~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:

Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.

Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

  • numberfour002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    3 months ago

    Understatement, I know, but I find this so annoying, and it certainly feels malicious.

    I was just commenting the other day how ridiculous it is that google search results literally serve up malware to people via paid ads. My neighbor was running into issues where her computer kept getting “infected” and a full screen scam would take control, blaring out a loud message that her computer was infected with a virus, that it was infecting microsoft’s servers, and she had to call them now to fix it.

    After investigating, I found out that these types of scams are stored as blobs on Microsoft’s cloud service, but the links are spread via ads in google search. When I tried searching for the exact search terms my neighbor was using on my own devices and my own network, I found out that google was serving me the exact same ads, aka sponsored links. They look like legitimate results for things that people search for, like showing what appears to be a link to Amazon when searching for a product, even the links will say “www.amazon.com”.

    Obviously I told my neighbor not to use Chrome and suggested some browser alternatives. I installed uBlock on all the browsers (including chrome) just to be safe. Then I showed her how to tell when things are ads, even when they are deceiving, and to never click on ads or sponsored links under any circumstances.

    But it’s definitely infuriating that they are serving up malware in their ads, don’t respond to reports in a timely manner, are getting people caught in scams that they allow to advertise on their network but then somehow object to people managing those risks by blocking ads from untrustworthy sources, like google.

    • knight@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I just did a cleanup on someone’s computer that got this. They actually called the number and got scammed out of their whole life savings. The usual Indian scammers.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        3 months ago

        They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).

        It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.

        As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.

        It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s ruling. They are a direct competitor.

            • Raxiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              3 months ago

              One of Googles biggest competitor’s is the company “Meta” which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
              When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to “Facebook” which was the name previously used by the corporation now called “Meta”.

              Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.

              Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to “up the ante” by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.

              Regardless, the “joke” has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  They were explaining on how the joke flew over your head. If there’s reason to think anyone in this exchange is a bot, it’d be you, because you can’t really understand jokes even when they’re explained to you. Though nowadays, even bots understand jokes, ChatGPT can explain them fairly well.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      They did? Never used that garbage. Switched from Netscape Navigator to Opera to Firefox.

      I used chrome on mobile since in the old days, Firefox mobile was unusable, but that’s been years ago.

      Now for the 3 websites that stubbornly refuse to open in FF I use Edge on desktop, and kiwi on mobile.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    3 months ago

    So many kids with assigned school Chromebooks are going to get fucked over by this. You can apparently install Firefox on a Chromebook via the Google Play Store, but that was disabled on my daughter’s Chromebook. I don’t want her exposed to constant advertising while she’s doing her schoolwork. It’s bad enough that she’s exposed to it the rest of the time just being in America.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      How about a DNS-based ad-blocking service? NextDNS is pretty good and not expensive. You should check if you can set custom DNS servers on that Chromebook, though.

      • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have Yunohost installed on my local network and they have DNS adblocking apps that you can install.

        You can also very easily install apps like Owncloud to have your own version of Google Drive.

      • kalpol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        DNS over https bypasses much of that, right? till you find and block those DNS servers

    • Mwalimu@baraza.africa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think this is something most people rarely talk about but it strikes home to many of us. As a parent, I have a responsibility to defend my children against this persistent cognitive manipulation and experimentation. Just as I would not want a random stranger at the corner have exclusive attention of my kid and sell them insurance or grammarly or mesothelioma, I would also never want them to have that unfiltered access to my kids online. One can then say AdBlocks are a parental obligation.

              • ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                You think little kids need to view explicit material? I hope no one trusts you around children. Parents have a right and a responsibility to know and approve of the curriculum taught to their children by state schools financed by their taxes. If they do not approve they should have the right to send their children and their money elsewhere. This will be the law.

                • boywar3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  And, pray tell, what library or school has pornography in it that is easily accessible to minors?

                  Furthermore, having lived my entire life around educators and now working for an educational institution: parents are fucking stupid lol

                  The sheer numbers of videos of parents bitching and crying at school meetings or libraries about “X book is pornographic” or “this book has witchcraft and should be burned” is absurd. Those mouth breathers don’t even know how to critically examine a fucking facebook post for bullshit, let alone comprehend the difficulty in teaching children.

                  Don’t like your kid learning about how Trans people exist? Go fuck yourself and homeschool your kid so they can be permanently stunted in terms of preparation for the real world. Let the vast majority of regular people make sure their kids grow up socially aware and at least passingly prepared for the future.

                  Also, “this will be the law?” Have you seen the flailing Republican party? Guess what fucker - the average American thinks project 2025 is batshit and the republican party got hijacked by a manchild and ruined their stupid plans. It’s only downhill from here now that they went mask off - most people think they’re nuts.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s normal for system admins to not let their users install non-whitelist software

      You should PTA to switch from Chrome to Firefox

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s very unlikely that they would pay for the IT department to install Firefox on every Chromebook. You’re talking 14,000 students in this county and only the kindergartners don’t get Chromebooks.

        • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s really wild to me. They give each grade school student a chromebook? That is honestly terrifying.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Why is it terrifying? A lot of kids don’t have computers of their own and this gives them access to the internet. It’s also, in my opinion, a far better way to give kids tests than filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper.

            I mean I wish there were other good, cheap options, but there aren’t.

            • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              I really hate to “back in my day” this but we had computer labs for that when I was younger. And that didn’t require giving a monopoly company my name or any other information about me. And I wasn’t being ad-tracked all day long going to websites.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Computer labs aren’t going to help the kids going home at night to study and I don’t really think shuffling kids into a computer lab every time there’s a test in any class makes much sense.

                • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I mean, both can be true if we’re living in a cloud-based world.

                  Schools can provide workstations and households can either opt in to using their own computer at home or be assigned a laptop or laptop credit. Choice is the important part here, and limiting kids choices at the benefit of major oligarchy organizations sucks big floppy donkey dick.

        • _tezz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          3 months ago

          You might be surprised! This type of change is usually automated and centralized, so an administrator shouldn’t ever have to even touch any of those Chromebooks. Might be worth having a chat with your school administrators.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            My own daughter is in online school now (it’s still a public school, it’s just not in a physical location) so she can use her own computer… but I have to do the user agent switcher thing because the school’s own website testing software isn’t Firefox-compatible. And the school is run by evil Pierson who basically has a monopoly on American public schools, so I’m guessing that’s true for all of those Chromebooks out there too.

            Still, I might suggest it to them anyway just for the benefit of the other kids.

            • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, they sign major contracts that have a lot of stipulations so they get the best deals since theyre govt funded. This backfires, ofc, by locking them into bad products.

              Im not saying dont try, definitely do.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Should be able to do either remotely or by including it in the image

          I imagine personal work is saved to a server not locally

          But it doesn’t hurt to try

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Welcome to Firefox to anyone who is switching. I use a fork for Firefox (Floorp) Becuase I like it’s features.

  • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve been using uBOLite for about a year and I’m pretty happy with it. You don’t have to give the extension access to the content on the page and all the filtering on the browser engine, not over JavaScript.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I hadn’t heard of this.

      The FAQ says it’s not a 1 for 1 replacement. There’s a lot of features which can’t be ported.

      It’s probably better than nothing for most people, but not as good as uBO was.

      Still, I wonder why it’s not mentioned more often.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I know, that some day I will have to switch to Firefox. But I’m putting it off as long as I can, as I don’t like that browser. I will have to instal a shit load of add-ons to get the customisability of Vivaldi, and I doubt k will get it all.

  • Dju@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    375
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):

    I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      155
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      “uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.

      • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word “slam” on the daily in headlines?

          It’s straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.

            Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

            It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              it’s also just an objectively fantastic word

              100% disagree

              “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

              All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

              Fuck “slam” in headlines.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”

                I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.

                I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.

                All of these are better

                No they aren’t, for the very reason I already stated. They aren’t concise, which is paramount when it comes to crafting a headline.

                Slam in headlines implies violence

                Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question

                  I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.

                  Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                  Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):

                  I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.

                  My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:

                  if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

            • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Unless you’re lucky enough to get tenure, or stumble upon a fact of the universe that no one knew and just happens to be relevant to a modern economy.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not quite on topic, but: This past week developers at my company have been slammed by the Chrome DevTools debugger freezing when you hit a breakpoint. There’s been no tracked bug and no timeline from Chrome on a fix. It’s been a little bit of a lesson in having just one browser engine.

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 months ago

    Already switched as soon as I learned of Google’s plans. They can go screw themselves for doing this. Firefox, the land of the free and open source!

  • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Did I miss a piece? I don’t see anywhere in the original statement where firefox is actively recommended, just mentioned as an example.