• Matt3999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    59 minutes ago

    One of the extensions blocked is called “Trump blocker” - looks like they are getting into arse kissing too

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 minutes ago

      It’s not blocked because of the “Trump” bit though, right? It’s because it’s not a manifest V3 extension

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Yeah I only run chrome for Microsoft teams which I unfortunately still have to use.

    The other day I saw a list of like 20 plugins, about 90% of what I have installed, banned. Not that I ever want chrome back but WTF?

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t have any chrome extensions because I don’t use chrome. Everyone else should do the same.

  • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The sad thing is that people will see this and still try to find a way to keep using chrome instead of just moving to a browser that actually respects them.

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    One of my co-workers switched to UBlock Lite instead of UBlock Origin and now the ads are back.

    Now he’s working on switching to a non-Google browser.

    Good job, Google. You have killed Google for yet another former customer.

    • Aux@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Chrome users are not customers, they’re the product.

    • CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You are not Google’s customer. You’re the product they sell to their customers.

      Edit: Made this comment before refreshing the post to see the person above me. What they said.

    • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I 'm forced to use Chrome on my work laptop and it is the worst browser (even before the disabling of Manifest V2), but for security I can’t access many systems with even another chromium based browser . Funnily IT forces an extension on us and it isn’t compatible with Manifest V3.

  • DontNoodles@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I used to use Selenium extension on Chrome to test my applications for Chrome compatibility. Chrome said they are disabling it now. Do you not want web applications to be easily tested for Chrome compatibility, Google?

  • Sliversun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Glad that I moved to firefox 4 months ago and then to zen browser last week to avoid plugins removal. Haven’t looked back

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      So, the elephant in the room is Chrome killing ad-blocking.

      I think that Firefox (and Firefox forks, like Zen Browser) have low-enough marketshare that websites that depend on ad revenue may just kill support for Firefox if Firefox does permit ad blocking.

      https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

      As of February:

      Chrome: 66.3%

      Safari: 17.99%

      Edge: 5.33%

      Firefox: 2.62%

      The software used to view the Web in 2025 is really mostly under the control of either Google or Apple.

      • riot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think that Firefox (and Firefox forks, like Zen Browser) have low-enough marketshare that websites that depend on ad revenue may just kill support for Firefox if Firefox does permit ad blocking

        An argument could also be made that Firefox and its forks have low-enough marketshare that websites that depend on ad revenue won’t want to deal with the extra work of keeping those users out.

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        There’s always PiHole to block ads at the network level. It takes some setup and a raspberry pi but it can be one of the cheaper ones. And I’m pretty sure the sites aren’t going to do much more than check the User Agent to get the browser so User Agent Switcher will get around 99% of that.

        You could, I suppose, block Firefox in other ways (like maybe checking for some random Chromium feature not yet supported in Firefox) but Firefox isn’t usually far behind Chrome so it would almost take an entire new developer to be effective. And there’s probably ways around that too. (I’m a web developer but have never worked on an ad-supported project and never will so I’m not sure but life finds a way.)

        • tehmics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yep, I have my PiHole running on a Pi2 still.

          You’re underestimating these websites though. I already run into sites that arbitrarily throw up a “Firefox not supported” gate until I switch user agents. That will only get worse.

          I’m still very concerned about Firefox’s funding majority coming from Google search, especially after the antitrust shutting it down. https://slashdot.org/story/431592

          We’re headed for dark times for the open internet.

        • triptrapper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Is it possible to set up the pihole so certain devices are unfiltered? My partner works in digital marketing and needs to test that her clients’ ads are functional.

          • amphy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yep. You can just disable filtering for specific devices. Or, if you want to get more granular, you can create device groups with different levels of filtering (including none).

            My partner uses Facebook, I don’t. Her phone has Facebook unblocked, but it’s blocked on all our other devices.

          • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            As I recall, the answer is yes, as long as you make the Pi your DHCP provider or assign static IP. I was using it in the opposite way to block certain sites from certain devices. But my kids are old enough now that I haven’t done it in a couple of years.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t bother. Most sites I wouldn’t miss at all. There’s only half a dozen or so websites that could force me to take any action on my end.

      • coolmojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Safari on IPhone does have adblocker extensions. So the websites should stop supporting Apple devices as well in order to display ads. This is nearly 20% of users based on your stats.

  • mesa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah they essentially killed about half the extensions I use. I have to use the browser for work.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m just worried about how zdnet presumes to know what I think.

    Google kills things, that’s what they do. They can get fucked.