2132
uBlock Origin developer recommends switching to Firefox as Chrome flags the extension (github.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
262 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Can you share some examples of things that pisses off the FOSS space? Mostly just curious to understand more

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Here's the most recent example:

    The browser that promises “no shady privacy notices or advertiser backdoors” on its storefront has suddenly added an experimental feature to beam user interactions to advertisers and enables it by default. Many are not happy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    It should be noted that the advertisers get zero personal information, neither does Mozilla, and it has been designed in a way so that the data is impossible to fingerprint in a way that can tie it back to any individual person, machine, or specific location.

    It's a way for advertisers (and like it or not, a decent amount of the content we want has to be paid for somehow) to see how effective their ads are without anybody's privacy being encroached on.

    Should it have been turned on without informing the user? Fuck no. But there's a lot of misinformation going around about this.

    Personally I'll still be using uBO, because I despise any ads at all, but if we are to have ads, the system Mozilla has built is just about the most ethical and privacy-respecting way to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Even if Mozilla takes precautions to avoid de-anonymizing our data, any private data sold to data brokers becomes a part of the puzzle for learning our identities

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_re-identification

    Even knowing something a trivial as two movie ratings led to a 68% success rate in learning an identity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I suggest you actually look into how their system works. This kind of strategy is not possible with Mozilla's system.

    In fact, your very link points to 'Differential Privacy' as a very effective foil to re-identification, and that's basically how the Mozilla system operates.

    This is not a matter of Mozilla having a load of data about your account or IP, then Mozilla scrubbing that information then sending the database to advertisers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I appreciate your informed response but no system other than advertising-abstinence is fool proof.

    Im saying this as a supporter. My browser of choice is firefox and I send them money regularly. And I understand their need to generate more revenue. But there has never been a company who has sold customer data discretely. My understanding is that every piece of data that's sold can be de anonymized when combined with other data sets. And the data is horsetraded until it gets into some very marginal actors' hands.

    Mozilla's need for money is largely driven by massive mismanagement. It should have been fully funded in perpetuity through establishing a foundation that operates off interest payments but they decided to try and build a headquarters in Mountainview. They also operate offices in some of the most expensive cities in the world. They have made expensive software aquisitions. These are not necessary and have only whetted mozilla's thirst for other revenue sources. It's guaranteed that they will look for more customer data to sell because that's the path of least resistance.

    I wish them luck but I also wish they'd not chase advertising money.

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

    As for the "no system is foolproof", you're thinking of implementations, not algorithms. An algorithm can indeed be something-proof. Most "known" algorithms are built on top of very strong mathematical foundations stating what is possible, what is not and what is a maybe.

    As for the ads thing, Mozilla is not making a dime off this. It is not monetizable. They're basically expecting that by giving advertisers a fairly "benign" way to do their shenanigans they will stop doing things the way they currently do (with per-individual tracking).

    The absolutists might say that there's no such thing as benign ads, however truth is that the market forces behind ads are big enough that you'd get website-integrity-bullshit rather ad-free web. Having tracking less ads is better than having a "this website only works in chrome" or "only without extensions" internet.

    Is there any other possibility? Maybe. Is is reasonable to think that the moment tracking starts getting blocked em masse, we risk a web-integrity-bullshit +wherever-said-tracking-can-exist-only internet? I think so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I think you're right and that I've horribly misunderstood how this data is collected and used. According to their yearly report, mozilla's advertising revenue is explicitly not drawn from user data and is only related to tiles and default search engine sponsorships. The fact that they are not selling this information is heartening and it inspires confidence that they have not flipped on the ad money spigot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent