Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #18092 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-01 21:11 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-06-02 16:41 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-19 08:31 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-19 09:16 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-19 09:19 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-19 15:14 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-19 15:52 +0000
              Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-19 17:31 +0000
                Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-19 19:10 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Ryan Kavanagh <rak@rak.ac> - 2019-06-20 18:17 -0400
      Re: [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox Stephen Hall <s__hall@gmail.com> - 2019-06-22 17:01 +0000

#18092 — [Link Posting] Google Just Gave 2 Billion Chrome Users A Reason To Switch To Firefox

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just
-gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/#3967fc3a751f
>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  Google is planning to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to
>  enterprise users only, according to 9to5Google. This is despite a
>  backlash to an announcement by Google in January proposing changes that
>  will stop certain ad blockers from working efficiently.
>
>  And the software giant is not backing down: It says the only people who
>  can use ad blockers following the change will be Google's enterprise
>  users.
>
>  The proposal?dubbed Manifest V3?will see a major transformation to
>  Chrome extensions that includes a revamp of the permissions system. It
>  will mean modern ad blockers such as uBlock Origin - which uses Chrome's
>  webRequest API to block ads before they're downloaded?won't work. This
>  is because Manifest V3 sees Google halt the webRequest API's ability to
>  block a particular request before it's loaded.
>
>  People aren't impressed. Many have complained about the move, which
>  effectively takes control away from the user and creates an incentive to
>  use other services instead.
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18098

On 2019-06-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>  The proposal - dubbed Manifest V3 - will see a major transformation
>>  to Chrome extensions that includes a revamp of the permissions
>>  system.  It will mean modern ad blockers such as uBlock Origin -
>>  which uses Chrome's webRequest API to block ads before they're
>>  downloaded?won't work. This is because Manifest V3 sees Google halt
>>  the webRequest API's ability to block a particular request before
>>  it's loaded.
>>
>>  People aren't impressed. Many have complained about the move, which
>>  effectively takes control away from the user and creates an
>>  incentive to use other services instead.
>>

I'd like to outraged, but how is it possible that no one saw this
coming?  Chrome/Google probably allowed this long enough to build up
marketshare etc., but it's in their interest to ensure you're not able
to block anything.  

There may yet be a market for a competent browser that you pay to use,
and in exchange, are given user-friendly features.  Asking for
free-as-beer software and the right to undermine that developer's
business model is kind of asinine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18249

On 2019-06-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>       ####################################################################
>       # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>       # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>       ####################################################################
>
><URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just
> -gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/#3967fc3a751f
>>
>
> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>
>>  Google is planning to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to
>>  enterprise users only, according to 9to5Google. This is despite a
>>  backlash to an announcement by Google in January proposing changes that
>>  will stop certain ad blockers from working efficiently.
>>
>>  And the software giant is not backing down: It says the only people who
>>  can use ad blockers following the change will be Google's enterprise
>>  users.
>>
>>  The proposal?dubbed Manifest V3?will see a major transformation to
>>  Chrome extensions that includes a revamp of the permissions system. It
>>  will mean modern ad blockers such as uBlock Origin - which uses Chrome's
>>  webRequest API to block ads before they're downloaded?won't work. This
>>  is because Manifest V3 sees Google halt the webRequest API's ability to
>>  block a particular request before it's loaded.
>>
>>  People aren't impressed. Many have complained about the move, which
>>  effectively takes control away from the user and creates an incentive to
>>  use other services instead.
>>
>>  ...
I delteted chromium from my machines as soon as I read that

I found a good ad/tracker/malware blocking hosts file here:-
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Placing that in your /etc/ directory redirects all the ad, malware and tracker
addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.

An even better option is to run a pi-hole as your local nameserver:-
https://pi-hole.net/
The latter has the advantage of blocking for all computers on the network
including your LAN-connected mobile devices.

DNS-based blocking does have some limitations compared to something like
ublock origin, but it's better than nothing.

-- 
  Gnd  -|o----|- Vcc      Hey computer, what's the weather in Sydney?
 trig  -| 555 |- dschrg   $> finger o:sydney@graph.no|tail -1|espeak
  o/p  -|     |- thrsh
  rst  -|-----|- cntrl    Steve555

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18253

On 2019-06-19, Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-06-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>       ####################################################################
>>       # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>>       # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>>       ####################################################################
>>
>><URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just
>> -gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/#3967fc3a751f
>>>
>>
>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>
>>>  Google is planning to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to
>>>  enterprise users only, according to 9to5Google. This is despite a
>>>  backlash to an announcement by Google in January proposing changes that
>>>  will stop certain ad blockers from working efficiently.
>>>
>>>  And the software giant is not backing down: It says the only people who
>>>  can use ad blockers following the change will be Google's enterprise
>>>  users.
>>>
>>>  The proposal?dubbed Manifest V3?will see a major transformation to
>>>  Chrome extensions that includes a revamp of the permissions system. It
>>>  will mean modern ad blockers such as uBlock Origin - which uses Chrome's
>>>  webRequest API to block ads before they're downloaded?won't work. This
>>>  is because Manifest V3 sees Google halt the webRequest API's ability to
>>>  block a particular request before it's loaded.
>>>
>>>  People aren't impressed. Many have complained about the move, which
>>>  effectively takes control away from the user and creates an incentive to
>>>  use other services instead.
>>>
>>>  ...
> I delteted chromium from my machines as soon as I read that

A tad premature. AdBlock+ still works just fine under chromium. And
isn't it the case that chrome != chromium?

> I found a good ad/tracker/malware blocking hosts file here:-
> https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

You're welcome to a copy of my 18,000 line hosts file. It may even
be on github, I'll have a look.

> Placing that in your /etc/ directory redirects all the ad, malware and tracker
> addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
> The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.

The host files
>
> An even better option is to run a pi-hole as your local nameserver:-
> https://pi-hole.net/
> The latter has the advantage of blocking for all computers on the network
> including your LAN-connected mobile devices.

I run a pihole, also. The blocklists it uses are publically available.

> DNS-based blocking does have some limitations compared to something like
> ublock origin, but it's better than nothing.

I find it to be very effective. Of course, if it starts to become
popular, advertisers will take steps to circumvent it.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 24th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18255

On 2019-06-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

>> Placing that in your /etc/ directory redirects all the ad, malware and tracker
>> addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
>> The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.
>
> The host files

Oops. I wonder what I meant to say there?

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 24th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18258

On 2019-06-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-06-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
>>> The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.
>>
>> The host files
>
> Oops. I wonder what I meant to say there?
>
Hahaha .. a momentary lapse of reason?  I've been getting those too lately ;-)

I just counted the number of lines in the "Steven Black" github hosts file:-
$ wc -l hosts
41458 hosts

Just sayin :-)

There's also a nice bloke who has a site at www.someonewhocares.org, 
but I believe the 'steven black' hosts file has already pulled the
someonewhocares hosts file and incorporated it into his.  
I guess Steven Black is a real person?

-- 
  Gnd  -|o----|- Vcc      Hey computer, what's the weather in Sydney?
 trig  -| 555 |- dschrg   $ finger o:sydney@graph.no|tail -1|espeak
  o/p  -|     |- thrsh
  rst  -|-----|- cntrl    Steve555

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18260

On 2019-06-19, Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-06-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2019-06-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
>>>> The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.
>>>
>>> The host files
>>
>> Oops. I wonder what I meant to say there?
>>
> Hahaha .. a momentary lapse of reason?  I've been getting those too lately ;-)

Old age, innit?

> I just counted the number of lines in the "Steven Black" github hosts file:-
> $ wc -l hosts
> 41458 hosts
>
> Just sayin :-)

Kewl. I shall merge that one in, also.

Err, what was the URL, again?


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 24th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18263

> Old age, innit?
>
>> I just counted the number of lines in the "Steven Black" github hosts file:-
>> $ wc -l hosts
>> 41458 hosts
>>
>> Just sayin :-)
>
> Kewl. I shall merge that one in, also.
>
> Err, what was the URL, again?
>
>
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts


-- 
  Gnd  -|o----|- Vcc      Hey computer, what's the weather in Sydney?
 trig  -| 555 |- dschrg   $ finger o:sydney@graph.no|tail -1|espeak
  o/p  -|     |- thrsh
  rst  -|-----|- cntrl    Steve555

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18265

On 2019-06-19, Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> Old age, innit?
>>
>>> I just counted the number of lines in the "Steven Black" github hosts file:-
>>> $ wc -l hosts
>>> 41458 hosts
>>>
>>> Just sayin :-)
>>
>> Kewl. I shall merge that one in, also.
>>
>> Err, what was the URL, again?
>>
>>
> https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

Aye fang kew.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 24th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18272

On 2019-06-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> I found a good ad/tracker/malware blocking hosts file here:-
> https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

Peter Lowe has a similar list [0] of ad servers in a variety of
formats. I run unbound on my laptop and have been using his list with it
for nearly a year now, and it works pretty well. It looks like his list
already gets aggregated into Steven Black's though.

He also links to a dozen or so other lists of ad servers [1], not all of
which are included in Steven Black's. For example, this one [2] has some
783k hosts across a dozen categories (ads/tracking services, phishing
sites, etc.).

Best,
Ryan

[0] https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/
[1] https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/links.php#2
[2] http://www.hosts-file.net/

--
|)|/  Ryan Kavanagh      | GPG: 4E46 9519 ED67 7734 268F
|\|\  https://rak.ac     |      BD95 8F7B F8FC 4A11 C97A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18286

Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-06-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> ####################################################################
>> # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>> # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>> ####################################################################
>> 
>> <URL:https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just
>> -gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/#3967fc3a751f
>>> 
>> 
>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>> 
>>> Google is planning to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to
>>> enterprise users only, according to 9to5Google. This is despite a
>>> backlash to an announcement by Google in January proposing changes that
>>> will stop certain ad blockers from working efficiently.
>>> 
>>> And the software giant is not backing down: It says the only people who
>>> can use ad blockers following the change will be Google's enterprise
>>> users.
>>> 
>>> The proposal?dubbed Manifest V3?will see a major transformation to
>>> Chrome extensions that includes a revamp of the permissions system. It
>>> will mean modern ad blockers such as uBlock Origin - which uses Chrome's
>>> webRequest API to block ads before they're downloaded?won't work. This
>>> is because Manifest V3 sees Google halt the webRequest API's ability to
>>> block a particular request before it's loaded.
>>> 
>>> People aren't impressed. Many have complained about the move, which
>>> effectively takes control away from the user and creates an incentive to
>>> use other services instead.
>>> 
>>> ...
> I delteted chromium from my machines as soon as I read that

But Chrome and Chromium are not the same thing. I didn't read the article
but I'm not sure if Chromium will be impacted since it's a open source
project.

> I found a good ad/tracker/malware blocking hosts file here:-
> https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
> Placing that in your /etc/ directory redirects all the ad, malware and tracker
> addresses to null.  Of course you need to edit in your local settings.
> The file is updated regularly so you need to download it periodically.
> 
> An even better option is to run a pi-hole as your local nameserver:-
> https://pi-hole.net/
> The latter has the advantage of blocking for all computers on the network
> including your LAN-connected mobile devices.
> 
> DNS-based blocking does have some limitations compared to something like
> ublock origin, but it's better than nothing.
> 



-- 
S. Hall

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web