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).

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wasn’t there just an article about how Mozilla is claiming ublock origin shouldn’t be supported anymore and another one claiming they’re starting a focus on ads?

    I feel like we’re entering a really shitty time for the Internet… Tie that in with Microsucks Recall feature and computing in general is going to suck…

    I don’t want to go touch grass!!

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      The closest I can find is

      https://www.ghacks.net/2024/10/01/mozillas-massive-lapse-in-judgement-causes-clash-with-ublock-origin-developer/

      Which is only the “lite” version (which really has no reason to be used in firefox) and was likely based on an improper scan. Which happens constantly and is usually an email and a few days of waiting rather than immediately going to the press.

      If you can find something about Mozilla actually being anti-adblock or disabling manifest v2 that would be incredibly useful. But maybe be aware of what is going on before vaguely making major claims?

      • Grangle1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        IIRC Mozilla doubled down on their v2 support when Chrome announced the shift to v3. But then the Chrome monopoly judgment came down and with it a lot of speculation on Google dropping their funding of Mozilla, so maybe Mozilla could be changing its tune to either protect or find a replacement for that funding? Nothing of substance is happening yet, it’s still all speculation, but I do hope nothing like that does happen.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Mozilla has been diversifying for ages, it’s what stuff like buying pocket was all about. They should be making around 100m off the side hustles by now, plenty to keep the lights on, but still a small sum compared to the 500m they get from selling the default search engine spot.

          Also, just as a reminder: Mozilla doesn’t exist to make money for Firefox, Firefox exists to make money for Mozilla’s general internet charity work.

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

        Yeah, the “lite” version should only be in the Chromium Store and its for support of the garbage better know as manifest v3 that is better off going to the scrapheap.

    • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      In fact, uBlock Origin is one of the officially recommended extensions by Mozilla

      uBO Lite was incorrectly flagged as violating policy by someone at Mozilla, but rather than appeal that decision in any capacity at all, the developer just removed the add-on entirely without responding to Mozilla. The original decision was almost certainly just an error.