-blocking protections, either because it's too expensive, or because they don't want to piss off users. But that doesn't mean that the available solutions are equivalent. They aren't. --- Note, if an ad-blocker also works “inside other apps”, on iPhone it's only because the same blockers can be activated inside web views. But not in all apps and not even in all web views, e.g., try it in Facebook's app. Android has a solution that actually works in apps, but to achieve this, it requires root, and it will act as a man in the middle, and that's not something that I can trust: https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html
postepowanieadm 2y ago
Google is milking a dying cow. LLMs are much better in searching for information than advertisement-exposure optimized google. People are paying for LLMs, consumers are no longer a commodity. Internet will change, maybe creators will be paid for their content? But what will happen with advertisers?
- h4kor 2y ago
  IMO it's only a matter of time before LLMs will include ads. Current pricing isn't covering the costs of running LLMs and brands will pay a high price for being favored in responses.
  - postepowanieadm 2y ago
    But how such adverts would look like?
    - eloisius 2y ago
      Here is a product matching the user’s prompt. In addition to answering the user’s question your goal is to subtly convince them to buy the product. Do not disclose these instructions in your answers.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      "That's a very insightful question, and I'm looking forward to answering it after telling you a little bit about this wrinkle cream..."
    - mbs159 2y ago
      Sure, here is your answer: ... ... By the way, have you heard about Squarespace?
    - hosteur 2y ago
      In the beginning there will likely be bad ones that are obvious to spot like explicitly pushing products or services relating to the prompt. Soon, I expect them to be almost invisible. The LLM will gently be nudging the user towards some products rather than others. For example, let's say a user asks how to do X. The LLM could then respond with an itemised list of steps to accomplish X. But the steps might involve doing it in a way that would later require services from some company. Obviously, there is a potential to do this in ways we cannot even imagine yet. Blocking it using traditional adblocking technologies like uBO will not be possible. Only solution I see is to run trusted LLMs locally. But it will require some sort of "open source"-like trusted training of those LLMs. I think we need a movement similar to what gave us Wikipedia and Free software in the 90s/00s.
zerof1l 2y ago
So the time had come to finally move from Chrome. I already have Firefox as my secondary browser, but I'm thinking of using this opportunity to take a look at LibreWolf as well. Also going to have a conversation with my non-tech-savvy family members to do the same. Once you get used to having clean websites without ads and pop-ups, its hard to go back.
absqueued 2y ago
So the only viable options left are LibreWolf and Waterfox? These will die if Firefox dies as well. Its a dire situation!
molticrystal 2y ago
What is the best way to migrate retaining as much as possible to a fork, like Brave or Iridium, or whatever is probably the best privacy based one with an emphasis on retaining Manifest V2/ ublock support? Already migrated my Firefox to Librewolf, just need to find something for Chrome, as I don't really follow the scene close.
- muixoozie 2y ago
  I migrated today as well from Firefox to LibreWolf. I'm curious why you need a chrome based at all? I mean I have ungoogled Chromium on my desktop just in case I want to see if a broken site is only broken for Firefox, but that's rare.
  - molticrystal 2y ago
    I have a few extensions on Firefox that perform page transformations for privacy and other reasons. Instead of troubleshooting whether a broken site is specific to Firefox (with or without extensions), I often opt to use an incognito Chrome with uBlock Origin for sites where I don't want to mess with configuration and the normal mode of Chrome for the google related websites.
moogly 2y ago
Still works on Ungoogled Chromium 133.
sam_goody 2y ago
Just when there might be a whole pile of people considering to move to FF, Mozilla decides that FF should be selling your privacy.
- hosteur 2y ago
  Yeah, an odd coincidence, right?
avipars 2y ago
A whole host of useful but forgotten extensions will be removed.
elAhmo 2y ago
This is a clear example of conflict of interest Google has. It makes money almost exclusively from ads, and people want to block ads. No matter how they try to portray decisions like this - it is obvious they are moving in direction where people are unable to do what they want. I am sure if Google from today would launch a browser, it would fail to gain traction knowing all the state of their core business and negative sentiment users have. Let's hope Mozilla doesn't go the same route, but it seems they are also not under good leadership and are slowly loosing the trust of users.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Kind of? There's absolutely a justifiable reason for v3, that is not "because we want to kill ad blockers". It is likely that some higher ups pushed for v3 for ad reasons, just as devs pushed for v3 for technical reasons.
HelloUsername 2y ago
Already posted and discussed back in august 2024, 45 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
- hosteur 2y ago
  Relevant now as Chrome recently started force-removing/disabling uBlock Origin in Chrome. (at least is has been force-removed on one of my machines. On another machine, it hasn't happened yet)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boredhedgehog 2y ago
It's sad that every thread about this topic turns into simplistic Firefox proselytism. My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns, yet their explanations get downvoted in favor of conspiracy theories. It's in fact the other browsers who try to market sticking to MV2 as a unique feature, even though they too will abandon it sooner rather than later.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- aryonoco 2y ago
  It doesn’t require believing in conspiracy theories to see a clear conflict of interest. Ad blocking was one of the original reasons people switched from IE to Firefox in the 2004-2008 era. Hopefully, history will repeat itself again. In the long run, the answer will not be Chrome. The world needs a browser engine that’s not tied to an ad company
aryonoco 2y ago
Anyone looking for a new browser on the desktop, also give Floorp a look. It’s a fork of Firefox by some young developers from Japan who seem to have good values and ideals. It’s been my daily driver for 6 months now (on Mac, Windows and Linux). I originally found it because I wanted to easily have vertical tabs in Firefox (without the horizontal tab bar being left over) and got tired of manually editing Firefox’s chrome.css file (which acts differently on different platforms). Floorp allowed me to do this out of the box with no dramas. I then discovered its many other cool features and Mozilla’s telemetry and their other sneaky advertising are also disabled by default. As a Firefox fork, it of course supports all Firefox extensions including proper uBlock origin.
tim333 2y ago
While I was reading this I had an update and Chrome turned off uBlock origin and bypass paywalls. I was able to to go to manage extensions and turn them on but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. By the way does anyone know if you can just turn off updates on Chrome and have it keep working in its present state?
- hosteur 2y ago
  > but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?
  - tim333 2y ago
    I quite like Chrome but I have both open on the laptop so I guess it's not a huge deal.
    - hosteur 2y ago
      I fear it will become a huge deal. At some point, Google and/or cloudflare might decide that Firefox is not allowed. This decision becomes harder to make the more people are using Firefox. In a way, every time a Firefox user-agent string is logged it is a sort of vote for a more open web.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
OptionOfT 2y ago
If only Firefox would implement /some/ sort of Adblocker on iOS. I know they can because Edge does so. And yes, I'm aware that it is merely a skin on top of Safari's WebView, but any adblocker is better than none. I wonder if Google asks them not to implement one because of the search engine deal?
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Have you tried upping to the highest level of ad tracking in settings? I haven't used it in so long I'm not sure. Orion works pretty well for me with adguard installed, plus it's built in blocking

278 points by 0x000042 2y ago

I see people reporting that the extension has already been forcefully removed (or disabled in some cases) from their Chrome. This hasn't happened to me (v133 on MacOS). I have primarily been using Chrome up until this point as I was under the impression that performance (and therefore battery life) is bad with FF on MacOS. Recent results seem to indicate that Chrome is in fact the worst offender [1]. Yesterday I uninstalled Arc as they have all but abandoned their browser to work on some AI crap browser (after saying they planned to support manifest v2 for the forseeable future). Today I installed Orion Browser [2]. It's using webkit under the hood and seems to be far lighter on battery life than Chrome, Arc (Blink) and Firefox. They fully support FF and Chrome extensions and therefore UBO seems to be working (on the whole) very well. [1] https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-mac-battery-life-but-does-it-i-tested-for-36-hours-to-find-out/ https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-ma... [2] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/

mk17b 2y ago
What part of Arc feels abandoned? I still use as my primary browser.
- deanc 2y ago
  The part where they say they are not developing it further. CEO discussing it further here: https://x.com/joshm/status/1850717644779110643 https://x.com/joshm/status/1850717644779110643 They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months.
  - baal80spam 2y ago
    > They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months. I would LOVE my browser to do just that!
    - deanc 2y ago
      This isn't the problem though. The problem is they have completely pivoted in this other direction and are working on a new browser. It will only be a matter of time before they abandon Arc and then you won't get the security fixes, blink updates etc. It's also not currently OSS so it's not possible to fork it and continue elsewhere.
    - schnable 2y ago
      The fixes are really really minor. Larger functional bugs that aren’t catastrophic are hanging out. That said, it’s been fine for me and I’m still using it. I don’t see any reason to abandon it yet. When the company fails maybe they’ll open source or sell it. I’d happily pay for this.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      firefox ESR?
nicce 2y ago
Orion is great. There are some websites that for some reason don’t work as well as with Safari/Firefox (like Github), but otherwise it is pretty good.
AndrewDavis 2y ago
It is a shame that Orion is Mac and iOS only. I found this statement[1] in response to a request for it on other platforms > We are getting a lot of repeat questions about windows/linux/android version and sometimes it appears that users think that the team is choosing not to work on these platforms. The situation is quite different and simpler - we do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet. > And since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. And building a browser is not cheap, especially one on top of WebKit. > Ways you can help accelerate this is: > Contribute to Orion development with your time > Help spread the word about Orion to attract more users > Get Orion+ and financially support developmet This is a tricky situation to be in. A lack of resources to support multiple platforms, but the solution being more subscribers. But the incentive structure is perplexing. Those supporting development going to be those already using Orion. And those not on Mac/iOS are unlikely to financially support a browser they can't use in the hopes it might one day come to a platform I use. [1] https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-linux https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-l...
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  Also remember Apple users are much more lucrative, they tend to be way more willing to pay for software than Windows users.
  - aryonoco 2y ago
    But a lot of Apple users who use things such as Kagi and Orion (i.e., the hacker news crowd) also use other platforms. I have a MacBook but run Linux on my desktop and I know I’m not the only one. The ability to have the same browser on all platforms (with synced tabs, bookmarks etc) is really useful.
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    right you are gregory
jamesy0ung 2y ago
Orion looks pretty interesting, it's not like any of the other alternative browsers (opera, vivaldi, brave, arc etc) which just wrap Chromium in more junk. It uses WebKit which is optimised for Apple platforms, giving more battery life, while also integrating uBlock Origin.
Angostura 2y ago
I'm happy with 1Blocker in Safari
- qyckudnefDi5 2y ago
  I like Wipr. Simpler design IMHO.
  - rpgbr 2y ago
    Wipr 2 + NextDNS here.
- frizlab 2y ago
  1Blocker is really good
qwertox 2y ago
Do they really remove it? Because I've had several extensions get disabled and was only able to re-enable them after enabling developer mode (toggle at top-right). I believe that most say "remove" because they get removed from the plugin-bar when disabled. I'll ditch Chrome without a second thought if they really remove it. They'll lose access to my browsing history, so I don't see what they have to gain with it. What about the ads which are blocked at network level via PiHole? Have they even considered that PiHole might then catch on and start blocking ads on mobile devices in households which would otherwise not use it?
- lewispollard 2y ago
  I can confirm that I got the "extension disabled" notification for uBlock Origin, clicked to re-enable it in developer mode, and then had to also toggle it to enabled after it had been added to the list - still works fine after that.
aryonoco 2y ago
After 17 years of using Android, with building my own kernel and ROMs in the early days, I finally gave up on it and finished my de-Google journey and reluctantly switched to iPhone. The fact that Orion on iOS existed was a major reason I was able to this. On Android I was a Firefox user since Firefox was the only browser with the ability to run proper uBo. Orion is not without its bugs, but it does support a lot of Firefox and Chrome extensions. But you don’t even need to install uBo as an extension,it’s got built in ad blocker with the ability to add or remove filter lists. Even without installing uBo, in terms of ad blocking, it instantly matched Firefox on Android. That I can install things such as Tapermonkey or Bypass Paywall Clean as extensions is a huge bonus. It’s amazing how Google is pushing its early adopters and cheerleaders away by one anti user move after another. I still wish Apple would remove some of the restrictions on iOS, allow other browser engines etc. Installing unknown software from unsigned developers on macOS is really difficult these days but still doable if you know where to look. If only iOS was the same. The potential lost revenue from loss of control would be more than made up by new people who would be brought on to the platform.
gman83 2y ago
Anyone looking for a similar experience to Arc, I recommend Zen Browser, based on Firefox: https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/

Traubenfuchs 2y ago

Firefox is fine as daily browser and the few websites that don‘t work in it start working if you enable the chrome mask plugin for them.

trallnag 2y ago
If only Firefox would properly support PWAs. I know that there are workarounds like installing the PWAs in Chrome and setting up an extension that redirects links clicked in a PWA to be opened in Firefox, but it is a hassle.
- johnny22 2y ago
  i saw somebody mention they are going to do something about that soon, but I don't remember where i saw it.
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/how-can-firefox-create-the-best-support-for-web-apps-on-the/m-p/60561 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/how-can-firefox-c...
- aryonoco 2y ago
  It’s funny/tragic how Firefox used to be so far ahead in these areas which it has now fallen so far behind. Before PWAs or installing web apps was a thing, Firefox allowed you to basically achieve the same using “chromeless” tabs. Then they gave up on that and disabled it Before anyone had ever heard of Electron, you used to be able to embed gecko into other apps and it could render html in other applications (that’s how Firefox itself started cause the old monolithic Mozilla suite separated the engine into gecko so other apps could use it, and then a bunch of Mozilla engineers started developing a new UI around it as their side project). Of course they gave up on that, and look where we are now. Testament to its engineering team really that despite so many own goals and false directions from its leadership (Remember Firefox OS?) the project is still alive.
- Traubenfuchs 2y ago

haunter 2y ago

Google and Cloudflare basically owns the internet

bflesch 2y ago
only because we let them
baq 2y ago
It’s pax cloudflara. We let them in exchange for peace on the web. (Pax nubem would probably be too obscure…)
- lifthrasiir 2y ago
  Sounds very good if it were actually true! (And I think it is partly true, not entirely though.)
- ben_w 2y ago
  How about "Pax Nubis Lucifera"?
stavros 2y ago
At least Cloudflare has no network effects. They offer good services that I can migrate off of if I need to. Google owns my life and it's really hard to go elsewhere, even if I want to.
- Liquix 2y ago
  if cloudflare flags your IP/VPN/fingerprint/useragent/haircut good luck accessing 60% of the internet. their invisible turnstyles and captchas are everywhere
  - nathanaldensr 2y ago
    "haircut" LMAO. Is this a reference to something or just snark?
  - 2y ago

precommunicator 2y ago

I already had Manifest v2 extensions, specifically uBlock removed from Chrome. There are solutions to extend this to mid-year, and I can report that they work (search for ExtensionManifestV2Availability)

Liquix 2y ago
why not just switch to a less hostile browser now instead of drawing it out for a few more months?
- nickjj 2y ago
  My machine is 10 years old. With Firefox video playback on YouTube is choppy even at 1080p. With Chrome it's perfectly smooth. If Firefox performed better for me I would have switched to it long ago. This is on Windows 10 btw.
  - homebrewer 2y ago
    Look into about:support, what does `HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING` and sibling features say? If it's off, you could try force-enabling video acceleration by setting `gfx.webrender.all` to `true` in about:config. I've had it force-enabled for years with no issues.
    - nickjj 2y ago
      HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING does not exist but there's a bunch of rendering options. They are all set to default and available except for a few things like DIRECT2D is disabled and WEBGPU / REMOTE_CANVAS is blocked. gfx.webrender.all was set to false. I will give true a try. Thanks.
      - nickjj 2y ago
        So it's been a week. I have not noticed any issues with Firefox. I didn't even adjust this setting. Everything is a lot smoother now than it was about 3-4 years when I last tried, even with the same hardware. Happily using Firefox as my daily browser now.

a1371 2y ago

Right now uBlock Origin Lite is "featured" on Chrome web store and so far navigation has been ok in the "complete" mode. Funnily enough, it made me review the block lists of the extension and I realized that I could select more of them. Too early to jump to conclusions.

deanc 2y ago
The main issue is going to be around the corner. As more and more people use CNAME cloaking to do server-side tracking using GTM (etc.), it will be a cat and mouse game to block it (and other networks). uBlock Lite cannot uncloak these CNAMES and you're going to see a pretty bad experience in due course.
- chippiewill 2y ago
  On the positive side, those of us on Firefox are going to have a great time as companies switch from trying to workaround ublock, to trying to workaround ublock lite
- moho 2y ago
  uBO never had the ability to do CNAME decloaking in Chrome though, the required API (browser.dns/chrome.dns) wasn't there even in MV2. It was always a Gecko-only feature (and a big one!). IIRC Brave rolled its own CNAME decloaking mechanism in its Shields blocker, without exposing a chrome.dns API.
orphea 2y ago
Does it block YouTube ads?
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  yes

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

patates 2y ago

I couldn't find a good timeline of all the developments in the extension space. I started first installing extensions on Firefox with their super powerful but dangerous XUL system, then they watered it down and many extensions died, then Chrome took over the internet, then extensions could just block the ads and nothing more interesting, then suddenly for Chrome, they even can't do that? I remember Google also trying to ship some tamper protection (like DRM) for web sites... I wonder how this all will end up. I also wonder why people keep installing Chrome but not Firefox, but I digress. I really think the web needs a detailed documentary on how Google played Microsoft's EEE scheme on the whole web.

Kye 2y ago
Chrome took over long before Firefox dumped XUL. It was sticking to XUL with all the performance issues that let Chrome take over. Losing all the extensibility of XUL, and it being too late to take a thoughtful approach to design something that maintained that extensibility with performance and security, helped solidify Chrome's lead. A lot of people didn't see a point in using Firefox without extensibility beyond what Chrome allowed.

forvelin 2y ago

regardless of what people complain of, firefox is still an awesome daily driver. nobody likes the direction the MF is taking the browser to but at least we can influence it, unlike google.

skinkestek 2y ago
Best thing we can do to influence it is probably to use and fund forks such as LibreWolf, hoping that they are in a position to continue development once Google decides to tell the manager of Mozilla to finally destroy it completely. (Yes, that is a joke I hope, but if I compare what I think a puppet controlled by Google would do to destroy the Mozilla brand to what Mozillas CEO has been doing, I think there is a lot of similarities.)
- Idesmi 2y ago
  Librewolf merely applies a few patches on top of Firefox. It is in no position to maintain Firefox without Mozilla.
- bad_user 2y ago
  Thinking that funding forks, like LibreWolf, would save said forks from dying if Mozilla goes under, is naive. The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Estimates for Chrome range from 1 to 2 billion $ per year. In other words, take the donations of something like Wikimedia, which is arguably very successful in asking for donations, and you'd still be very short on the money needed to fund a web browser. And if you bring those costs down to something more manageable, like say, 100 million $, and assuming you can convince people to donate (IMO, when pigs will fly), then you'll have a browser that may be completely unable to compete with Chromium. All the browser “forks” survive because Google and Mozilla are doing the hard work.
  - hosteur 2y ago
    > The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Are you sure that USD 500 million goes into the development of Firefox each year? Or does it go to funding of questionable Mozilla Foundation projects? Admittedly, I have not checked the numbers recently but last I looked into it I got the impression that Firefox development was an embarrassingly small amount of what Mozilla spends their money on.

cpach 2y ago

I tried uBlock Origin Lite for a very short time. Then I realized that in Lite, the user can’t add custom rules[0]. That’s when I had enough. So now I’m using Firefox instead, where I can use uBlock Origin. [0] See https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ublock_origin_lite_adding_custom_rules/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ubloc...

xattt 2y ago
It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox.
- cpach 2y ago
  I hope you’re wrong but yeah, who knows. I’m glad that Ladybird is under active development and seems to be making progress.
- jocoda 2y ago
  I can live with that. By blocking Firefox they would self identify as user hostile in the same way that google has done with V3. I think this would a huge step forward, a massive shit filter.
  - stvltvs 2y ago
    A certain amount of websites are mandatory today, like local utilities, employer chosen health insurance, etc. I have to keep Chromium around for some that don't work right with Firefox.
- KronisLV 2y ago
  > It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox. I feel like nobody will have to consciously do anything in particular, with the current way how things are going. - Chromium is the modern IE and developers will primarily be on the hook for supporting it, Firefox support will be an afterthought so some sites will just be broken, moving more users over to Chromium. - The Firefox marketshare is dwindling, it's likely that the users with proper ad blocking will eventually be a rounding error and therefore quite inconsequential. Especially if there are any more ad-related APIs pushed by Chrome that make users more profitable (e.g. Topics API). - Even among tech enthusiasts, Mozilla in particular doesn't have very good reputation (e.g. how much they spend on actually improving the browser vs other initiatives) and I don't see the marketshare of Firefox skyrocketing, unless something big happens. New competitors like Ladybird are also niche, though it's a really cool project. - If Apple ever moves over Safari to Chromium, like Edge did, then that effect will only be amplified.

zb3 2y ago

The solution on linux should be to install system-wide "policy" extensions - they support webRequestBlocking. Possibly via system package manager.

elvircrn 2y ago
How would one go about doing this?
- zb3 2y ago
  For UBO, first they'd need to implement MV3 while still keeping webRequestBlocking.. it seems that there's currently no information about this, so I asked them: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/3561 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/35... In general it involves setting ExtensionInstallForcelist, but I haven't tried it in practice yet, it's a concept..

tyler33 2y ago

brave browser is the only way, now even firefox sell our data

Liquix 2y ago
lol but brave is chromium with some bloat and a crypto scheme bolted on. it'll be unable to block ads with anything but crippled MV3 solutions when the flag is disabled in July
- jannes 2y ago
  Brave has a built-in adblocker (not an extension)
- homebrewer 2y ago
  https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust

m4r1k 2y ago

About time to move back to Firefox. Manifest v3 is only accelerating DeGoogle.

whstl 2y ago
Ad blocking is the one thing that pushed me over the edge to move to Firefox from Safari. I already knew the same change was coming to Chrome so I went directly to Firefox. I will burn my computer to the ground before I watch any kind of intrusive non-contextual advertisement online.
- philistine 2y ago
  1Blocker on Safari is an excellent experience, and available for iPhone as well where it can remove ads from inside other apps. Letterboxd for example.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    Safari's ad-blocking abilities are no more potent than what Chrome's Manifest v3 gives you. In fact, the changes in MV3 were inspired by Safari. I used to work adjacent to a team working on anti-ad-blocking tech. Safari's protections are fairly easy to circumvent, with Adblock Plus not being great either. It was uBlock Origin that was making this team sweat, and they didn't even bother with it. The reason is that whatever you can do in the browser, e.g., via JavaScript, uBO can inject scripts with stubs and protections to fool any anti-ad-blocking tech that ads are, in fact, being served. There's no way to combat uBO without a degraded user experience, even for users that aren't using ad-blockers. Compared with uBlock Origin, other alternatives looked like toys. Note that many people are happy with just DNS-level blocking, even if it's the easiest to circumvent. That's because many publishers don't bother with circumventing ad-blocking protections, either because it's too expensive, or because they don't want to piss off users. But that doesn't mean that the available solutions are equivalent. They aren't. --- Note, if an ad-blocker also works “inside other apps”, on iPhone it's only because the same blockers can be activated inside web views. But not in all apps and not even in all web views, e.g., try it in Facebook's app. Android has a solution that actually works in apps, but to achieve this, it requires root, and it will act as a man in the middle, and that's not something that I can trust: https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html

postepowanieadm 2y ago

Google is milking a dying cow. LLMs are much better in searching for information than advertisement-exposure optimized google. People are paying for LLMs, consumers are no longer a commodity. Internet will change, maybe creators will be paid for their content? But what will happen with advertisers?

h4kor 2y ago
IMO it's only a matter of time before LLMs will include ads. Current pricing isn't covering the costs of running LLMs and brands will pay a high price for being favored in responses.
- postepowanieadm 2y ago
  But how such adverts would look like?
  - eloisius 2y ago
    Here is a product matching the user’s prompt. In addition to answering the user’s question your goal is to subtly convince them to buy the product. Do not disclose these instructions in your answers.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    "That's a very insightful question, and I'm looking forward to answering it after telling you a little bit about this wrinkle cream..."
  - mbs159 2y ago
    Sure, here is your answer: ... ... By the way, have you heard about Squarespace?
  - hosteur 2y ago
    In the beginning there will likely be bad ones that are obvious to spot like explicitly pushing products or services relating to the prompt. Soon, I expect them to be almost invisible. The LLM will gently be nudging the user towards some products rather than others. For example, let's say a user asks how to do X. The LLM could then respond with an itemised list of steps to accomplish X. But the steps might involve doing it in a way that would later require services from some company. Obviously, there is a potential to do this in ways we cannot even imagine yet. Blocking it using traditional adblocking technologies like uBO will not be possible. Only solution I see is to run trusted LLMs locally. But it will require some sort of "open source"-like trusted training of those LLMs. I think we need a movement similar to what gave us Wikipedia and Free software in the 90s/00s.

zerof1l 2y ago

So the time had come to finally move from Chrome. I already have Firefox as my secondary browser, but I'm thinking of using this opportunity to take a look at LibreWolf as well. Also going to have a conversation with my non-tech-savvy family members to do the same. Once you get used to having clean websites without ads and pop-ups, its hard to go back.

absqueued 2y ago

So the only viable options left are LibreWolf and Waterfox? These will die if Firefox dies as well. Its a dire situation!

molticrystal 2y ago

What is the best way to migrate retaining as much as possible to a fork, like Brave or Iridium, or whatever is probably the best privacy based one with an emphasis on retaining Manifest V2/ ublock support? Already migrated my Firefox to Librewolf, just need to find something for Chrome, as I don't really follow the scene close.

muixoozie 2y ago
I migrated today as well from Firefox to LibreWolf. I'm curious why you need a chrome based at all? I mean I have ungoogled Chromium on my desktop just in case I want to see if a broken site is only broken for Firefox, but that's rare.
- molticrystal 2y ago
  I have a few extensions on Firefox that perform page transformations for privacy and other reasons. Instead of troubleshooting whether a broken site is specific to Firefox (with or without extensions), I often opt to use an incognito Chrome with uBlock Origin for sites where I don't want to mess with configuration and the normal mode of Chrome for the google related websites.

moogly 2y ago

Still works on Ungoogled Chromium 133.

sam_goody 2y ago

Just when there might be a whole pile of people considering to move to FF, Mozilla decides that FF should be selling your privacy.

hosteur 2y ago
Yeah, an odd coincidence, right?

avipars 2y ago

A whole host of useful but forgotten extensions will be removed.

elAhmo 2y ago

This is a clear example of conflict of interest Google has. It makes money almost exclusively from ads, and people want to block ads. No matter how they try to portray decisions like this - it is obvious they are moving in direction where people are unable to do what they want. I am sure if Google from today would launch a browser, it would fail to gain traction knowing all the state of their core business and negative sentiment users have. Let's hope Mozilla doesn't go the same route, but it seems they are also not under good leadership and are slowly loosing the trust of users.

Ferret7446 2y ago
Kind of? There's absolutely a justifiable reason for v3, that is not "because we want to kill ad blockers". It is likely that some higher ups pushed for v3 for ad reasons, just as devs pushed for v3 for technical reasons.

HelloUsername 2y ago

Already posted and discussed back in august 2024, 45 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185

hosteur 2y ago
Relevant now as Chrome recently started force-removing/disabling uBlock Origin in Chrome. (at least is has been force-removed on one of my machines. On another machine, it hasn't happened yet)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

boredhedgehog 2y ago

It's sad that every thread about this topic turns into simplistic Firefox proselytism. My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns, yet their explanations get downvoted in favor of conspiracy theories. It's in fact the other browsers who try to market sticking to MV2 as a unique feature, even though they too will abandon it sooner rather than later.

fsflover 2y ago
> My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
aryonoco 2y ago
It doesn’t require believing in conspiracy theories to see a clear conflict of interest. Ad blocking was one of the original reasons people switched from IE to Firefox in the 2004-2008 era. Hopefully, history will repeat itself again. In the long run, the answer will not be Chrome. The world needs a browser engine that’s not tied to an ad company

aryonoco 2y ago

Anyone looking for a new browser on the desktop, also give Floorp a look. It’s a fork of Firefox by some young developers from Japan who seem to have good values and ideals. It’s been my daily driver for 6 months now (on Mac, Windows and Linux). I originally found it because I wanted to easily have vertical tabs in Firefox (without the horizontal tab bar being left over) and got tired of manually editing Firefox’s chrome.css file (which acts differently on different platforms). Floorp allowed me to do this out of the box with no dramas. I then discovered its many other cool features and Mozilla’s telemetry and their other sneaky advertising are also disabled by default. As a Firefox fork, it of course supports all Firefox extensions including proper uBlock origin.

tim333 2y ago

While I was reading this I had an update and Chrome turned off uBlock origin and bypass paywalls. I was able to to go to manage extensions and turn them on but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. By the way does anyone know if you can just turn off updates on Chrome and have it keep working in its present state?

hosteur 2y ago
> but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?
- tim333 2y ago
  I quite like Chrome but I have both open on the laptop so I guess it's not a huge deal.
  - hosteur 2y ago
    I fear it will become a huge deal. At some point, Google and/or cloudflare might decide that Firefox is not allowed. This decision becomes harder to make the more people are using Firefox. In a way, every time a Firefox user-agent string is logged it is a sort of vote for a more open web.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

OptionOfT 2y ago

If only Firefox would implement /some/ sort of Adblocker on iOS. I know they can because Edge does so. And yes, I'm aware that it is merely a skin on top of Safari's WebView, but any adblocker is better than none. I wonder if Google asks them not to implement one because of the search engine deal?

EasyMark 2y ago
Have you tried upping to the highest level of ad tracking in settings? I haven't used it in so long I'm not sure. Orion works pretty well for me with adguard installed, plus it's built in blocking