this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
4249 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So, what they're saying is: Chrome will have severely decreased functionality and users will no longer be able to protect themselves from sketchy ads that contain scams, malware, and other nefarious bullshit (often hosted on Google's own ad networks)?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Seeing all your traffic is required for an ad blocker to function correctly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

An ad blocker doesn't need to see your traffic to function. That is the point of the declarative APIs. It is supposed to help protect users from malicious extensions and some forms of malicious software.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Whew, kinda weird to find a Google employee on lemmy. I would have thought there were rules against that in the would employee handbook.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't work for Google. Are you in a cult or an anti-opensource PR firm? Why would that be your first instinct in response to facts? Go read the beginners guide to MV3. Maybe you could learn a thing or two before talking about feelings.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You gave no facts, just opinions.

And if you aren't aware, astroturfing is a thing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

I gave you facts about MV3. It is also explained at the beginning of the uBOL GitHub page which even acknowledges MV3 adds protections to users with some filtering tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs can be implemented in other ways but it is more work and would require other software. I am not here saying Google is perfect or that MV3 is perfect, but it does make installing extensions more secure for the average user. If you don't agree then be specific. This vagueness that you keep utilizing without providing any details at all to try to make a point is a clear sign that you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's not even how Ublock Origin fucking works, what a hilariously ignorant take.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Did I say that the author of uBlock Origin actually reads your traffic? No I didn't, so stop the bad faith arguments. I said that MV2 exposed users to malicious extensions that were able to do that. Most features of uBO work fine with uBOL. Not everything does though, and I do acknowledge that. I'm just saying MV3 does make a majority of users safer overall.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You seem to be struggling with the term "facts"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Is your feelings facts to you? Which fact specifically am I struggling with? Do you have anything concrete to say at all or are you just going to keep being vague because of feelings?