1065
Google Chrome’s plan to limit ad blocking extensions kicks off next week (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
357 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Reminder to switch browsers if you haven't already!

  • Google Chrome is starting to phase out older, more capable ad blocking extensions in favor of the more limited Manifest V3 system.
  • The Manifest V3 system has been criticized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for restricting the capabilities of web extensions.
  • Google has made concessions to Manifest V3, but limitations on content filtering remain a source of skepticism and concern.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I can't remember a time when I didn't use Firefox. Actually back in highschool I used IE around 2002ish but only because I didn't know any better back then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At some point 15-20 years ago Firefox was becoming a resource hog and I switched to chrome. I switched back a number of years ago and regret not switching back earlier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Are you me? Firefox was always an option, but it definitely became slow maybe around 2010? I switched to chrome but came back to Firefox a few years ago also when chroms was first getting enshitified

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Back when Chrome was the shiny new thing, Firefox was taking a downturn, I think it was around version 50 or something, as they wanted to update something that would break compatibility with a considerable number of existing themes and plugins, including my then favorite, NoScript.

    For some reason, the UI of Chrome was never my cup of tea, all those round edges and auto-hiding buttons (maybe these were later additions?) annoyed me to no end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I went from IE to Firefox back in that same timeframe, then by the time Chrome came out, my Firefox just had too much clutter and Chrome was way faster.

    Within the past year, Chrome managed to enshittify itself enough that I've gone back to Firefox on PC (still using chrome on mobile) and it's the same sort of "lighter, faster" feel that I got years ago when I left it for Chrome.

    There's also the whole ad blocker bullshit too, of course. YouTube ads were the last straw for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    if you use Firefox on mobile, you can add plugins like ublock origin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, IE was the best browser around the time IE6 was released (2000/2001). Way better than Netscape. Opera was the other good browser back then. The initial release of Firefox wasn't quite there yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Better for MS non-standard things? Or better how? Performance-wise - yes.

    IMHO a web browser has to support HTML 4.* , JS, Netscape plugins (Java, Flash, whatever else) and that's it.

    That's what I came to when I started using the Web, but I'm confident it's not just bias - that was the best combination. I'm not sure on CSS - I hated it, but people have good arguments in favor of it. But hypertext with limited appearance tuning and scripts for the web itself, plus plugins for various content, including applications, - that's definitely a better idea than the modern approach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Better for MS non-standard things? Or better how?

    All browsers had non-standard things back then, to the point where many sites had two versions: An IE version and a Netscape version.

    Believe it or not, back then Internet Explorer was the most standards-compliant browser. It was the first browser to implement the DOM and CSS based on relevant W3C specs (Netscape was backing JSSS instead).

    Many features we take for granted these days came from IE. Drag and drop, the JS events system, iframes, rich text editing, clipboard access, AJAX (dynamically loading content on the page without a full page reload), visual effects like transparency and gradients, all originally came from Internet Explorer.

    The CSS box-model in IE6 (including margin, padding and border in the width of elements) was wrong because the CSS spec hadn't been finalized by the time of its release so Microsoft used a draft, and it changed from publication of the draft to publication of the final version. Many years later, people realised that IE6's model was actually the better model, which is why every browser supports it now via box-sizing: border-box.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •