How would you even legislate that? "You can only use Linux if you're a registered business"? And how hard is it to register a one-person business in the US?
"You can only use Linux if your business has over X number of employees"? So make a non-profit business that "hires" anyone who wants to use Linux.
Linux users are incredible in their belief that issues of privacy, security, or data autonomy will push the masses away from what they're used to (OSX/Windows, Facebook/Reddit, etc) and towards better options (Linux, Lemmy, Mastodon, etc)
No, mate, absolutely nothing is gonna happen to Windows. It's gonna be perfectly fine. If we're lucky, there will be a 1-3% dip in user base towards Linux, but there's exactly 0% chance for a mass exodus that would make the upper management stop and think for a second.
Any student could be using AI as a resource similar to how I would use solutions manuals or previous tests to study back in my education. The good students aren’t gonna copy it verbatim and get flagged.
Those are the ones whose exam scores are also on the rise. After a certain point the AI does the thinking for you and you get perfect HW grades, but can't do well on exams.
You can use AI when doing homework (score is high), but you can't during an exam (score plummets).
What it shows is: the higher your homework score, the higher your exam score in non-AI using students, but with those using AI, that relation inverts - meaning that those who use AI to get stupid high scores in homework, just stop using their own brains and learning things.
I don’t understand what did you intend to respond to with this. as filtering instructions get more out of date, the addon’s privacy protections will also fail.
OK, I get what you mean. I guess if you require 100% certain and absolute privacy, then yeah, uBO is the way to go. Seems like a pretty narrow user-base, tho.
on youtube? if you fire up firefox, install uBO, ocannote uBO logger and open a youtube video page, you’ll see what it does. I don’t know what it does different because I don’t happen to have an itemized list of what does uBO lite do, but I suppose it has a logger function too, and you can compare it.
If there is a difference, it's not noticeable to me. I fired up YT on FF with uBO and then the same video on Vivaldi with Ghostery. Honest to God, I do not see it loading longer on Vivaldi.
to set variables used by youtube, to unfuck youtube in other technical ways, and to block behaviors it shouldn’t even think about doing (why does it need a scriptlet that blocks writing the clipboard??), blocks ad video segments, hides annoying things from the UI because I have lists enabled that do that.
Most of this sounds like I get in Ghostery too. Blocking specific HTML elements is the one feature I feel is missing from Ghostery, but that's not really an adblock/privacy feature, is it?
lol. can you give me a few examples when tracking is noticeable?
Various forms of suggested content based on searches/purchases, etc.
how? you do not seem to be trying to understand this.
People mentioned the technical differences a bunch of times. If you mean that I should get a PhD in network traffic and filtration to fully understand how these technical differences affect end-user experience, then yeah, i guess I'm not trying to understand it.
If not - maybe you'd be the first to give me some actual info?
I was about to say that. Isn't it something like "it just randomly travels from left to right in mid-air, but due to optical illusions it's not visible 100% of the time"?
ublock has many tools to defuse tracking mechanisms (...)
Fair. What I still don't understand is the level of impact this has. Considering I'm not being tracked in any noticeable way, or that I'm not seeing any ads, I just don't get why people in this post are acting like uBO being blocked is a significant downgrade to the user experience.
I’m starting to think that you might be not arguing in good faith.
Sounds like someone not arguing in good faith would say, if anything. How is me trying to understand the impact of the mechanisms used by uBO vs those used by, say, Ghostery, "arguing in bad faith? WTF are you talking about?
you should look up the wast documentation of uBlock Origin and you will get all the answers
I will not. Because I get the technical details, a bunch of people already talked about them here. But nobody was able to tell me what do these features actually do compared to other adblocks.
of course you didn’t. on youtube ads are not served from different domains. have you ever heard about pihole not being able to block youtube ads? that’s why. every ad is literally a video uploaded to youtube, it is even possible to watch them as videos, with their own video page.
So it's not a privacy issue, it's an ad issue. Which doesn't show, it's blocked.
What does uBO do different here?
or when ads start reappearing. the needs to wait for the next addon update, which may take multiple days.
Just FYI - that only happens to me on YouTube every once in a while. Like, three times this year for a day or two.
uBlock Origin and any other effective content blocker had that as its most important weapon, without exaggeration. it has many other techniques for specific circumstances, but preventing to load the ad scripts, and preventing network requests that send back data to the advertising company, are universally a powerful tool.
You're just repeating what you already said.
My question is: since there are (and always have been) other privacy-oriented extensions (e.g. Privacy Badger, Ghostery) and they still work just as they always have, what is the advantage of specifically using uBO with Mv2?
you don’t see them because addons can still insert unlimited cosmetic tweaks. CSS snippets that make specific elements hidden. but the ads are still loaded, consuming network and CPU resources, and the ad framework still collects usage, interaction and device data.
I just loaded up YouTube and didn't see a single call to a known ad server, so this seems to be false.
Also: the CPU usage of loading even a couple MB-worth of ads is negligible compared to the overall resource hungriness of Chromium.
(...) list updates are released much less frequently (...)
I did notice that every now and again YouTube would block me from using it due to detecting the adblocker, but is that an inherent disadvantage of Mv3? And why wouldn't the extension developers then embed the updated filter lists and just release them as extension updates? Does Google limit the frequency of those?
this is false. and instead of just claiming so, here is proof: there are built-in (but disabled by default) blocklists specialized for cookie prompts and such
Let me rephrase then: cookie prompt blocking capabilities are not tied to the Manifest version (clearly, as exemplified by things like Ghostery). uBO could easily switch to Mv3 and still do those things.
and as I said, uBO is not just an ad blocker, so saying xy ad blocker can replace it well is false.
But we're discussing the ad-blocking features, because these are the ones affected by Mv3, no?
All these other features exist and are perfectly fine in other extensions.
except that not really. Because again, the required browser APIs were removed, and even before that, privacy badger was not so effective
Define "not so effective". What's "effectiveness" in this case?
everything is effected that:
needs to block network requests, including loading of certain site scripts
depends on an up to date list of things to block
OK, but again: what's the difference for the end-user? Does it impact resources utilisation? Website loading times? Reactivity? I don't see a difference in how my uBO browser behaves vs how my Ghostery browser behaves, so what am I losing because of the Mv3 switch?
Not true since 2017 (and even before that it was kinda' disputed). The adblock part of the business went to Cliqz, a German privacy-focused browser, backed by Mozilla.
I have downvoted your comment because it's repeating a popular myth, nothing against you personally.
What capabilities did it lose? Like: what user-facing consequences are there of that lack of functionality?
Again: I haven't been using uBlock for a while now, I don't see any ads on any websites, including those within YouTube videos. So - what am I missing for not using uBO?
"If you don't enter your PIN in the next 10 seconds we'll 'accidentally' deport your daughter".
How would you even legislate that? "You can only use Linux if you're a registered business"? And how hard is it to register a one-person business in the US?
"You can only use Linux if your business has over X number of employees"? So make a non-profit business that "hires" anyone who wants to use Linux.
It's physically impossible to "outlaw Linux". That would mean outlawing the entirety of "The Cloud™".
Linux users are incredible in their belief that issues of privacy, security, or data autonomy will push the masses away from what they're used to (OSX/Windows, Facebook/Reddit, etc) and towards better options (Linux, Lemmy, Mastodon, etc)
No, mate, absolutely nothing is gonna happen to Windows. It's gonna be perfectly fine. If we're lucky, there will be a 1-3% dip in user base towards Linux, but there's exactly 0% chance for a mass exodus that would make the upper management stop and think for a second.
Such a weird title... Does the author really not see the difference between THIS and THIS?
Like, come on! There absolutely IS a way to treat inmates humanely or inhumanely...
Drop the difficulty level down a notch and just enjoy the story, ignoring the mechanics as much as possible.
That's what I do. I really do not love DnD.
Those are the ones whose exam scores are also on the rise. After a certain point the AI does the thinking for you and you get perfect HW grades, but can't do well on exams.
You can use AI when doing homework (score is high), but you can't during an exam (score plummets).
What it shows is: the higher your homework score, the higher your exam score in non-AI using students, but with those using AI, that relation inverts - meaning that those who use AI to get stupid high scores in homework, just stop using their own brains and learning things.
OK, I get what you mean. I guess if you require 100% certain and absolute privacy, then yeah, uBO is the way to go. Seems like a pretty narrow user-base, tho.
If there is a difference, it's not noticeable to me. I fired up YT on FF with uBO and then the same video on Vivaldi with Ghostery. Honest to God, I do not see it loading longer on Vivaldi.
Most of this sounds like I get in Ghostery too. Blocking specific HTML elements is the one feature I feel is missing from Ghostery, but that's not really an adblock/privacy feature, is it?
Various forms of suggested content based on searches/purchases, etc.
People mentioned the technical differences a bunch of times. If you mean that I should get a PhD in network traffic and filtration to fully understand how these technical differences affect end-user experience, then yeah, i guess I'm not trying to understand it.
If not - maybe you'd be the first to give me some actual info?
None of this explains what I"m looking for. Seems like you're arguing in bad faith. :)
I was about to say that. Isn't it something like "it just randomly travels from left to right in mid-air, but due to optical illusions it's not visible 100% of the time"?
Fair. What I still don't understand is the level of impact this has. Considering I'm not being tracked in any noticeable way, or that I'm not seeing any ads, I just don't get why people in this post are acting like uBO being blocked is a significant downgrade to the user experience.
Sounds like someone not arguing in good faith would say, if anything. How is me trying to understand the impact of the mechanisms used by uBO vs those used by, say, Ghostery, "arguing in bad faith? WTF are you talking about?
I will not. Because I get the technical details, a bunch of people already talked about them here. But nobody was able to tell me what do these features actually do compared to other adblocks.
So it's not a privacy issue, it's an ad issue. Which doesn't show, it's blocked.
What does uBO do different here?
Just FYI - that only happens to me on YouTube every once in a while. Like, three times this year for a day or two.
OK, that's a good write-up of what capabilities are missing. What I don't see there is the end-user impact.
Ads are blocked nicely, so that's not the issue. I'm assuming that some privacy related stuff falls through the cracks?
You're just repeating what you already said.
My question is: since there are (and always have been) other privacy-oriented extensions (e.g. Privacy Badger, Ghostery) and they still work just as they always have, what is the advantage of specifically using uBO with Mv2?
I just loaded up YouTube and didn't see a single call to a known ad server, so this seems to be false.
Also: the CPU usage of loading even a couple MB-worth of ads is negligible compared to the overall resource hungriness of Chromium.
I did notice that every now and again YouTube would block me from using it due to detecting the adblocker, but is that an inherent disadvantage of Mv3? And why wouldn't the extension developers then embed the updated filter lists and just release them as extension updates? Does Google limit the frequency of those?
Let me rephrase then: cookie prompt blocking capabilities are not tied to the Manifest version (clearly, as exemplified by things like Ghostery). uBO could easily switch to Mv3 and still do those things.
But we're discussing the ad-blocking features, because these are the ones affected by Mv3, no?
All these other features exist and are perfectly fine in other extensions.
Define "not so effective". What's "effectiveness" in this case?
OK, but again: what's the difference for the end-user? Does it impact resources utilisation? Website loading times? Reactivity? I don't see a difference in how my uBO browser behaves vs how my Ghostery browser behaves, so what am I losing because of the Mv3 switch?
Reacting to YT's attempts to block the ad-blockers faster is a good advantage, but it's not something inherent in the Manifest version, is it?
Well, yes, the reason being: it didn't switch to Manifest v3. Just like AdNauseam. BTW - both can still be installed, you just need to manually pull the .zip file and import it.
Not true since 2017 (and even before that it was kinda' disputed). The adblock part of the business went to Cliqz, a German privacy-focused browser, backed by Mozilla.
I have downvoted your comment because it's repeating a popular myth, nothing against you personally.
What capabilities did it lose? Like: what user-facing consequences are there of that lack of functionality?
Again: I haven't been using uBlock for a while now, I don't see any ads on any websites, including those within YouTube videos. So - what am I missing for not using uBO?
Ghostery blocks trackers. So does AdGuard. So does Privacy Badger. All of them work perfectly fine regardless of Manifest version.
So? What's the issue here, exactly?