This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I have been using a fork of Firefox called Floorp and so far pretty happy with it. Chrome and any variant of it has essentially a monopoly on the browser and Firefox will just follow what Google says anyway so I wouldn't recommend native firefox. It would be nice if Safari(WebKit) was more stable and available as an alternative.
Anyway: https://floorp.app/
I use regular firefox with a hardened config, and for mobile I use the Mull browser(available on F-droid). It's a privacy focused firefox port made by the DivestOS team, which is my mobile OS of choice.
Hardened Firefox, here I come.
For people who want to keep using Chrome, disabling auto-update works for me.
Never updating your browser again is a pretty bad idea when it comes to security
Can I just add a different perspective on this?
My dad is really old (like early baby-boomers), and I am basically the in-family tech support when the home computer starts acting strange.
Well, right after google rolled out this update, my dad clicked on what he thought was an online shopping link. It was actually an ad for a toolbar add-on. Queue like 6+ hours trying to uninstall that add-on and the bundled software.
I never had to worry about that in the past with him because I had u-block origin installed. Now I need to find something else that can run quietly in the background. And probably a better antivirus.
Nooooo, but MV3 is all about security!
This is how I know this is bullshit. I was reading the article and thinking "So, let me get this straight. The ads aren't the security risk. It's the ad blockers!"
Sure. Pull the other one.
so what you're saying is; this will bring old-school computer repair shops back? i'm sort of in favor of that 😂
Is there any organization out there that could actually promote an "Acceptable ad standard"? Like, maybe even something within web specs?
A long time ago, ads were slightly irritating, rarely useful, and considered a necessary evil for gently monetizing the web. We've had this slow evolution to draconian tracking nightmares that are genuinely dangerous and often written by malicious untraceable actors. I almost feel like we could pressure back towards decent ads if there was some standard by which they only received basic info about the user, showed basic info about a product, didn't pollute the experience or ruin accessibility, and were registered to businesses by physical address with legal accountability for things like false advertising.
That is...perhaps a vain hope though. It's just hard to picture futures where all websites run off of donations or subscriptions, because advertising is fucking hell now.
Google would never push this because it would cost them money in the short term, eg, next quarter.
They can't have that.
You mean like https://acceptableads.com/ which is only supported so far by Adblock Plus (and its parent company)?
The problem is until there is some kind of penalty for being too annoying or too resource consuming, it will always be a race to the bottom with more, worse ads. As people add ad blockers to their browsers, the user pool that isn't running them begins to dry up and more ads are needed to keep the same revenue. This results in even more people blocking them.
Two of the things I had hope for on the privacy side was Mozilla's Privacy-Preserving Attribution for ad attribution and Google's Privacy Sandbox collection of features for targeting like the Topics API. Both would have been better for privacy than the current system of granular, individual user tracking across sites.
If those two get wide enough adoption, regulation could be put in place to limit the old methods as there would be a better replacement available without killing the whole current ad supported economy of most sites. I get that strictly speaking from a privacy perspective 'more anonymous/private tracking' < 'no tracking' but I really don't want perfect to be the enemy of better.
Kids, remember, Google is an advertising company.
It blows my mind that there are major companies that are actively, and very publicly- working their asses off to undermine the interests of their own customer base. And not only are they still are enabled to exist- they’re profits are constantly growing. Which means, despite their nefarious and intrusive updates to their services…. People are eating it up!
Nothing will change until people do the work to make that change.
Take YouTube for example:
They have screwed people over time and again. From their content creators, to those that enjoy watching them. Yet- those that hate it so much would seemingly never organize themselves to boycott their services on a level that will ever hurt them.
So they continue to do it unstopped.
Nothing changes until something changes. It isn’t ever easy, but if you want it to happen badly enough, it is always worth it.
All it takes is for someone to stand up and take the reins!
(I cannot be that person as I have ADHD and will probably forget that I wrote this come later this afternoon)
Well said. Also maybe you forgot you wrote the comment by the afternoon, but it reminded me that I've been meaning to finally research more into adhd for better managing it, so thanks!
Hate to break it to you, but you are not Google's customer. Don't believe me? How much did you pay for Chrome?
This move is in fact being made with their actual customers in mind.
You're correct, but your argument is bad. I also paid $0 for Linux.
Sooo… those that buy ads you mean.
Google is an advertising company. Vertical integration ftw?
