this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1149 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59415 readers
2924 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
[–] vincentpants@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yeah but Mozilla just turned into an ad company. Hard fork time.

[–] TooManyGames@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not really. Ads aren't gonna dissappear, with Mozillas tech, they'd at least be more private than what Google will implement.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's true, Mozilla's vision of ads is much better than Google's. But is there any reasons it will be one or the other? Is there any reason to believe that Mozilla's ads will displace Google's ads? Or are we just going to end up with more ads: Google's very bad ads plus Mozilla's less bad ads.

[edit] Just to be clear - I don't want to sound any Mozilla. Mozilla hasn't actually acted on this yet. Firefox is still good right now, and will continue to be good at least in the short term. It's just that Mozilla have stated their intention to work on making ad systems. So when that actually happens, it will be bad.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Maybe they'll replace ads on sites that let them and block them on other sites? Who knows

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I can't imagine a few developers maintaining Firefox without MILLIONS of dollars.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Librewolf didn't take as much adjustment as I would have expected, and it even supports toning down specific security postures for QoL niceties like Firefox account sync. Made the switch just to try it out and haven't gone back. Excited to see what people come up with for more forks/hard forks in the future.