SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to Ignore Chrome's Anti-Ad-Blocker Changes, Despite Shared Codebase
Despite sharing a common Chromium codebase, browser makers like Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi don't have plans on crippling support for ad blocker extensions in their products -- as Google is currently planning on doing within Chrome.
The three browsers makers have confirmed to ZDNet, or in public comments, of not intending to support a change to the extensions system that Google plans to add to Chromium, the open-source browser project on which Chrome, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi are all based on.
A few hours after reading about Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi breaking with Google blocking ad-blockers, I find this story -
Firefox may introduce a paid version in order to reduce its reliance on Google revenue
Mozilla, the maker of open source browser Firefox, is by no means strapped for cash; although the said browser is offered free of charge, the foundation has a lucrative search deal with Google.
Some of the revenue also comes thanks to its controversially proprietary online bookmarking service Pocket, and some from sponsored content and donations.
But although the Google deal is sweet – Mozilla is very dependent on it and nervous about the prospect, however unlikely, of losing it. Therefore it always seems be on the lookout for new revenue streams.
Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
In an interview with German media outlet T3N, the company's CEO, Chris Beard, said that it's aiming to launch the new version by October, with features like a VPN and secure cloud storage.
The company's already experimented with a VPN service by partnering up with ProtonVPN and offering a $10 subscription. Now, the company's thinking of offering some amount of free VPN bandwidth to get you started, and then charge a premium for metered access in the form of a monthly subscription.
So - what is the future? Are browsers to be divided between "free" browsers, that play games with Google, and paid browsers, which thumb their noses at Google?
And, how will all of that affect those of us who routinely modify their browsers? Will we have to work harder, for the same effect - or will we just be shot down in flames? Surrender to Google, or pay to browse?
Original Submission #0 Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday June 10 2019, @09:30PM (23 children)
These guys have been busy tanking their usage percentage for years; who the FUCK do they think is going to PAY to use the pathetic Chrome-imitating-but-not-as-good, hey-we-used-to-have-a-good-extension-system-oops-we-got-rid-of-it drivel FF has become?
The should just take Firefox out behind the shed, shoot it in the head, and ask somebody else to take over the codebase. Or I guess it's already open source, so...umm...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Monday June 10 2019, @09:39PM (1 child)
Maybe someone that doesn't want to give Google anything more than they have to.
Enjoy your ads and google tracking.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday June 10 2019, @10:01PM
The problem with paying Mozilla is that that implies we approve of all the nonsense they've been doing with Firefox development for the last several years. If I could pay them a negative amount of money to get them to stop mangling Firefox further, I would.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:07PM (3 children)
They did it to get multi-process. A reasonable trade-off. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Multiprocess_Firefox [mozilla.org]
The Chrome-look imitating I don't get either.
So far (modified) Firefox remains the only reasonable browser choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @07:36AM (2 children)
You have the strangest definition of "reasonable".
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Multiprocess_Firefox/Motivation [mozilla.org]
IOW, a surfeit of ads, and coders unable to do thread-safety to save their life. OR their project.
Good riddance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
What are you smoking? Ads got absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether you wish to run JavaScript is up to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:00PM
WHAT ELSE but ads can contain the javascript fit to hang the event loop? Pray tell.
A webapp doing such a thing would not get released except by mistake, as they are made to be at least somewhat usable.
(Score: 5, Touché) by vux984 on Monday June 10 2019, @10:30PM
I'd absolutely consider paying if the premium services represented a good value add for me.
I'd seriously consider donating otherwise.
"The should just take Firefox out behind the shed, shoot it in the head, and ask somebody else to take over the codebase. Or I guess it's already open source, so...umm..."
Right, what are you waiting for? If you do a better job than mozilla, maybe ill pay you. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Shire on Monday June 10 2019, @11:21PM (11 children)
Firefox has been a solid browser for years and they don't watch everything you do like Chrome does. If you really are privacy conscious then it's a no brainer to pick Firefox over Chrome. The only massive mistake they're about to make is with the new Hyperlink Ping Tracking [bleepingcomputer.com] that all the browsers are making mandatory which makes it impossible to stop sites from tracking every click you make.
I'm confident that both Chromium and Firefox will see forks or patches to code around the both the tracking and ad blocking limitations these companies are trying to bake in. Of course what will happen is Google will come out with a "Verified Browser" program and start requiring all their ad partners to block any browser that Google considers to be "rogue". They'll claim that browser forks are dangerous, no doubt connected to criminal activity, when in fact they just want to make sure they can watch you and shove ads in your face whenever they please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @07:41AM
Only? You seem to be forgetting telemetry.
(Score: 1) by Mer on Tuesday June 11 2019, @07:51AM (6 children)
Firefox is by default not good at all for the privacy conscious. You CAN turn off all the offending features but there's a lot of them, and most of them can only be turned off in about:config.
Some features can't be turned off at all (admittedly those are the most extreme to turn off such as js support).
And to top it off, FF has a habit of resetting user set variables in config when updating.
Nevertheless, the crackdown on adblocking shouldn't be a problem for any privacy minded user. Because the smart move is to block ads with your .hosts file https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
Former mozilla supporters should either go to palemoon for legacy support or icecat for a modern mozilla with sane defaults.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:23AM (3 children)
Goto about:config, filter for javas and set javascript.enabled to false. Not at all extreme but the only rational thing to do. Then add uMatrix and you're pretty damn well off.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:03PM (2 children)
That wont stop the hyperlink auditing. Mozilla has outright stated that you will not be able to disable it via about:config nor will any addon/extension be able to intercept it or turn it off. The only solution is to fork or patch the code.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:43PM (1 child)
or maybe a pre-parser ... that just removes the offending bits of "html" before sending it to the render/for-your-eyes-only engine?
like moving the proxy and the browser even closer together?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:11PM
That won't help if javashit puts it in the DOM. Patching is best.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Shire on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:15PM (1 child)
That's sadly true of pretty much all software and operating systems these days. You have to know where the switches are and take the time to flip them. But at least right now the switches ARE there and they CAN be flipped. What I object to is they are starting to come out with invasive "features" that cannot be disabled at all. Google is doing it with this adblocker crippling change, and Mozilla is doing it with their Hyperlink Auditing.
Unfortunately options like Palemoon or Icecat are woefully out of date and under supported.
The hosts files option is a performance killer and doomed to fail - it cannot keep up with the ever shifting domains pushing ads. That sort of blocking is best done at the router anyway.
The bottom line is we're getting to the point where you need to be an IT pro to stay ahead of the privacy invasions, and I'm finding my clients just don't care anymore. I think the "privacy race" has been lost and the open internet has become a corporate walled garden. You can no longer do anything without Big Brother watching.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:13PM
These things must reflect in specific, useful features not present, or in specific, dangerous bugs not fixed.
Otherwise, your word salad is nothing but cheapest sort of FUD aimed at stupidest sort of hipsters. I doubt any of these read Soylent.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 11 2019, @07:34PM (2 children)
Maybe true, but they've already made the massive mistake of ripping out their excellent extension system, which was most of the reason to use Firefox in the first place. And they'd already gotten rid of most of the other reasons to before that.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:30PM (1 child)
I hear this a lot and yet despite using a large number of extensions myself, I find that the authors of those extensions stepped up and delivered updates that made them work with the new API. I can't think of any that don't function now. Sure it was a disruption when it happened, but it was a short lived disruption.
Firefox, when properly configured, is the only major browser than doesn't spy on everything you do. That's why it's the basis for Tor as well. If you know of viable modern alternatives, I'd consider switching. But no way in hell could you ever convince me Chrome, Safari, or Edge are better.
Firefox is the current top dog in my book, right up until they have mandatory hyperlink auditing pushed out.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday June 14 2019, @11:36PM
I'll agree that firefox is still top dog for me, but they are a pomeranian to the mastiff they used to be. I just looked and I still have 10 "Unsupported" plugins list that I either have no replacement for, have a poor replacement for or have something different that's servicing as a half-hearted stand-in. And that's not counting plugins I just gave up on and removed.
I'd itemize where I'm at now, but I've already written that book several times now and none of the plugins of old appear to be any closer to working.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:44AM (2 children)
Unfortunately Chrome, or at least Chromium, isn't nearly as good about handling bookmarks. That knocks out most of the alternatives I've looked at except Konqueror and Vivaldi.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:53AM (1 child)
It certainly doesn't knock out Waterfox, does it?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:05AM
I haven't looked at WaterFox, and I don't remember why. Perhaps I felt I'd downloaded and tested enough browsers.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:45AM
Maybe if they made a fully supported browser that can run all the old extensions I care of, and made a binding contract with money-back guarantee that they won't revoke that ability in the next ten years, I might consider paying for it. Well, better also add a statement that they'll start listening to their users, but I'm not sure how legally binding that could be made.
Oh, and that payment certainly also better include security updates and bug fixes for no extra cost (no feature updates required — as long as they don't remove features I'm happy; if they really manage to implement a new feature I badly want, there's nothing wrong with getting that only with new payment).
But my guess is that that they would take the sorry remains of what was once a great browser, maybe put some extra stuff in it that nobody wants anyway, and try to sell that. In which case, tough luck.