A dupe from the other day?
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20056864" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20056864</a>
Great to see mainstream media picking this up and giving Firefox some exposure.<p>With Microsoft switching to Chromium, Firefox is now the only viable (cross platform) alternative. FF gaining back a solid amount of market share is critical for the browser ecosystem in the future.<p>(Personally I switched back to FF after the first Quantum release, which brought performance back on par with Chrome. On mobile, the ad blocker is even more essential to get somewhat acceptable load times...)
Google is rapidly becoming persona non-grata in my view. There is something really, for the lack of a better word, scummy about it in the last year or two.<p>We partnered with them on their DialogueFlow platform (voice recognition) for Google Home integration and voice command intent handling and they totally screwed us over. I won't/can't go into the specifics but it was bizarre; we had no recourse except taking a near trillion dollar company to court. We decided it was not worth it and wrote off the cost and took a hit but never again.
I switched 6 months ago to Firefox on all my mobile devices. Put simply I need the ability to block ads. A lot has been written on privacy but the immediate issue I was facing was around malware - a lot of it being delivered via Google's own ad networks. There were certain sites (mostly tech related) that I simply couldn't visit anymore due to frequent browser hijacking. Later versions of Chrome for Android shipped with a setting that would prevent some of it but it was disabled by default and hidden well away from the user. It started to feel like Google was not only well aware of the problem but was choosing to be complicit in all of it. I reported the ads but they clearly didn't want to know about it. I would urge to anyone that cares about their own security to make the move to Firefox, and to urge others to do the same (be it family, friends or colleagues).
The state of the debate is unsatisfactory.<p>Google employees such as Justin Schuh are aggressively defending the move on tech/security principles and denying commercial motivations, while uBlock Origin dev (Raymond Hill) says the change will cripple or kill uBO on Chrome and evil motives are its <i>raison d'être</i>.<p>It's good that mainstream media articles raise the awareness of the issue, but a good technical discussion by impartial analysts would also help.<p>Is it possible to fix the security issues of the existing webRequest API without deprecating it? Or by replacing it with something safer but just as powerful? There should be a simple answer to those questions.<p>(I'm tempted to side against Google because they keep invoking "performance issues", which is a ridiculous argument: nothing helps Chrome's performance more than efficient ad-blocking. But still, I'd like to know more.)
The article recommends Brave and Pi-Hole, as well.<p>For folks looking for simplest anti ads and tracking browser (for friends and family, for instance) should consider Firefox Focus [0] instead of Brave. It is light and works like a breeze on lowest of configurations.<p>And folks using Android not bothered enough to setup Pi-Hole should consider using Intra with nextdns or adguard-dns [1].<p>I've installed Intra for friends and family on their phones, on their AndroidTVs... It takes a quick one minute setup and another minute to show them how to use it. Esp, nextdns' analytics dashboard is a real eye-opener for them. When they actually <i>see</i> the results, they start taking notice and are bothered enough to figure out how to blacklist additional domains.<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15049171" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15049171</a><p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20051049" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20051049</a>
As the antitrust investigation of Google progresses, they must find a fine line : get as much control as possible of the web while leaving enough margin for competition to avoid an antitrust ruling. That move to limit adblockers might be strategically required from Google at this point, and the fact that they might lose market share an expected result. They've already reached 70% market share, limiting adblockers will allow them to extract more value from their current users and also avoid becoming too obviously hegemonic.
The original article has an update (5/30) from a google spokesperson: “Chrome supports the use and development of ad blockers. We’re actively working with the developer community to get feedback and iterate on the design of a privacy-preserving content filtering system that limits the amount of sensitive browser data shared with third parties.”<p><a href="https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterprise-manifest-v3/" rel="nofollow">https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr...</a>
> Another option is using something like Pi-Hole, says Wright. “This works on the DNS level and has blacklists of adverts as well as malicious URLs.”<p>I think nextdns is fantastic for this purpose and has a barrier of entry that makes it usable for non-tech folks as well.<p>I created an account recently and linked my WireGuard server's IP (when connected) to a saved nextdns configuration.<p>Ads/trackers are now blocked on all my devices that use the WG egress when the provided DNS server is set in each peer's conf.<p>This is obvious given the scale of their blocklists, but let me just say the browsing experience and speed boost is utterly phenomenal. Does a better job at blocking than both my old Pi-Hole server and my localhost AdGuard Home daemon.<p>[0] <a href="https://nextdns.io" rel="nofollow">https://nextdns.io</a>
I really want to use Firefox because of Quantum and other Rust goodness, but until they catch up on usability I'm happy to stay with Brave. Tab-to-search is sorely missing in Firefox, and the tab creation and switching experience on Android is awful.
>Another option is using something like Pi-Hole, says Wright. “This works on the DNS level and has blacklists of adverts as well as malicious URLs.”<p>You can also run a ridiculously simple script from time to time (or create a cron job that does it for you, for example) to update your hosts file periodically, using the same blacklists[0]. No extra hardware needed.<p>[0]: <a href="https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts</a>.
Does anyone know the status of the Chrome native ad blocker, the one that would block just the "obtrusive" ads? I remember hearing about it a while back and if it comes out with this change I think it would solve the use case of most people.<p>Not that I don't want people to switch to Firefox/other browsers, I just feel like if Google implements their own solution I think most people won't mind...
One thing I haven't seen mentioned: Chrome OS. I have two Chrome OS devices that are useless without adblock. They can't handle the real internet. And who would want to buy a Chrome OS device that could?<p>My Chromebox is my most used computer in my house (it powers the living room TV) so this'll be a real inconvenience for my family.
Maybe advertisers need to go back to the drawing board and devise a better way to deliver their message. Ad blockers exist because ads are annoying and even crippling.<p>Google's Adsense (or whatever you call those text ads that appear next to search results) was a reasonable compromise, unobtrusive and often useful, whereas full window timed ads that force you to click the "x", and similar excessively animated distractions and pop-ups, are what motivate people to install add blockers.
Are there web developers in this thread?<p>The only praise for a browser that I am hearing in this and similar threads is about how a browser is superior for content consumption (browser X is faster, etc.). It’s never about how one browser offers better developer experience than others. And I have not yet found a browser that is nicer to develop in than Chrom(e/ium).
I've sort of switched: mobile is FF; desktop is Chrome. The thing that still gets me with both is that memory usage is -insane- and I cannot figure out why it is so high. After a few days of usage I'll close all but one tab and will have a 4+GB process.<p>Thank you to FF for maintaining AdBlocking but memory usage needs love, too.
Being shown ads is a requirement for many web sites. Responding to them is not. The focus of ad blockers is all wrong; the priority should be to appear to see ads without actually seeing them, and to protect privacy.<p>A browser of the future will fail to display ads, while giving no hint of this to the ad source; ads need to be downloaded as usual.<p>A browser of the future will cloak its identity by sandboxing each website, manipulating browser signature and apparent IP address (some variation of VPN services) to destroy tracking.<p>The issue isn't saving resources, it's winning the privacy wars.
Glad to see people caring.<p>99% of people don't even know that adblockers exist. Those same people are generally scared of computers.<p>Trust me, this isn't gonna matter. I saw these same arguments during the IE/Firefox war. Didn't matter that much.
Tried out Firefox again a few days ago. Still prefer chrome. If add blocking becomes an issue with chrome, I'll definitely make the switch because of that and just hate it or go back to safari and hate it just as much
Man, the backlash against Google is extreme. It's much faster than the backlash against Microsoft back in the day - at least, that's my feeling. Note I'm not saying it's not well deserved!
I have one system I still use chrome on - my late-2013 Macbook Pro.<p>The reason I use chrome as my main browser there is because Firefox and Slack do not seem to be friends on MacOS. I use slack in the browser rather than the native app and FF seems to get copy and paste functionality all messed up.<p>I would use Safari, but some quirk of the office webmail (Outlook of some sort) means that email from Safari gets flagged and blocked as potential spam by an outbound mail server :/<p>But everywhere else, Android phone included, it's Firefox because they don't pull these kinds of shenanigans.
I've downloaded firefox <i></i>ESR<i></i> and am migrating my important addons to firefox equivalents. Up to now all of them, apart from _authy_ (a crucial one) have native versions.<p>For me extentions like _uBlock Origin BitWarden_ & _LastPass_ are vital<p>Now I have to look if the latest incarnations are not as CPU hungry as the ones that forced me to stop in 2013.<p>If it is good on this ageing #DAW, I have my response to google's FU to us, their users<p>Update:
Firefox still uses much more CPU on my machine, that will create a problem when google pushes their crap through our throats
The title of the article (which is different from the title here, which is merely clickbaity) is misleading, though there is the potential that ad blocking becomes much worse due to the deprecation of the webRequest api mentioned in the article. If that does have a significant impact on ad blocking, I would expect many users (both devs and casual users) to switch to Firefox.
Firefox has always been my weapon of choice, I used both chrome and firefox with a lot of tabs loaded so I can be logged into different accounts on the same Saas. I'm actually switching chrome out with Brave browser, so far it has been a pleasant experience.
just switched two days ago. it's been nice ten years, see you google.<p>my main hurdle was absence of decent support for multiple isolated profiles in firefox and it's still not great but multi-account containers are good enough for now.
After the story I installed Firefox. I got it configured, and was happy to see that it's as good as Chrome. For now I'll keep using Chrome, but the moment the adblockers stop working, I'll be on Firefox.
Chrome already banned adblocking on mobile, since many years. Interesting (but good!) that this relatively minor api change now gets even mainstream media to barricades.
A valuable lesson I learned from @dhh was: never put your customer back in a buying position[^1]. For example, if you discontinue your legacy[^2] 1.0 product, and force them to <i>switch</i> to your shiny/better/faster 2.0 product, when 1.0 was working just fine for them, you are forcing them back into a buying position. And this time, they might choose your competitor.<p>Chrome was way ahead, but by overreaching against ad-blockers, they forced their users back in a buying position, and this time Firefox had gotten way better. Unless Google messed with the status quo, their users would never consider switching. The only thing pushing me toward Fastmail is that Google keeps messing with Gmail/Inbox.<p>This death-cycle seems to be unavoidable for MBA-types who inherit working products, and I bet you could build a business around this idea, or at least design a consistent enterprise takeover strategy.<p>[^1]: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkiCpPeYuI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkiCpPeYuI</a>
[^2]: Legacy = any code you can't (safely) change.
All of this "debate" is pretty absurd.<p>Yes the webrequest v3 proposal seems problematic for scripts /malware / crypto / ad / etc blockers.
This is consensual.<p>Chromium is open source and has those two main actors: opera and Microsoft.<p>Almost everybody seems to consider chromium in the debate as a proprietary software owned by Google.
And thus argue to switch to Firefox.
Let's be clear, when you look at the technical, chromium is a far superior browser.
Chromium has far more active devs, far more features (look at caniuse.com) and has almost systematically better performance. And it has many others kinds of advantages.
All of the stated advantages are sufficent to consider chromium as the best browser.<p>So instead of arguing that opera or Microsoft or simply open source community will simply stay in sync with chromium master but keep the patchs for keeping the current webrequest api.
You want people to choose a poorer, less featureful browser which has real consequences on what web devs can offer as user experiences.
This is forgive me, dumb.<p>What everybody should ask for is to mozilla to get rational and to migrate Firefox to chromium while backportikng the best parts of gecko to chromium 1) and to ensure the respect of privacy in the chromium source code 2)
This would lead us to a web that evolve far more quickly, to the fastest browser and to an implementation which satisfy every interests (the ones of Googles and the one of Microsoft/mozilla)
If Google and mozilla disagreed on something, mozilla should maintain a set of patchs for applying their custom changes (a micro fork)<p>That's simple but there's still a long way for the medias and the people to understand that.
I would have hoped that hackernews community, wanting to be like the pre-eternal September would debate with intellectual riguour in the common goal of seeking true, sound progress.
"For now, Wright thinks people should use Brave instead: “Brave is built upon Chromium so all existing Chrome plugins and even themes work on it. This is perhaps why it's seen an increase in user numbers.”"