guess which all-powerful tech monopoly is breaking ublock origin (and umatrix, and likely many other similar add-ons, such as noscript) in their browser, which happens to be the most popular browser in the world?

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23

who could have foreseen this? who would ever think that an advertising company's web browser would end up breaking compatibility with an ad blocker? frankly i'm shocked

896897 - chromium - An open-source project to help move the web forward. - Monorail

@lynnesbian yeah, I almost fell off my chair …

holy hell i switched back to firefox not a day too soon. if anyone still needs to use chrome for some reason, consider a hosts file blocker such as

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

@lynnesbian

Blocking Unwanted Connections with a Hosts File

This article provides details on blocking Ads, Banners, Parasites, and Hijackers, web bugs, possibly unwanted programs etc. with a custom HOSTS file

@anna @lynnesbian firefox is so good these days - check out multiaccount containers + temporary containers.
@lynnesbian This looks more like incompetence than malice to me. The (laudable, imho) goal of V3 extensions is to make it possible to build useful extensions without giving them total control over everything on every page. The V3 spec is in the feedback phase and is receiving useful feedback about it’s limitations. If no changes are made to the spec to address these concerns, that’s when I’ll start getting upset.
@jamesgecko one can only help, but i wouldn't put it past google
@lynnesbian is that only on Chrome, or also on other chromium-based browsers?
@awitch all chromium based browsers

@lynnesbian
fak
baaakka  
gaggle can go eat its ads through the backend
(rant over)

I went from Firefox to Opera to now Vivaldi, all have pros and cons, but next up in the line for me seems to be Brave. Have you tried it?

@awitch brave has some kinda scummy business practices, like supplying a mode that blocks ads only to replace them with its own, and using a cryptocurrency called "basic attention tokens" to measure how effective their ads are

also, go quote wikipedia, "In a future version of the browser, the company intends to adopt a pay-to-surf business model."

@lynnesbian damn, sounds bad. Are there any relatively good “mainstream” options?

@awitch i use firefox  

it's not perfect but its the best out there imo

even if mozilla is making some really poor decisions rn

@lynnesbian oh, time to go back then?
I just really love Vivaldi’s customization options, just the tab stacks and tiling is the best imo
@awitch there's a tiling tab add-on for firefox called "tree style tabs", it's what i use 
@lynnesbian oh coool, I’ll look into that!! Thanks 
@lynnesbian thanks for the advice, I’ll be on the lookout for browsers 
look at me announcing it months before all the other techies. look how cool and up to date on information i am
@lynnesbian @awitch isn't brave owned by that homophobe Eich, too? Or am I thinking of something else?

@lynnesbian Is it the same advertising company that made a big deal of vocally supporting Do Not Track and then never actually did support it in practice because users had the gall to actually turn it on?

Maybe some sort of Sherlock Holmes could deduce some sort of pattern here?

@lynnesbian @frumble It seems as if my last year‘s decision to switch back to Firefox came just at the right time.

@lynnesbian

They moved it to here:

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00

I really like the comment someone made about Chrome no longer being a "user agent" if Google exerts this much control over what it can do.

Google Groups

Mit Google Groups können Sie Online-Foren und E-Mail-basierte Gruppen erstellen, sich daran beteiligen und interessante Diskussionen mit anderen Mitgliedern führen.

@ben @lynnesbian google agent
@00dani @lynnesbian that's basically the conclusion they came to. If the user no longer controls the browser, it is a corporation agent, not a user agent.

@lynnesbian It is time to rise again, my firefox fellows! We must topple another monopoly in this time of trials! Chromium components are not acceptable!

(how anyone thought using a browser made by google in the first place I didn't get in 2008 and still don't, maybe others will come around now at last)

@lynnesbian I've switched to Opera...
@OlivierSchyns opera is chromium based, so this will impact opera too
@lynnesbian I didn't know ! Thanks for the notice.
I'll switch to Firefox then.
@lynnesbian This means that ad blocking is becoming sufficiently mainstream that it's beginning to have an impact on Google's bottom line.

@bob @lynnesbian

OR that Chromium is dominant enough now that the Microsoft browser no longer exists and can finally act freely as an overlord to their peasants. Mozilla should take this as an opportunity to stop their fall.

@lynnesbian I have always thought the future was network-wide ad blocking, like with the pi-hole project.
@carbontwelve that only works to an extent, though, and it's orders of magnitude more difficult to set up than ublock origin
@lynnesbian Pfft, and this browser calls itself a "user agent". Ain't no user agency in removing adblock capabilities. After the arguments I've read against this change, if it continues to be implemented, we'll know for certain it was malicious intent and it should be considered a hostile action. There's more than one way to fix the bug where extensions can subvert timeout limitations.
@lynnesbian I think many users might switch to firefox then