Google to push ahead with Chrome's ad-blocker extension overhaul in earnest On Monday, some people using Beta, Dev, and Canary builds of Google Chrome will be presented with a warning when they access their browser's extension management page – located at chrome://extensions. The banner will say that legacy Manifest V2 browser extensions will stop working soon. Those extensions include ad-blockers …
That might solve the issue on an individual scale, but Chrome has rigorously infested both the corporate and K-12 education market share to an absolutely absurd extent, and in both of those environments you often don't _get_ a choice on what client to use.
Chrome is sitting at ~65% of the total browser user base in most statistics, with Firefox making up a measly 3%. If they can forcefully drag even a fraction of them back into an ad-infested tracking-burgeoned internet, why wouldn't they? What is the captive audience going to do, stop working / attending digital learning platforms in protest?
I really don't care about what corporate does in its own space. Corporate has money, and it is responsible for its own decisions.
The US education market is a joke anyway.
For the rest, intelligent, knowledgeable users will know how to manage Chrome in a suitable way. And that includes Firefox users, however much you seem to look down on 3% of the market.
Personally, I don't mind being part of the 3%. NoScript is a blessing.
Well my company has decided that the only supported browser will now be Edge. Chrome is absent from new builds, although you can still install it until the end of the year, then it will be removed. Extensions are forbidden on Edge, so no Ublock or NoScript, but at least the corporate firewall does a decent job of filtering ads.
I've been able to sneak in a copy of Firefox, and so far updates and extensions go through, but I don't know how long it will take the Browser Police to detect and remove it.
Just installed Brave and I quite like it straight out the box with no fiddling about.
Opera (mini) has descended into farce what with football pop ups, dodgy serverage and (IMHO) sort of shadowbanning of any news website that might upset Israel. So Opera is now uninstalled.
Vivaldi is feeling a bit clunky now and it's going after this post.
As for Chrome, Edge etc never!
Hmm maybe I should actually give Brave a try. I'm just so ingrained into my (current) 87 Windows the busiest of which has 157 tabs - yes I'm doing it wrong, I treat tabs as L1 bookmarks, with bookmarks as L2 bookmarks that almost never get any attention (one of those tabs is even the Brave homepage from 2023?!).
Can brave import Chrome tabs/windows and keep the size of the windows as they were? I might just try tomorrow,,,
In corporate land here, we use Firefox... because I run the damn network and I insisted. Chrome is available but not encouraged. Same with Edge and Safari.
I do adjunct instructing at a local college. Brave, Chrome, Edge, Firefox and (Gasp! Shock! Horror) MSIE are available on Windows machines, Brave, Chrome, Firefox and Safari on Macs. No Linux in use by the general user population. Yes, MSIE on Win 10 systems. Or, as the desktop icon says 'Internet'. Certain older, that is, more experienced, non-technical senior staff with job titles like 'Dean' and 'President' feel that the Internet hides behind a blue 'e' with a gold arc. Note that clicking on the MSIE 'Internet' icon on the desktop actually loads Edge except on certain machines... the machines belonging to certain senior staff. And on most of those, it's Edge pretending to be MSIE thanks to a MS kludge.
Yes, I hoped I coul manage to get my customers to use Chromium, but I see that the shit is deeply radicated into Chromium, not just Chrome.
And since every fucking web app nowadays requires Chrome (or Chromium-based browsers, maybe) then yes, Google has won and we are fucked.
I still use FF and linux and will continue as long as I can, but the ads war is lost, and to be honest it's been lost since years, not just today.
"And since every fucking web app nowadays requires Chrome (or Chromium-based browsers, maybe) then yes, Google has won and we are fucked."
There's one service I use that has lowered themselves into going away from web standards and only supports Edge and Chrome for some of the functions that would be handy. They are on notice from me that if they don't pull themselves back up into the light and make their product more universal and browser agnostic, I'll be evaluating their competition for a something that does.
Time and time again I see this sort of thing happen and the author of the browser "improves" their software in some way that breaks that web application and people are left with nothing. As I am reselling a service, it sucks for me if I have to tell clients that it isn't available at the moment while somebody frantically races to make the software work again or I am forced to no longer offer that service until I can find a replacement. If I do find a replacement, the original provider isn't going to get me back unless they show they've learned a lesson and don't base their product/service on something they don't control.
I use ungoogled Chromium when I need to access Google, with a fake Gmail account. It is set to allow everything, and delete everything (cookies, logins, history ...) upon exit. The only thing is to be careful to log-in with that fake account. Firefox for everything else, set to strict with uBlock Origin, except banking which uses yet another browser. Sort-of manual sandboxing
I'm always surprised at the amount of ads I see when using another computer : geez, poor people, do they have to go through that all the time ?
You could either capture incoming web data before it hits Chrome in a browser translation layer [in an external device or software], manipulate it, and then feed it to Chrome, or you could run Chrome in a hidden window, replicating whatever content you want in a visible window, and not replicating any you don't want until your script works on it. You are still using Chrome, but the way you want to.
This post has been deleted by its author
But the problem is the same for Brave as everyone else. If you show ads, there's money to go round that might support the development and maintenance. If you don't show ads, then you find the harsh reality that too few people will pay to support the necessary work (much like journalism). At the moment Brave is funded by a collection of investors. How will they get their money back, with a return?
Brave serves ads too and it has a lot to do with their income.
Brave does serve ads, but it looks like only on the Brave Search page. I wouldn't know, because I changed the search default to DDG (doesn't everybody?) and turned off all the crypto bro stuff. Brave Shields (the built-in adblocker) says it's blocking 3 ads/trackers here at the Reg (usually I run uBlock Origin as well but turned it off just now to see what would happen). We'll see what is necessary when Manifest 3 becomes the only game for Chrome. Going back to PaleMoon (my previous browser) is always an option if I'd stop keeping so damn many tabs open.
3 ads/trackers here at the Reg
Browsing El Reg is a completely different experience at work (no ad blocking) to at home (mostly just NoScript). Sidebar ads I can tolerate, or a small banner at the top of the page, but El Reg has the habit of enormous in-line ads, often distractingly animated, which change size occasionally meaning the entire page re-flows and the bit of the actual article you were reading disappears either off the top of the window or the bottom. Utterly frustrating and were it not for the fact I've been a Register reader for more years than I care to remember and still find (despite the handbrake-turn to left-pondian styles) plenty of interest, I'd probably be off somewhere else, at work anyway. At home, not such an issue :-)
M.
Yes, Brave developers are beholden to the advertising industry to provide advertisements for their Brave Rewards Program. You can find all the nitty gritty details here https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ . But they do in the end make money off advertising. Fortunately, its voluntary and opt-in at the moment but who knows what will happen in the future.
Correct. I don't mind ads per se - well, okay, a bit, but some of my peripheral vision for content is a trade I'm willing to make.
The first problem I have with ads, by far, is tracking. My personal data is not a currency I want to trade for content, especially not without my informed knowledge and consent. In fact, I consider grabbing personal data without informed knowledge and consent to be unethical, and I support efforts to make it illegal.
That problem is so widespread that I just adblock everything, even though I recognize that ads are the only viable source of revenue for many services I use. I do not believe tracking is required for ads to be valuable. I will stop using adblocks if and when I become convinced that the GDPR is being properly enforced. We are not even close.
The second problem I have with ads is intrusiveness. My central vision is a lot more valuable. I might be willing to trade some of it, but only in limited circumstances. I don't consider shoving ads on top of content to be unethical, but it does make it extremely likely that I'll adblock it and/or stop using that service.
The second problem I have with ads is resource consumption. I do not appreciate ads and their related machinery taking up a large proportion of a web page's resource usage. Serve images with a sensible resolution, short clips, no scripts. I'll still see the ad. Showing me a high-res video with full surround sound is not going to make me more likely to click, and may make me adblock if it makes the page load slow on a crap connection.
I really don't think I'm killing the Internet with these requirements. Untargeted ads and contextual ads have worked for literal centuries.
I might be killing the ad targeting industry, to which I say good riddance, make sure to bury it deep. Targeting is something you do to enemy combatants, not to your customers.
Similar effect here running NoScript. It's not an ad blocker per se, but that is the happy result :-)
If any website owner or ad-slinger wants to post ads that don't depend on scripts, then that may well be fine with me. Depends on if they choose to use huge flashing gifs or not :-)
(ISTR that back when ads were primarily GIFs, there was a browser setting to not automatically "play" them, which, comically, often left just a solid coloured rectangle where the ad was supposed to be)
And the Brave browser does have an advertisement program. It's called Brave Reward and is described as a program to "Support content creators and earn tokens for ads you see in Brave. Use your tokens to buy gift cards, exchange for other currencies, and more." Apparently you receive what they call "BAT" or Basic Attention Tokens for every viewed ad. And I assume they make back-end money from the advertisers for allowing their ads to be shown in the Brave Reward program. Fortunately, for now it is purely a voluntary, opt-in program. But who knows what the future might bring.
People will continue using Chrome because "that's what the cool kids use" (I really heard that!), and because the Manifest 2 vs. 3 debate is totally uninteresting to them, even if they were able to understand what it means.
Unfortunately nothing can stop people from using Chrome nowadays. Remember back when Chrome was a new, inferior browser which covertly replaced their usual browser, and yet they started using it without hesitation. Why would they change now it has become a de facto standard, and an ever-increasing number of websites go the "Best Only viewed in Chrome" way?
Google managed to do what Microsoft failed to achieve back then, to build a de facto, unchallenged browser monopoly. They just keep a vestigial Firefox alive so they can't be accused of being the only choice. Apple helps with that too.
(Written using Firefox)
Microsoft did manage successfully to build a browser monopoly, with Internet Explorer. It was pretty much the industry standard for browsers in the late 90s and 2000s and killed off the paid for browsers like Netscape.
But MS thought they didn't need to do anything as they had the monopoly so they failed to innovate allowing Firefox and later Chrome to pop up offering new features such as tabs and extensions and people realised that IE was actually pretty crap compared to these new browsers. And MS have been desperately trying ever since to get a foot hold back in the browser market after the went from having over 90% of the market to under 10% in a pretty short period of time.
Sure, but have you seen what the internet looks like these days without an ad blocker. It is completely unusable.
I occasionally get to see friends and colleagues browse to something they want to show me, through an unfiltered browser. I'm flinching, but they're oblivious.
I've gently suggested uBlock Origin (to no avail); maybe it's like kerning, where it's only once uneven letter spacing has been pointed out to you do you start noticing it everywhere...
"Google managed to do what Microsoft failed to achieve back then, to build a de facto, unchallenged browser monopoly. They just keep a vestigial Firefox alive so they can't be accused of being the only choice. Apple helps with that too."
Yeah, the same tactics MS used to avoid becoming a monopoly. They propped up Apple when it was on the verge of dying for the same reasons. Although that did end up biting MS on the arse :-) Sadly, I don't see that ever happening with Firefox v Chrome.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yay another Linux user saying "Just use this"...
All you need to do is read this horribly formatted 100 page guide, and then just use this file on another terribly formatted website.
And someone with common sense goes..."and for the other 99.99% of people?"
This post has been deleted by its author
Privoxy - multiplatform. From the manual:
"2.1.2. Windows
Just double-click the installer, which will guide you through the installation process. You will find the configuration files in the same directory as you installed Privoxy in.
Modifying a hosts file, from the provided link:
"Windows automatically looks for the existence of a HOSTS file and if found, checks the HOSTS file first for entries to the web page you just requested."
Oh, yeah, that page on hosts file does mention Linux. Right at the very bottom.
"Although I do not use either Linux or a Mac, I often get requests for "How To" on that system, so here are a few resources:"
See icon --------------> :-)
"I'm curious, why on Earth do you need 5 browsers? Why one is not enough?"
There's been a move away from published web standards by the browser publishers which leads to some other entity using that non-standard bit for their web application or page. If you don't have a choice such as your local utility company's payment system only working with one browser, there's nothing you can do if that browser won't work with something else you need such as your insurer's web site.
To be fair they didn't specify that their goal was to make extensions more private and secure for END USERS. Sounds like they want to make them more private and secure for advertisers, all the better to guarantee their ads get served to as many Chrome suckers users suckers as possible!
How many people actually use ad blockers in Chrome? I'm sure I could find out by trawling the store in search of installation counts, but I can't be bothered.
But, if Chrome really is as widespread as it appears, with over 60% market share, that's a LOT of users, and I am certain that only a tiny percentage of the domestic users, at least, have even heard of an ad blocker, let alone have one installed or even know how to install one.
Those of us that have, and do, are probably an insignificant percentage of Chrome's user base compared with the seething tide of clueless users who don't. For them, the change will be irrelevant, as they will continue to see the same ad strewn web as they do right now. Consequently, there will be no outpouring of rage from the majority of Chrome's users, the righteous fury of the ad blocker savvy users will be discounted as the ravings of a niche bunch of malcontents, and the Chrome juggernaut will roll on unimpeded.
Chrome cane from nowhere and won the web because the browsers of the day were fairly crap while Chrome was small and fast. It could happen again, but this won't be the catalyst.
"But, if Chrome really is as widespread as it appears, with over 60% market share, that's a LOT of users, and I am certain that only a tiny percentage of the domestic users, at least, have even heard of an ad blocker, let alone have one installed or even know how to install one.""
ISTR an El Reg article on this very subject a little while ago that reported some significantly large percentage of US users surf the web with ad blockers as a matter of course. This may be one of the reasons Google is fighting back. It's a war of escalation.
EDIT to ad the link
Because they got advice at one point from a more technically competent friend to the effect of "internet explorer sucks, install Chrome" and are either still using that same PC, or remembered it and did it on their current one. Or that current one just came with Chrome installed - Google can afford to pay PC makers to be preinstalled, Firefox can't.
The only thing that will dislodge it is if Chrome (and therefore Edge) finally drop MV2, and the situation with adblocking is as bad as feared, and people get angry about all the ads and get advice from a more technically competent friend to install Firefox.
Even then remember that a LOT of people are running without an adblocker. I don't understand how they even consider the internet usable without it, but they certainly won't have any reason to leave Chrome behind.
The real thing you should fear is if web site operators decide to block everyone not using Chrome, rather than trying to detect who is using an adblocker. If it was just Firefox they would do that in a second, but they can't because of Safari being exclusive on the iPhone. They can't afford to block iPhone owners because they are a significant percentage of the population in richer countries, and while a small percentage in poorer countries they represent the richest segment of that country's population.
> "internet explorer sucks, install Chrome"
That's true for old people. Most kids (ages 15-25) think that Chrome is the browser to have, using something else is being a weirdo (and also stuff doesn't work in other browsers, which is unfortunately often true).
They weren't even born during the Great Browser Wars, and they grew up in a world where browser = Chrome (except for the aforementioned weirdos with their greasy overcoats and their Firefoxes).
It is all described in excruciating detail here: The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power is Daniel Yergin's 1990 history of the global petroleum industry from the 1850s through 1990. And remember, Standard Oil was about selling kerosene for lighting, not fuel for cars, because cars were yet to be invented.
That book is fascinating, because it shows you how our modern world has been created out of the 'black gold'.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
