• @takeda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6614 days ago

          Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

          When I was working for an ad exchange, everyone had adblock installed in their browsers, I found that quite ironic.

          • @Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6114 days ago

            I would argue it’s a security issue not to have any ad blocking. Many scams online start with popups or fake ads.

            So if you get the opportunity to talk to IT that’s what I would mention.

          • @micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            614 days ago

            Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

            My IT department uninstalled it from my work laptop, and told me not to reinstall it because - and I quote: “The only browser IT officially supports is Google Chrome.”

            What makes this doubly stupid is that I’m a web developer. I literally can’t test my stuff on another browser…

          • @shyguyblue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            514 days ago

            I used to develop ads (non intrusive things for home depot or go RVing) and i used ad blockers. When testing, i would just run private browsing with plugins disabled…

        • @Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3314 days ago

          Officially only Edge is supported, but Chrome is tolerated. It’s a full MS environment.

          • @reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            Same here. The worst thing is in their justification of disallowing Firefox they listed that it was not an enterprise application. I get that it might be extra effort to support it but don’t list something factually untrue as a lame cop out for why you don’t want to.

            • @NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2714 days ago

              Was told it wouldn’t be allowed because you couldn’t restrict it using GPO… Until I told them they could absolutely apply those restrictions using GPO and even provided the ADMX templates.

        • Snot Flickerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3914 days ago

          At large organizations you’re generally not allowed to download much of anything without it passing through IT security and management first. If it’s a no, it will probably stay a no.

          • @Flagstaff@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1214 days ago

            I work for a non-profit and they are way more lenient about what we would like to install as long as the job gets done.

            • skulblaka
              link
              fedilink
              English
              514 days ago

              Then you have bad opsec and security holes.

              This matters more for some industries than others. But this attitude lets a malicious employee install basically whatever they want in service of “the job” and you won’t even know you’re being breached until after it’s all over.

              • @Flagstaff@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                213 days ago

                Well, we still have to get approval. But it just seems like they don’t mind as much. For example, I don’t know how many companies out there would be fine with installations of AutoHotkey and LibreOffice.

            • Snot Flickerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              Just to be clear, I mean it’s literally managed at the Group Policy level (in Windows server environments at least) and no amount of asking will suddenly give your user account permissions to be able to save files of any kind.

              You generally literally cannot download it without going through IT to get them to approve of and give your account access first.

              • @datavoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                214 days ago

                Ya I forgot I have escalated device privileges and an admin account, which I definitely would have used for installing anything. Although I believe I can also skirt the rules using winget on a user account. That will probably get you in trouble however!

          • @slumberlust@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            112 days ago

            In your experience, what large organization restricts this? I’ve worked at a few SaaS companies and a FAANG that always gave us full install rights and browser choice. Granted we are on the software side, but I haven’t experienced this at all.

      • @hunt4peas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        213 days ago

        Edge extension store still has it I think. Use it until Edge removes it as well. Then tell the IT to use Firefox highlighting the importance of adblocking.

        • @Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          113 days ago

          I don’t like my chances of swaying IT. The organisation is too big and I’ll get told I should be using Edge which is the only officially supported browser.

      • TXL
        link
        fedilink
        English
        214 days ago

        I would have run already.

      • @dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        If you had uBlock origin already, you may have gotten a message through Chrome that it was no longer supported, so it’s been disabled, and gives you the option to remove it. I noticed you don’t have to remove it, and it can be re-enabled. However, I need someone smarter with adblockers than I to say if this is actually helpful and not hazardous.

        • @Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          People are saying manifest v2 (the old API that ublock uses) will be gone soon, which I think should effectively make ublock unusable whatever you do unless you stop updating chrome maybe (which could open you up to a ton of security issues) ? Not sure, don’t care since I’ve ditched chrome long ago

    • FundMECFS
      link
      fedilink
      English
      314 days ago

      Is there any firefox based browser on android where I can have easy gestures for the arrow buttons? All the firefox versions I can find require me to do this in two clicks which for the way I browse is a pain in the arse. Can I fix this somehow?

    • Libra00
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1214 days ago

      Yeah, I switched to Firefox when this whole Manifest V3 thing was announced, I only still have Chrome installed because it’s better for PDFs than Firefox and once in a great while i run into a site that doesn’t work right on Firefox.

      • @Trashbones@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        214 days ago

        I actually really like Firefox for reading pdf’s, how is it in chrome? I’ve never actually tried chrome for that because I was still using okular back when I still had chrome installed on anything.

        • Libra00
          link
          fedilink
          English
          313 days ago

          The main issue I have with Firefox is that some pdfs have this side-by-side layout (especially rpg pdfs) that Firefox respects and I keep having to turn it off every time I load a new one. Chrome doesn’t respect it and shows it a page at a time like I want. My eyes don’t work too good so side by side the text is just too small.

          • @Trashbones@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 days ago

            Interesting, funny enough I have sorta the opposite problem using Firefox for PDFs: I like the side by side view of two pages and Firefox always loads books with single pages, zoomed way too far in for my taste. Have you tried it for PDFs recently? It’s a new way of reading them for me, and I wonder if they’ve changed it since you used it last.

            • Libra00
              link
              fedilink
              English
              210 days ago

              Yeah, it’s still set as my default for handling PDFs, so I keep opening them in there and then copying the address over to chrome by hand because I’m too lazy to go find the default app settings.

  • @Nanook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22714 days ago

    Google is not an IT company. It’s an advertising company. Surprised Pikachu, it blocks ad blockers.

      • @JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1814 days ago

        Because they are at the end of their growth phase and have entered their squeeze until dead phase.

      • @ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1114 days ago

        Yes, but enshittification doesn’t happen all at once. And this is a textbook example of the actual meaning of enshittification.

      • @Nanook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        Yeah it’s always been an ad company. And you are correct, blocking apps is new, welcome to the last stage in the ad-blocking arms race. Glad I degoogled my digital life a decade ago.

        • @JimBarbecue@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          314 days ago

          Hey, can you tell a little bit about your stack, what apps and services do you use? Also on phone? I guess in a decade you could work that out pretty well.

    • @ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8314 days ago

      Missing critical features:

      Filter lists only update with the extension, you cannot update them dynamically

      No making your own filters and thus no element picker for blocking annoyances on a webpage (a feature so good apple literally baked it into safari)

      No support for external lists (which means if you back up your own filters into a list you cannot easily reimport)

      No changing behavior on a per site basis

      A number of other features as well that are more strictly power user features but still really handy like dynamic filtering and strict blocking domains.

      If you have the option stop using chrome and edge, they are some of the worst options you could choose. Even outside of adblock and manifest v3 chrome is horrendous for data harvesting bullshit and edge isn’t great. If you don’t have the option because of an overzealous it dept or whatever and are forced to use it ubo lite is your best option probably and my heart goes out to you

      • Pamasich
        link
        fedilink
        614 days ago

        I’m a bit confused as an Adblock Plus user, why did the ublock dev drop those features? ABP uses manifest v3 too and it still has all of those. So it’s clearly not about them being impossible.

        • skulblaka
          link
          fedilink
          English
          414 days ago

          According to Adblock Plus’ own blog post about the matter:

          With Manifest V3, Adblock Plus is required to limit how many filter lists we have available to users. We’ll have the ability to offer up to 100 pre-installed filter lists that you can turn on and off depending on your preferences. From these available filter lists, users will be able to choose 50 that they can keep turned on at any given time. We’re working to ensure that popular filter lists our users love are supported by us, and that any updates to these lists are brought to you by frequent new releases of the extension. This does mean that initially, our users will no longer be able to subscribe to any filter lists outside of what is provided in the extension.

          Re: Element Blocker:

          The Block element feature will continue to exist even after the Manifest V3 version of Adblock Plus officially launches. Manifest V3 does require us to adhere to limits with filter lists and user created blocking rules, so there’s a chance things may change in the future. However, we don’t have details quite yet! If you have any more questions about this or anything else, our support team are the best people to ask at support@adblockplus.org.

          So this says to me that baked in filter lists are now required, custom lists will not work, and Block Element is probably functioning illegally if it is indeed still functioning though that may change in the future in either direction.

          Changing blocker behavior on specific sites is the only thing in that list that I see UBO disallow and ABP not mention at all. Not sure why that was changed.

          • Pamasich
            link
            fedilink
            314 days ago

            I’ve read that too, but I still have the ability to add a custom list. It says initially, so I assumed they got around that issue by now, considering it isn’t the case for me.

            I technically use Edge which afaik still allows MV2, so in case the extension somehow implements both and defaults to mv2 if available, I’ve decided to install Chrome and get ABP there to test. Even in Chrome, the ability to add a custom list is still there. As are all the other features, like manual updating. With custom list I mean both the ability to add a list per URL, and the ability to add custom arbitrary rules directly.

            I don’t really see why element blocking wouldn’t be possible or allowed under Manifest v3. Like, it’s entirely client-side. Manifest never comes into play there.

            What I can imagine is that custom lists might work that same way too, removing the ads from the page after they’ve already loaded rather than blocking the web request directly which is afaik how adblocking works in mv2. I can’t tell you if that’s the case or not.

          • Pamasich
            link
            fedilink
            614 days ago

            Probably because of the Adblock Plus mention. It’s mired in controversy because of its acceptable ads toggle and requiring ad giants to pay for it. So I can imagine people downvoting comments that put it in a positive light compared to other adblockers.

            • @ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              13 days ago

              You may be right, but whether you hate ABP specifically or not should be irrelevant to the question. The question was why other extensions - like Adblock - can have those feature but uBlock Lite can’t. What’s different?

              I’d also like to know, personally. I’d wondered the same thing.

      • @OpenHammer6677@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1114 days ago

        My work uses a web-based interface that’s very annoying to use on Firefox. I’m unfortunately tied to Chrome in the meantime, so uBlock lite is a lifesaver.

      • venotic
        link
        fedilink
        814 days ago

        Or just use a fork of firefox. Firefox isn’t looking very favorable lately.

      • @AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        214 days ago

        Firefox was stubborn enough not to support H.265 till JUST recently and only on windows… Doesn’t work with my 4k security cameras as well as Chrome or Safari based browsers.

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
          link
          fedilink
          English
          714 days ago

          H.265 is patent encumbered. Blame the 2 or 3(?) patent pool holders (for-profit corporations, unlike non-profit -and-slowly-losing-market-share Mozilla) for not making it free to use for everyone.

          This is why AV1 is preferred, it saves bandwidth and there’s no threat of being sued into oblivion.

    • @Polderviking@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      The best option here is to just tank Chrome’s market share instead of making something that’s obviously not ideal, work.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL
      link
      fedilink
      English
      414 days ago

      I only use chrome for my work stuff, and that’s because I work with g-suite a lot.

      Chrome fucking sucks

    • Victor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      113 days ago

      I wish I could say the same. Web dev. 🫡 But at least I’m using Chromium, if that’s even slightly better.

  • @knexcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6413 days ago

    This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.

    • @TehWorld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      813 days ago

      I’m mostly in the same boat. If you really want to know my kink-search-history, I really DGAF. The morality is nice to think about but it’s all about your personal morals in a lot of cases.

    • @Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1313 days ago

      firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently

      • @viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2213 days ago

        They changed the phrasing, since in some jurisdictions “sharing anonymized data with partners” can apparently be interpreted as a sale of data, if they get something in return, even if it’s not a fiscal payment.

        But after the outrage that sparked, they’ve rephrased the policy again and wrote a lengthy article detailing the reasoning, which is at the very least plausible.

      • TheRealKuni
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1413 days ago

        As I understand it that has more to do with covering their ass. They haven’t changed their practices.

      • @dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        913 days ago

        They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven’t actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            713 days ago

            Yes, because the definition of “sell data” varies by jurisdiction, and they can’t guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of “sell data” in some jurisdictions. In particular, California’s CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren’t actually selling data still fall under its definition of “sell data”.

            • @JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -213 days ago

              And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.

              • @dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                13 days ago

                forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox?

                That’s not what they actually did, though. They revised the wording to clarify:

                You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

                For example, if you type something into the address bar, they need to have the permission to take your content (whatever you’ve typed) and send it to a third party (a search engine) to get autocompletion results.

                Here’s the blog post that clarifies the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

      • @enthusiasm_headquarters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -313 days ago

        I read about this too, and it worries me. Google has donated over a billion dollars to Mozilla over the years. That alone doesn’t scare me so much as it’s a blatant propaganda tool to deflect the antitrust sentiment that plagues them and will probably some day do its work of breaking them apart.

        Fortunately, there are numerous open source forks. I am currently using Librewolf, a fork of firefox focused on privacy and anti-tracking, and it has worked without a hitch. A couple of my extensions have required fiddling with to get right but it’s part of life if you care about these things.

  • Kokesh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6014 days ago
    • Chrome is no longer available in my phone, computer,…
  • @scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5714 days ago

    I take this as a sign that it genuinely still works to block ads and hasn’t sold out and become malware like those others that used to be popular.

    • @Bazoogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      914 days ago

      It was removed because Google did away with manifest v2 for browser extensions, and uBlock Origin worked almost entirely from a feature provided in manifest v2. So it was removed because it can no longer work on chromium devices, unless the browser manually adds back in support for it. Firefox has chosen to continue to support manifest v2, so the original uBlock origin is still available. uBlock lite is still available in the chrome store, and uses the new manifest v3. It is more limited in it’s capability, but should be able to get the most obtrusive stuff. The lite version is definitely not nearly as powerful as the original.

      On a side note, it seems to me like the link still works for now. Idk how much longer that will last.

  • @g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3513 days ago

    I swapped to Chrome years ago because YouTube stopped working right on Firefox.

    I’ve started the process of swapping back to Firefox after 10 years with Chrome over this.

      • @ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1813 days ago

        I know what he’s talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript’s standard.

        But google implemented it into chrome’s javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren’t available, but, because of a ‘mistake’ they didn’t work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google’s throat that it needed fixed.

      • @g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        413 days ago

        It probably didn’t have anything to do with Firefox itself. It’s likely related to something I messed up in FF or it was something to do with the ancient laptop I had at the time being a junk heap, but I tried Chrome and noticed that the trouble didn’t exist there. So I started using Chrome.

        I kept using it because of all the google integration, which was really handy when I was using the google business suite to run my own small business. I shut that down two years ago now, so there’s nothing really keeping me on Chrome any more.

        I swapped back to FF a few days ago and YouTube works fine now. So I’m back on the FF train and giving Google the finger the whole way over banning the adblockers that I liked.

      • @FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        213 days ago

        The only problem I’ve had is that you can’t view HDR content in YouTube on Firefox.

        That’s not a big part of YouTube (yet), so it is largely unnoticeable.

    • @Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1313 days ago

      There were a few extensions you could run in firefox that told youtube that it was totally for reals being accessed by a chrome browser.

      • @g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        413 days ago

        Boy, that would have been good to know back in 2015, I feel like I let Google hoodwink me into using Chrome for all that time.

    • @karma@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      613 days ago

      If they break youtube in alternative browsers or force ads I’ll finally be able to ditch youtube for good.

    • @devedeset@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      413 days ago

      Ironically YouTube seems to work better for me in firefox, although the issue in chrome may be caused by browser extensions

      • @g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        513 days ago

        Something was going wrong with video playback. Unfortunately, this was about 10 years ago so I don’t remember many specifics about what the problem was.

        • @TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          313 days ago

          I’ve exclusively used firefox to watch youtube on Arch and Ubuntu for years, never had a problem so far for what it’s worth. I keep a laptop in the livingroom with Arch specifically to have adblocking and piping the video out to the TV. The youtube apps are terrible on the Roku last I remember, haven’t tried it in forever but I think the main reason was I didn’t want to see ads anymore.

          • @g4nd41ph@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            213 days ago

            My wife and I used the YouTube app on a Roku TV for some time, and it was rough. I’m not sure if the intense lag was caused by the app or the low specs of the TV, but either way it was a poor experience.

  • Arghblarg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3214 days ago

    There’s a way to save your already-installed extension, in “Manage Extensions…” Enable dev mode, then Pack Extension.

    However the browser will probably just refuse to run it soon.

    Vivaldi, for what it’s worth, seems to still run uBlock Origin just fine. I am afraid to uninstall it now to test if it’ll re-install properly.

    My version: 7.1.3570.39 (Stable channel) (64-bit)

    Might be time to finally move to Firefox though, if Vivaldi doesn’t keep Manifest V2 support.

      • @Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        914 days ago

        I wish Vivaldi wasn’t Chromium-based, because I think it’s the slickest browser out there.

        But it’s chromium, so it’s time to move on to Firefox regardless.

        Ladybird development can’t happen fast enough.

        • @Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -114 days ago

          By that argument the time was a long time ago then. Vivaldi still works with uBlock so nothing has changed on their end. I think it’s still reasonable to use Vivaldi until they are forced to Manifest 3. Despite being Chromium based they’ve always been privacy focused and vocally pro ad blocking. As far as the cult of Firefox, they’ve been showing their true colors lately. They are no saints and their biggest funder is Google. Never forget to follow the money. I’m not personally convinced that a switch on a purely ideological level is indicated.

  • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    And that is why I went to Firefox once Google announced this bullshit.

    Swapping is pretty painless. It even brings over all your passwords and stuff these days. Best get to swapping before Google disable that as well. They’d just love to keep you hostage.

      • zer0
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1314 days ago

        Some suggestions:

        • Bitwarden (US based but with EU hosting, free tier, open source)
        • proton-pass (Swiss based with free tier)
        • Keepass (open source system, free “self-hosted” through cloud saves)
        • 1pass (Us based, paid tiers only)
        • Lastpass (US based, free tier. Lots of breaches in the past so I can’t recommend)
        • YTG123
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          If you self-host Bitwarden you can also get the paid tier features

          • zer0
            link
            fedilink
            English
            313 days ago

            I’m using voyager it looked fine formatted there. Good to know though

          • @11111one11111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            I wish more people were like you. Not everyone can keep up with everyone’s beefs (this one not so much) but it really grinds my gears when I see seemingly polite, on topic, engaging or contributing comments with no replies but still geyting down voted. Especially on a forum as thirsty as Lemmy users are for more user involvement.

            It makes me think there are too many people in the world conditioned to be preset to hate thst the fact a person doesn’t know they’re supposed to hate something is enough grounds to be shunned and hated on. Lol. It’s cool to see someone jump in and say:Hey homie, we don’t hate you we hate a person who is unrelated to the topic of the thread or the context of your comment but we do hate them enough to hate on you

            Edit: the parenthesis comment was meant to imply hating Trump monkeys is glaringly obvious. My comment was about lemmy etiquette and wasn’t about why or why not OP was getting downvoted.

            • Victor
              link
              fedilink
              English
              313 days ago

              It’s gotta be some kind of sheep brain activation; crowd following behavior. It can be very annoying sometimes.

              Sometimes you’re just voicing a neutral opinion and it gets destroyed. And by neutral I mean it’s not controversial or anything, like racism, it could just be something not exactly everyone would agree with.

              I wish people would use the down vote as Reddit once intended it to mean: off topic and not contributing to the discussion, or perhaps rude, etc. Not “I don’t agree with this”. You should explain why you don’t agree with something, or up vote a comment that already explains it.

          • @Bristingr@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 days ago

            Honestly, hadn’t logged in for a few days, so didn’t even know I was severely downvoted. Leaving Reddit has helped me not scroll through every day for hours on end on Lemmee.

            And good to know about the Brave CEO thing. I legit cannot keep up with everything.

    • @ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      914 days ago

      It is 100000% a reason to split Chrome and the ad sales part of Google into different companies.

      It won’t solve the problem but the pressures end up being orders of magnitude different.

  • Arghblarg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2114 days ago

    I really hope some team has been following the changes in Chrome/Chromium by Google to remove Manifest v2, and has been keeping a patchset that will undo the damage? Time to make a hard fork and get some funding to try to keep it going?

    • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2214 days ago

      Multiple browsers have said they will keep support while the code is still there (in Chromium it’s still there, only disabled for now).

      When it is removed from Chromium, it’s probably going to disappear for most or all major Chromium browsers.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        514 days ago

        Well I would seriously consider paying money to a team that keeps it there, if Chromium actually removes the code. I hope others will consider it as well. We need to fight this, even if it means paying some money to a foundation to do so.

        • Tywèle [she|her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2614 days ago

          Use Firefox and you don’t need to worry about that. Everything being Chromium comes with a whole lot of different problems.

    • @adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1014 days ago

      i expect at least the ‘big’ ‘non megacorp’ chromium based ones like vivaldi, opera, brave to keep mv2 as long as it is possible.

      but i can totally see google doing some serious mangling of the codebase to make patching-in mv2 difficult.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1114 days ago

        There’s the futile hope I suppose that antitrust cases going on against Alphabet might force Google to divest Chrome from its advertising arm, so that there’s no pressure to make this whole thing worse. Hah, in my dreams.

        • @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          514 days ago

          On paper they gave the keys to the Linux foundation, but since they still pay most of the developers working on it the only thing it might achieve is taking resources away from Servo.

        • @adarza@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          514 days ago

          that would be funny, won’t happen–but funny af. google loses chrome, new owners revert mv2’s removal and go all-in on user control of their browser experience.