this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
399 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37737 readers
425 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yet another reason to use Brave, which has better native ad block than any of the other browsers.

[–] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Meh, Brave is still Chroium. Even if they continue to support manifest v2, even today the are selling „good“ ads to the users. That and the Crypto bullshit they tried a while ago makes them untrustworthy in my eyes.

Firefox is the only real alternative.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Brave is still Chroium

And yet, it does a better job blocking YouTube ads than Firefox, without any add-ons.

Crypto, Ads

Those features are opt-in.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You mean by building the add-on directly into the browser? No thanks. I like my browser dev to work on my browser and my ad-block dev to work on my ad-block. They are both good at what they do on their own, I don't need them to mix.

Those features are opt-in.

They are now. They were opt-out to begin with. This is one of those "fool me twice" situations. That, and the founder of Brave is also an outspoken homophobe. He financially backed Prop 8 in California to overturn same-sex marriage, and left Firefox because it was too woke. I seriously would rather Chrome at that point. They're just regular levels of corporate evil, not "every person who uses my browser is proving my identity politics" level of evil.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They are now.

That's what I don't get with the Anti-Brave crowd. Brave learns their users don't like a feature and then they do better. This would, to me, be indicative of the way things should proceed.

Meanwhile Firefox is moving backwards.

By all means, use a browser that doesn't work as well, but maybe don't run a circle jerk of trolls whenever someone offers a better-working alternative.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

Personally, I think I should be able to expect a company to understand their target demographic well enough to know that those "features" wouldn't be well received. But I also personally don't consider ads and crypto garbage to be features. I guess if you do, then it's the perfect browser for you. However, I don't really want to contribute to Google's monopolisation of browser engine development anymore. Nor do I want to use a browser developed by a homophobe. So even if Brave may be slightly "better-working" I would not consider it better at all.

As well, even though I'm a Blahaj member, I'm going to take the time to point out the "Bee Nice" rule of the instance we're currently on. It feels like you're skirting dangerously close to violating that, considering you implied I'm a troll for calling out the prejudicial politics of the founder of a piece of software, which you didn't at all address in your comment. I'm going to attach some resources about it here, if you care to read them at all:

  1. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-gave-1000-to-support-californias-gay-marriage-ban/
  2. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/
  3. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-eich-step-down/
  4. https://tim.dreamwidth.org/1844711.html
  5. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/killing-the-messenger-at-mozilla
  6. https://tim.dreamwidth.org/1852118.html
  7. https://community.brave.com/t/brave-needs-to-address-brendan-eich/281044

(Some of these are older, about the push for him to step down as Mozilla CEO, some are newer and urging him to leave Brave, or for people to boycott it.)

[–] Xero@infosec.pub 15 points 3 months ago

No thanks Brendan Eich the CEO of Brave is a piece of shit.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Google put an API into Chrome that sends extra system info but only to*.google.com domains. In every Chromium browser.

Only vivaldi caught this issue. Brave had this api enabled, most likely on accident.

But the problem is, that chromium is just such big and complex software, when combined with development being driven by Google, it's just impossible for any significant changes or auditing to be done by third parties. Google is capable of exteriting control over Brave, simply by hiding changes like above, or by making massive changes like manifest v3, which are expensive for third parties to maintain.

Brave can maintain 1 big change to chromium, but for how long? What about 2, 3, etc.

My other big problem with brave is that I see them somewhat mimicking Google's beginnings. Google started out with 3 things: an ad network, a browser, and a search engine.

Right now, Brave has those same three things. It feels very ominous to me, and I would rather not repeat the cycle of enshittification that drove me away from chrome and goolgle.