You're viewing a single thread.
it baffles me that people are still using Google Chrome.
Most people don't use an ad blocker and most people don't even know this drama exists.
Which makes it weirder why take a grudge against us.
It's a recession and suddenly the money lost to adblockers matters.
Reddit tried to force me ads down the throat and I just stopped using it. Yeah, it's hard, but I ended up having more time for myself. I don't get to send silly Videos to my friends as often, but who gives a fuck. At least I get time to hoover and shit
I still have the old Infinity installed and it works fine without payment, I just have to browse kind of slowly to avoid getting rate-limited. I also stopped participating much to avoid giving them free content.
most people don't even know this drama exists.
Guilty, I'm ootl. Can someone explain why my Everything feed is all about browsers?!
Here’s the TLDR version:
-
Most users (at least in my observation, in the instances and communities i’m on) on Lemmy are privacy minded, open source fans, linux enthusiasts , etc.
-
Google is evil and will suck up any data they can find on you and sell it to anyone that will give them a buck. Lemmy users don’t like that. (me either)
-
Google also makes a lot of money selling ads that are crafted for your likes based on the data they steal from you. Lemmy users also don’t like that (me either).
-
Ad blockers will hamper some (not much) of google’s ad revenue so they don’t like them. many users use Ad Blockers ( I use an ad blocking DNS server)
-
Recently Google announced that their Chrome browser would not allow ad-blockers because it’s changing the functionality that ad-blockers use (Google sucks, don’t use Google stuff)
So that is why it’s showing up an Lemmy a lot right now.
I searched but could not find any announcement. Can you link where they say they won't allow adblock?
It's not like they actually announced it. They wouldn't do something so suicidal. However, they have changed the code API that add-ons like adblockers use under the guise of "keeping people secure"
These changes have essentially neutered adblockers so they're only 10-20% as effective as they once were.
Firefox has gone out of their way to speak out against this, that it doesn't help privacy or security quite as much as they say and ensures their browser still includes the code required to make add-ons like adblockers work properly.
Firefox isn't the only option, but most other browsers are based on chrome. Meaning they don't have a lot of options. Some have opted to build their own adblockers directly into the browsers, howeever those adblockers aren't as good options as having an unaffiliated add-on that we can swap out if it gets dirty, and starts taking money from advertisers to deliberately stop blocking specific ads from them.
brave is a particularly bad offender. It specifically actually only blocks ads that don't come from its own ad service - using adblockers as a means to stop other ad services from competing with it.
You guys are talking about the removal of manifest v2. According to a reddit post in ublockorigin. The lite version will be very limited compared to the regular version. Fortunately, Firefox still works, and it won't be an issue for a while(on mobile and desktop)
It, and Google's own blog, says June.
We're way past June and adblockers still work?
“ In June 2023, the Chrome Web Store will no longer allow Manifest V2 items to be published with visibility set to Public. All existing Manifest V2 items with visibility set to Public at that time will have their visibility changed to Unlisted. In January 2024, following the expiration of the Manifest V2 enterprise policy, the Chrome Web Store will remove all remaining Manifest V2 items from the store. “
Looks like existing ones might still work until January?
-
You've already got some answers, but the recent drama is specifically about a Chromium-centered API, called Web Environment Integrity.
It has been found on a Google engineer's Github account, and iirc it's being tested on Chrome.
It's basically web DRM.
The idea is that the API allows websites to require browsers to guarantee they are unmodified through a "third-party" attester, like Google SafetyNet (or whatever the fuck it got rebranded as) does.
Imagine if you were trying to access a mobile-only website on your PC, by changing your HTTP user agent string;
the website would refuse to serve you the page, and tell you "I don't trust you, are you really a Google Pixel?".
A real Pixel's browser would ask Google Play to vouch for it, and the website would trust Google Play (due to cryptographic shenanigans and whatnot); your browser, however, would not have an attester that:- is (claiming to be) universally accepted as trustworthy;
- answers "yes, I'm a Google Pixel" on a PC;
- has the necessary cryptographic secrets to work.
That doesn't sound too bad.
But, what if the attester can check your browser's extensions, and tell the website that you're running an adblocker (which is WEI's explicit goal)?
What if it also checks your system's running processes or applications?
What if you ran a debloater script for Windows, and the attester decided that a lack of ads in the start menu was sus?What if it detected VPN usage? I know some governments that wouldn't like that, I bet they would like it if VPN users would be denied access to half the web...
If the comment about VPNs is true, I will lose touch of half of my friends and families that live in Iran. This is truly evil..
It's "true" in the sense that it could happen in theory, Google is (allegedly?) planning to use WEI for forcing people to see ads rather than China-firewalling the web; also, WEI was still under development last time I checked.
Whether the attesters that end up being universally trusted will poke around to check for VPNs is up for speculation, for now.
Even then, this is just an API for websites. If you use other means of communication, you'll be fine.
I noticed my YouTube become extremely slow. I was using edge for watching videos. Chrome eats the ram and this ad block makes it easier to just switch. The next attemp would be how to avoid them showing use chrome whenever I google or use gmail or so.
I'm from the Philippines and I can explain why, at least here, most people still use chrome. Over here, we're much more concerned about our money and time over our rights and privacy, which means we usually just choose the most convenient and cheap money-wise, which is why the majority of us still use chrome and why the government here can get away with so much shit. we don't care about our rights not because we're being given bread and circuses, but because we're too busy making a circus out of ourselves so we can buy bread.
I don't think that's good excuse. Firefox is free and installing it takes less than 10 minutes.
Don't underestimate people's lack of motivation to switch. Sadly Firefox doesn't come pre-installed on any major phone brands.
I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.
Yes, it's quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don't have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.
Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they're more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.
They're also not even making excuses. They're simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.
Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it's not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they're reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.
Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.
I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.
Fair enough! It does take a lot of time to build an understanding of the issue here and I failed to take that into account. I realize not everyone has that sort of time, inclination or even general interest in the subject and that privacy is not exactly at the top of values for most people.
Still, I think people as individuals are still at least a little bit at fault for the way things are, though certainly the most of it falls on the system that fails to teach people about this sort of stuff and on the corporations that take advantage of that lack of knowledge.
I guess I let my frustration get the better of me in my comment. Sometimes it feels like there's this massive fire raging in the middle of the city and just a handful of us are trying to put out at least a tiny proportion if it while the rest just don't care about it.
Anyways, thank you for the well-written response, kind stranger, and for making me self reflect!
You got it! We all need a little reminder to take context into account sometimes. And I do appreciate what you were trying to do, which is promote privacy. It's a laudable goal, and one that I encourage you to continue. Just remember to meet people where they are, instead of where you want them to be. ;)
it's not about how easy it is to install it's that it has to be installed at all. Over here we prefer phones as there's a lot of cheap phones here that only cost less than $100, and since most phones here come preinstalled with chrome, even if firefox is free and all, why go through the hassle of having to go and install it when Chrome's already there?
most people here have a mindset of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" which explains a lot of things wrong in this country.
Lol. The privacy bits are what always make me doubt people who say they use iOS for privacy reasons. They'll scream that and then install every google service they can on the same phone.
Most people just use the default browser on their phone, even in developed countries. Add to that Google's constant nagging to switch to Chrome which has a powerful effect at keeping their dominance.
Chrome is the new IE, some websites only work on it, and i keep chromium for the same reason i had ie back then, to be able to use those sites.
I use Google Docs a lot and the only reason I haven't uninstalled Chrome is that, for whatever reason, the fonts don't display right on Firefox. They used to years ago but I suspect they changed something to negatively impact other browsers.
Fonts look fine here under FF:
Why? It does everything a non-techie would expect from browser and it performs well, why switch to something else?
That said I think Chrome is a terrible Chromium based browser. Edge and Vivaldi in my opinion are much better options. Edge for most folk and Vivaldi for more adventurous types.
Great translate feature. Instant.
I use Chrome and Firefox it really isn't all that baffling when certain sites just break on Firefox or a dev doesn't use the browser to promote their product.
We use hangouts for work calls and Firefox acts weird with it so keep chrome around for that.. it's super annoying.
Thank you, it's so weird to me that Lemmy users who were here before the reddit migration can't just admit products do certain things better than others and vice versa its not defending or justifying Google irs being rational and seeing a bigger picture. Google is the ass hole no matter what but you can't just say, "Firefox is perfect why are they using Chrome. When Firefox isn't perfect but it is way better since time has come along."
Or you could say that google's hangouts is specifically designed to perform worse in different conditions than it's home base.
What kinds of obscure websites do you visit
I guess guys don't see half the Lemmy posts I do with users complaining they can't download a piece of software like Adobe because Adobe tells them Firefox isn't supported.
I love how Lemmy users live in this small logical fallacy bubble of, "well I don't have it happen to me so therefore you must be the outlier instead."
Adobe because Adobe tells them Firefox isn’t supported.
And why? It has nothing to do with Firefox. So here, You are not using Chrome for its pretending superiority, you use it because of sabotage.
Don't get me wrong, you are totally free to do whatever you want, pal.
It doesn't matter what finger you point where and that is my issue with Lemmy. You can support what you want but the truth is the average user that you want to use Firefox needs a web browser that is supported and works and the truth is average companies used like Adobe don't use it or support it. I never said Firefox was the issue I said, it's not surprising that people keep using Chrome.
Feel how you want but it comes to things just being available Chrome has that edge. I also don't use Firefox to pretend not to use Chrome and that is the funny thing about the average Lemmy user. I use both because both have different benefits. If want to block ads and keep my privacy intact I use Firefox which is why none of my Google life is a part of Firefox. I use Proton and DuckDuckGo when using Firefox and pay for Blokada 6 for VPN usage on my OS and DNS over HTTPS when I use Firefox.
Believe it or not you can use both and remain rational and objective towards what one product does better than the other. It's okay though. Don't get me wrong some of us can be surprised that a product is popular. Some of us choose to understand where the value is in average consumer use case. You are als free to do whatever you want though.
Lemmy is full of users like that I keep saying make these statements, "why doesn't the average user care about their privacy?" Or, "why does the average user still keep using Google or Facebook?" Because the average user can just find those the average user is lazy. They use what everyone is using. However, if web could have a normal discussion you would be surprised to maybe see that isn't always the case. The product has to change and piss people off. Hence Reddit, Twitter, etc.
If you want the average user to move from Chrome to Firefox it is going to take Lemmy users not being smug and subtly saying, "why are they idiots that keep supporting bit companies that are against them." And that is the vibe those questions give off and in return it makes things feel more inclusive and less welcoming. Instead of being "surprised" maybe you should be open to just educating a user or just ask them, "why do you use Chrome over FF?"
The issue I keep seeing is that it is the users problem but I think it is a bit of both the user and the big company. There should be an expectation of privacy but a doctor isn't worried about a Googpe search being private a doctor is concerned with a search being accurate or available. Take DuckDuckGo for example.
The average user isn't worried about an open source product they have to compile on a Linux OS that they have to install to get away from Windows so they can use an open source version of photo editing products on Firefox. The average user is just going to use what is there and what is popular. Let's imagine for a second I am an Adobe software user and I go to download Adobe on Firefox and it just doesn't work. As a user I am going to get annoyed and sure enough I will be right back on Chrome or Edge. That isn't the users fault or FF's fault. It is Adobes but that pointing finger is irrelevant to the user because they want a product that gives them no hassle.
And why? It has nothing to do with Firefox.
I don't know about the Adobe case because I don't use Adobe web services. But it certainly could be Firefox's fault. For a long time I was a regular heavy user of a site that made extensive use of a particular CSS property that just was not implemented on Firefox. For years it just couldn't do the necessary behaviour for that site to work.
I don't use the site anymore, and it looks like Firefox has eventually gotten around to implementing it so it might work. But the point stands that a site not supporting Firefox could be Firefox's fault.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that a unified renderer is a good thing. Having all browsers be chromium based would make developers' jobs easier and would in turn provide users with a better experience. The individual projects like Edge, Vivaldi, and Brave can and should choose not to implement shitty things that Google is doing like Manifest V3 and Web Integrity API, without needing to have their own entire rendering engine like Firefox does.
Adobe tells them Firefox isn’t supported.
ISeeThisAsAnAbsoluteWin.pdf
Again with this insufferable Lemmy user response it's a loss because as an average user what do you think my next step is not should be. I am going to download Chrome. Call or a win but you are already missing the point of you think Adobe is losing here.
I don't see the problem, adobe makes their site not work on google. What is firefox going to do? I would like adobe and google to be fined to literal death and have their entire companies split up and reduced to mere shells along with most other big pesudo monopolies. But that won't happen so oh well. Also I've had websites not work on chrome too and in my windows days I had both installed, now I couldn't give a fuck and just close the sites.
for real
I just use edge/chrome for twitch.tv... It's no longer compatible with Firefox for some reason... :(
Edit: twitch does work, I meant the login doesn't. Sorry I was too sleepy to word it correctly. After pressing login even though user and password are correct I get an error message saying my browser is not compatible.
What happens if you switch the user agent header? Most of these sites that don't work with Firefox actually do work but are deliberately designing them not to function with Firefox.
For example, I got Bing AI to work by switching it to mimic Edge.
Twitch absolutely works with Firefox. I don't think I've accessed twitch from any browser other than Firefox now that I think about it.
Maybe I that was a wrong choice of words on my end.
Twitch doesn't let me login. I can watch still. But if I want to earn drops or something I can't, because I can't login. It says my browser is incompatible.
Permanently Deleted
Yeah, that's my bad. I absolutely didn't word that right. I was half asleep already ahaha
Twitch does work, but I can't login. It says my browser is incompatible. The only reason I watch twitch is for twitch drops (I'm not really into live streams tbh) so that defeats the whole purpose.
I will try doing like someone else said and "spoof" my browser version and such. That would be great if it worked.
