• takeda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

          When I was working for an ad exchange, everyone had adblock installed in their browsers, I found that quite ironic.

          • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 month ago

            I would argue it’s a security issue not to have any ad blocking. Many scams online start with popups or fake ads.

            So if you get the opportunity to talk to IT that’s what I would mention.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Officially only Edge is supported, but Chrome is tolerated. It’s a full MS environment.

          • reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Same here. The worst thing is in their justification of disallowing Firefox they listed that it was not an enterprise application. I get that it might be extra effort to support it but don’t list something factually untrue as a lame cop out for why you don’t want to.

            • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Was told it wouldn’t be allowed because you couldn’t restrict it using GPO… Until I told them they could absolutely apply those restrictions using GPO and even provided the ADMX templates.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Click on every single ad and banner, click “I agree” on every pop-up. Make that computer hate it’s life!

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          At large organizations you’re generally not allowed to download much of anything without it passing through IT security and management first. If it’s a no, it will probably stay a no.

          • Flagstaff@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I work for a non-profit and they are way more lenient about what we would like to install as long as the job gets done.

            • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Then you have bad opsec and security holes.

              This matters more for some industries than others. But this attitude lets a malicious employee install basically whatever they want in service of “the job” and you won’t even know you’re being breached until after it’s all over.

              • Flagstaff@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Well, we still have to get approval. But it just seems like they don’t mind as much. For example, I don’t know how many companies out there would be fine with installations of AutoHotkey and LibreOffice.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Just to be clear, I mean it’s literally managed at the Group Policy level (in Windows server environments at least) and no amount of asking will suddenly give your user account permissions to be able to save files of any kind.

              You literally cannot download it without going through IT to get them to approve of and give your account access first.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        If you had uBlock origin already, you may have gotten a message through Chrome that it was no longer supported, so it’s been disabled, and gives you the option to remove it. I noticed you don’t have to remove it, and it can be re-enabled. However, I need someone smarter with adblockers than I to say if this is actually helpful and not hazardous.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          People are saying manifest v2 (the old API that ublock uses) will be gone soon, which I think should effectively make ublock unusable whatever you do unless you stop updating chrome maybe (which could open you up to a ton of security issues) ? Not sure, don’t care since I’ve ditched chrome long ago

      • hunt4peas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Edge extension store still has it I think. Use it until Edge removes it as well. Then tell the IT to use Firefox highlighting the importance of adblocking.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t like my chances of swaying IT. The organisation is too big and I’ll get told I should be using Edge which is the only officially supported browser.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I just downloaded the Kagi Orion browser and I can install extensions from both Chrome and Firefox web stores!

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Is there any firefox based browser on android where I can have easy gestures for the arrow buttons? All the firefox versions I can find require me to do this in two clicks which for the way I browse is a pain in the arse. Can I fix this somehow?

  • Nanook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Google is not an IT company. It’s an advertising company. Surprised Pikachu, it blocks ad blockers.

      • Nanook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah you are correct, welcome to the last stage in a the ad-blocking arms race. Glad I degoogled my digital life a decade ago.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, but enshittification doesn’t happen all at once. And this is a textbook example of the actual meaning of enshittification.

      • OpenHammer6677@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        My work uses a web-based interface that’s very annoying to use on Firefox. I’m unfortunately tied to Chrome in the meantime, so uBlock lite is a lifesaver.

      • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Firefox was stubborn enough not to support H.265 till JUST recently and only on windows… Doesn’t work with my 4k security cameras as well as Chrome or Safari based browsers.

    • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Missing critical features:

      Filter lists only update with the extension, you cannot update them dynamically

      No making your own filters and thus no element picker for blocking annoyances on a webpage (a feature so good apple literally baked it into safari)

      No support for external lists (which means if you back up your own filters into a list you cannot easily reimport)

      No changing behavior on a per site basis

      A number of other features as well that are more strictly power user features but still really handy like dynamic filtering and strict blocking domains.

      If you have the option stop using chrome and edge, they are some of the worst options you could choose. Even outside of adblock and manifest v3 chrome is horrendous for data harvesting bullshit and edge isn’t great. If you don’t have the option because of an overzealous it dept or whatever and are forced to use it ubo lite is your best option probably and my heart goes out to you

      • Pamasich@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m a bit confused as an Adblock Plus user, why did the ublock dev drop those features? ABP uses manifest v3 too and it still has all of those. So it’s clearly not about them being impossible.

          • Pamasich@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Probably because of the Adblock Plus mention. It’s mired in controversy because of its acceptable ads toggle and requiring ad giants to pay for it. So I can imagine people downvoting comments that put it in a positive light compared to other adblockers.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              You may be right, but whether you hate ABP specifically or not should be irrelevant to the question. The question was why other extensions - like Adblock - can have those feature but uBlock Lite can’t. What’s different?

              I’d also like to know, personally. I’d wondered the same thing.

    • Polderviking@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The best option here is to just tank Chrome’s market share instead of making something that’s obviously not ideal, work.

  • Jimius@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    if ads were normal and unobtrusive. We wouldn’t need ad blockers. Instead we get an almost unusable internet where ads take up more and more real estate. I had been running an ad blocker for so many years that when a friend (who doesn’t use an ad blocker) showed me a website, the unfiltered experience was horrifying.

    • padge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’d be okay with sites showing me unintrusive non targeted ads, but since it’s all or nothing I choose nothing.

    • Elaine Cortez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I was about to comment something similar but you said it before I did. Sometimes I’ll mistakenly open YouTube with Chrome and then I realize I messed up because I have to sit through three, sometimes one-minute long ads just to watch a twenty second video. I’ll typically just nope out and switch to Firefox. The worst thing is they’re unskippable and I swear for some of them the ad actually pauses if you switch to another tab or browser. I’m getting ads even on super old videos so I’m pretty sure it isn’t all to do with the channels themselves monetizing their videos.

    • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I went to help out a friend, a few years ago, he runs vanilla Edge, I can’t believe anyone actually uses the internet like that.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Im old enough to remember the internet before ads, and with ads became a thing and you had to make sure to keep your speakers low/off all the time less some screaming loud ad popped up somewhere to burst your eardrums at 2am.

      There were so many obnoxious, visual cancer ads.

      Then they became actual digital cancer by being injection points for viruses and malware, and thus adblockers became a necessity.

      And they remain a necessity to this day, for the same reason as they were 20+ years ago.

      and yet the ad servers want to blame the end user for adblocking.

      not their absolute refusal to moderate or police any of the content they deliver.

      • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        and yet the ad servers want to blame the end user for adblocking. not their absolute refusal to moderate or police any of the content they deliver.

        This is the American way. You try to shit blame elsewhere so noone puts the onus on you to improve so you can keep a larger portion of the profit. “Fuck you I got mine” should be printed on our money lol

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    I take this as a sign that it genuinely still works to block ads and hasn’t sold out and become malware like those others that used to be popular.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was removed because Google did away with manifest v2 for browser extensions, and uBlock Origin worked almost entirely from a feature provided in manifest v2. So it was removed because it can no longer work on chromium devices, unless the browser manually adds back in support for it. Firefox has chosen to continue to support manifest v2, so the original uBlock origin is still available. uBlock lite is still available in the chrome store, and uses the new manifest v3. It is more limited in it’s capability, but should be able to get the most obtrusive stuff. The lite version is definitely not nearly as powerful as the original.

      On a side note, it seems to me like the link still works for now. Idk how much longer that will last.

  • knexcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They changed the phrasing, since in some jurisdictions “sharing anonymized data with partners” can apparently be interpreted as a sale of data, if they get something in return, even if it’s not a fiscal payment.

        But after the outrage that sparked, they’ve rephrased the policy again and wrote a lengthy article detailing the reasoning, which is at the very least plausible.

      • enthusiasm_headquarters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I read about this too, and it worries me. Google has donated over a billion dollars to Mozilla over the years. That alone doesn’t scare me so much as it’s a blatant propaganda tool to deflect the antitrust sentiment that plagues them and will probably some day do its work of breaking them apart.

        Fortunately, there are numerous open source forks. I am currently using Librewolf, a fork of firefox focused on privacy and anti-tracking, and it has worked without a hitch. A couple of my extensions have required fiddling with to get right but it’s part of life if you care about these things.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven’t actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes, because the definition of “sell data” varies by jurisdiction, and they can’t guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of “sell data” in some jurisdictions. In particular, California’s CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren’t actually selling data still fall under its definition of “sell data”.

            • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox?

                That’s not what they actually did, though. They revised the wording to clarify:

                You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

                For example, if you type something into the address bar, they need to have the permission to take your content (whatever you’ve typed) and send it to a third party (a search engine) to get autocompletion results.

                Here’s the blog post that clarifies the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It is 100000% a reason to split Chrome and the ad sales part of Google into different companies.

      It won’t solve the problem but the pressures end up being orders of magnitude different.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s a way to save your already-installed extension, in “Manage Extensions…” Enable dev mode, then Pack Extension.

    However the browser will probably just refuse to run it soon.

    Vivaldi, for what it’s worth, seems to still run uBlock Origin just fine. I am afraid to uninstall it now to test if it’ll re-install properly.

    My version: 7.1.3570.39 (Stable channel) (64-bit)

    Might be time to finally move to Firefox though, if Vivaldi doesn’t keep Manifest V2 support.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I wish Vivaldi wasn’t Chromium-based, because I think it’s the slickest browser out there.

        But it’s chromium, so it’s time to move on to Firefox regardless.

        Ladybird development can’t happen fast enough.

  • g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I swapped to Chrome years ago because YouTube stopped working right on Firefox.

    I’ve started the process of swapping back to Firefox after 10 years with Chrome over this.

    • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      There were a few extensions you could run in firefox that told youtube that it was totally for reals being accessed by a chrome browser.

      • g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Boy, that would have been good to know back in 2015, I feel like I let Google hoodwink me into using Chrome for all that time.

      • g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It probably didn’t have anything to do with Firefox itself. It’s likely related to something I messed up in FF or it was something to do with the ancient laptop I had at the time being a junk heap, but I tried Chrome and noticed that the trouble didn’t exist there. So I started using Chrome.

        I kept using it because of all the google integration, which was really handy when I was using the google business suite to run my own small business. I shut that down two years ago now, so there’s nothing really keeping me on Chrome any more.

        I swapped back to FF a few days ago and YouTube works fine now. So I’m back on the FF train and giving Google the finger the whole way over banning the adblockers that I liked.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know what he’s talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript’s standard.

        But google implemented it into chrome’s javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren’t available, but, because of a ‘mistake’ they didn’t work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google’s throat that it needed fixed.

  • jam_scot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I switched to Firefox many years ago, after their announcement I switched to Waterfox and I’m very happy with it.