Ad Buster Buster - Chrome to limit ad blocking to Enterprise users only

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, Gealach said:

The crux of the issue is that most people don't use adblock afaik. Every system I use I install adblock on (GF, parents computers, uni computers etc.) because using the internet without adblock is simply not feasible. These people don't know what they're missing out on, and they don't care.

 

That being said, this will also affect add-ons such as Privacy Badger, giving even more reason for people to not use Chrome.

I was quite surprised when a relative asked me to install avast! Secure Browser on newly built Ryzen system. I usually throw Firefox on such systems, but I was generally ok with that idea given avast!'s browser comes with integrated AdBlock and Anti-Tracking, but is otherwise a fork of Chromium done by avast! people. He said he got it installed with avast! and that he likes it. It's not bad for what I've used it, but I personally can't use it because it has no advanced data syncing and I need same stuff on my phone too not just on PC...

[VanayadGaming]

When is this going live ? Adblocking still working here.

[Giganthrax]

On 5/29/2019 at 11:41 PM, rcmaehl said:

Summary:

Google has moved ahead with Manifest V3, which will now limit as blocking to Enterprise users only

Well then, seems my long-running preference for Chrome might just come to an end. 

 

Which is annoying, because I still need to use the Google suite for my work. 

[mr moose]

How is this EEE when chrome was googles from the beginning?    All they are doing is altering their own product so one type of extension doesn't fuck with their revenue stream.  They are not trying to extinguish chrome.  They especially havn't changed anything or introduced popular standards within it to make it work only with google, it was always like that from the start. 

 

This is no more EEE than when MS used IE to update windows.

 

 

[ScratchCat]

On 5/30/2019 at 4:31 PM, Mr. horse said:

Yes it does, it tells one not to bother with all the simple passwords like Password and it's something that can't be cracked with a simple dictionary attack. It gives the bad guys a head start. We also know he uses multi factor logins now too. Taking that all into account a bad person would have a rather good head start if they wanted to brake into one of his accounts.

That is like saying that I've hidden all my money somewhere on earth but it isn't definitely under my house. Remember that a random password can produce every password, therefore an attacker cannot restrict the set of passwords to try in any way.

 

If you want further evidence that declaring that the key is random have a look at practically any cryptographic algorithm. The keys randomly generated in order to prevent the attacker restricting the set of values he has to try.

On 5/30/2019 at 4:31 PM, Mr. horse said:

I have not messed around with that in a long time. But the last time I did it just unlocked the password manager and leaves it unlocked..

The password manager will require a password each time you open Firefox after completely closing it. While not being fantastic it's better than nothing and should improve once the replacement arrives.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

How is this EEE when chrome was googles from the beginning?    All they are doing is altering their own product so one type of extension doesn't fuck with their revenue stream.  They are not trying to extinguish chrome.  They especially havn't changed anything or introduced popular standards within it to make it work only with google, it was always like that from the start. 

 

This is no more EEE than when MS used IE to update windows.

It is EEE because Google embraced web standards and features to get people to use their browser. Now they have such a large user share that they are in control of the web standards and features. They basically control the web now, and the web was not Google's from the beginning. It is now though. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It is EEE because Google embraced web standards and features to get people to use their browser. Now they have such a large user share that they are in control of the web standards and features. They basically control the web now, and the web was not Google's from the beginning. It is now though. 

They control chrome, and chrome was always their's from the beginning and they aren't even extinguishing it. Google do not own the internet. 

 

You can still use FF and maybe the new edge, but I seem to recall you were pontificating that it was good edge was dead because we didn't need more competition in the browser space.

[Jito463]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

They control chrome, and chrome was always their's from the beginning and they aren't even extinguishing it. Google do not own the internet.

No, but they practically do through Chrome.

 

Browser market share

[kaiju_wars]

Aaaaaaaaand this is what finally pushed me to switch browsers.  I was waiting for the new Microsoft browser that's been looking promising.  Chromium is open source but owned by Google.  Don't want to touch a Google Browser with a 10 foot pole now.  

 

Just installed Firefox and imported all my bookmarks/passwords/settings.  

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, kaiju_wars said:

Aaaaaaaaand this is what finally pushed me to switch browsers.  I was waiting for the new Microsoft browser that's been looking promising.  Chromium is open source but owned by Google.  Don't want to touch a Google Browser with a 10 foot pole now.  

 

Just installed Firefox and imported all my bookmarks/passwords/settings.  

I really like Brave, but the fact it's using Chrome engine and that I'm indirectly supporting Google's dominance this way keeps lingering around. Firefox is really the only independent browser left. What I hate with it is how it's desperately trying to copy everything Chrome and how they keep on doing stupid shit. Like recent interface design on iOS. Like wtf, what idiot designed this. Before you had Mobile bookmarks right there when you opened it. Now you have to go through 3 clicks. And inability to turn off last visited webpages... And it's quite similar on Windows. Engine is fast, extensions are usually of much higher quality than in Chrome, they just keep doing this stupid shit with interface and features...

[The King of the Undead]

22 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I really like Brave, but the fact it's using Chrome engine and that I'm indirectly supporting Google's dominance this way keeps lingering around. Firefox is really the only independent browser left. What I hate with it is how it's desperately trying to copy everything Chrome and how they keep on doing stupid shit. Like recent interface design on iOS. Like wtf, what idiot designed this. Before you had Mobile bookmarks right there when you opened it. Now you have to go through 3 clicks. And inability to turn off last visited webpages... And it's quite similar on Windows. Engine is fast, extensions are usually of much higher quality than in Chrome, they just keep doing this stupid shit with interface and features...

guess what is the same on linux? say it with me f the interface!

[KE2012]

Guess I'll be moving on from Chrome soon then. Pity, I quite enjoyed the browser. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

No, but they practically do through Chrome.

 

Browser market share

 

So they haven't killed Chrome yet an you can still use FF.   They always owned Chrome. Not EEE.

 

If Google found a way to make the internet inoperable without using their proprietary additions to chrome, then it might be EEE (for the internet).  But given you can use FF and Safari and we have no Idea if MS's version will be different, it's a fairly long stretch to claim they have successfully EEE'd the internet.

 

[JoeCoke]

*Laughs in Firefox* *breath* *Laughs in Duckduckgo*

[Sir Asvald]

Good thing I have Chrome Enterprise installed on all my devices at home hehehehhehe

[LAwLz]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:50 PM, mr moose said:

They control chrome, and chrome was always their's from the beginning and they aren't even extinguishing it. Google do not own the internet. 

In practice they do. Anything they decide to do with Chrome, web developers has to adopt and adapt to. If Chrome decided to stop supporting some standard and implement their own version, what do you think web developers would do? Lose support for like 80% of their visitors, or adopt Google's way of doing things?
And speaking of standards, because of Google's massive presence in the browser industry they are literally the ones in charge of writing the web standards. Wanna know who wrote the HTML5 specifications? A Google employee.

That did not happen before they made browsers.

 

For all intents and purposes, Google owns the Internet.

 

 

On 6/1/2019 at 11:50 PM, mr moose said:

You can still use FF and maybe the new edge, but I seem to recall you were pontificating that it was good edge was dead because we didn't need more competition in the browser space.

Using the new Edge won't matter. That's controlled by Google too, through the Chromium project.

Changes Google makes will now effect Edge.

 

I think you're misremembering or misunderstood what I said about Edge.

I said it was good that EdgeHTML was dying. It was a bad engine. It didn't perform that well, it lacked support for a bunch of W3C standards (although it got a lot better over the years but never caught up).

I said it would be good for Edge users to switch over to Chromium because it's objectively a superior browser engine. They will get a better experience.

But what I also said was that it was, in my opinion, a terrible decision from Microsoft's part to switch over to Chromium rather than Firefox because it would solidify Google as the sole arbiter of browsers. It would have been fantastic if Firefox and Chrome had 50% market share each. Both are large enough to threaten and spur development of each other, but none would be big enough to in practice rule and govern the Internet.

 

So yes, in some sense it is good that Edge died. In some sense it is terrible and a really bad decision from Microsoft. That is my position on the matter.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

So they haven't killed Chrome yet an you can still use FF.   They always owned Chrome. Not EEE.

 

If Google found a way to make the internet inoperable without using their proprietary additions to chrome, then it might be EEE (for the internet).  But given you can use FF and Safari and we have no Idea if MS's version will be different, it's a fairly long stretch to claim they have successfully EEE'd the internet. 

I think I finally understand why you and I disagree so much when it comes to EEE. I don't think you understand that EEE is.

Google does not have to be the sole developer of Chrome for it to be EEE. In fact, in a lot of EEE cases the open standard which was first embraced still lives on. EEE is about becoming a de facto standard in the industry in order to get control over it.

What's funny is that EEE came about a lot during the browser wars when Microsoft tried to win market share and control over web standards away from Netscape.

If you do not think that what Google is positioning themselves to do with Chrome is EEE then you clearly do not know the history of IE vs Netscape.

 

Hell, just because Firefox exists does not mean this isn't EEE. I'd argue that right now we are in the extend phase, and haven't gotten to extinguish just yet. I am an avid Firefox user, but I have run into several sites which only works on Chrome, because they use web technologies Google themselves came up with that Chrome supports but other browsers don't.

Ever tried opening Google Earth in Firefox or some other non-Chrome browser?

[mr moose]

54 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In practice they do. Anything they decide to do with Chrome, web developers has to adopt and adapt to. If Chrome decided to stop supporting some standard and implement their own version, what do you think web developers would do? Lose support for like 80% of their visitors, or adopt Google's way of doing things?
And speaking of standards, because of Google's massive presence in the browser industry they are literally the ones in charge of writing the web standards. Wanna know who wrote the HTML5 specifications? A Google employee.

That did not happen before they made browsers.

 

For all intents and purposes, Google owns the Internet.

 

 

Using the new Edge won't matter. That's controlled by Google too, through the Chromium project.

Changes Google makes will now effect Edge.

 

I think you're misremembering or misunderstood what I said about Edge.

I said it was good that EdgeHTML was dying. It was a bad engine. It didn't perform that well, it lacked support for a bunch of W3C standards (although it got a lot better over the years but never caught up).

I said it would be good for Edge users to switch over to Chromium because it's objectively a superior browser engine. They will get a better experience.

But what I also said was that it was, in my opinion, a terrible decision from Microsoft's part to switch over to Chromium rather than Firefox because it would solidify Google as the sole arbiter of browsers. It would have been fantastic if Firefox and Chrome had 50% market share each. Both are large enough to threaten and spur development of each other, but none would be big enough to in practice rule and govern the Internet.

 

So yes, in some sense it is good that Edge died. In some sense it is terrible and a really bad decision from Microsoft. That is my position on the matter.

 

 

I think I finally understand why you and I disagree so much when it comes to EEE. I don't think you understand that EEE is.

Google does not have to be the sole developer of Chrome for it to be EEE. In fact, in a lot of EEE cases the open standard which was first embraced still lives on. EEE is about becoming a de facto standard in the industry in order to get control over it.

What's funny is that EEE came about a lot during the browser wars when Microsoft tried to win market share and control over web standards away from Netscape.

If you do not think that what Google is positioning themselves to do with Chrome is EEE then you clearly do not know the history of IE vs Netscape.

 

Hell, just because Firefox exists does not mean this isn't EEE. I'd argue that right now we are in the extend phase, and haven't gotten to extinguish just yet. I am an avid Firefox user, but I have run into several sites which only works on Chrome, because they use web technologies Google themselves came up with that Chrome supports but other browsers don't.

Ever tried opening Google Earth in Firefox or some other non-Chrome browser?

o.k,  so when they extinguish chrome or the Internet I'll agree.

[suicidalfranco]

If only they'd focus on making ads less malware spreading, less clickbaity, less resource intensive, less memory hogging, less loud, and not autoplaying videos.

 

But nope, they issue is definitely the adblocker

[RejZoR]

11 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

If only they'd focus on making ads less malware spreading, less clickbaity, less resource intensive, less memory hogging, less loud, and not autoplaying videos.

 

But nope, they issue is definitely the adblocker

This. If it's a static image and is integrated well into the webpage I don't even have a problem with it. Like Madrina's coffee banner on the right side here. The issue I have is the fact this image seems to get pulled from web every time I open the forum and it's the element that takes the longest to load which is very annoying. And the fact most webpages have what you describe.

 

Biggest cancer is Youtube with it's obnoxiously loud VIDEO ads while you're watching a god damn video. You're watching something which is somewhat quiet and you have volume cranked up and then in the middle of it, video ad starts playing and almost gives you a heart attack. And banner ad on top of video with stupid tiny X in the corner isn't any better. Good luck clicking that shit with a finger on touch screen device...

 

So I just leave shit blocked. Fuck you and your annoying irritating ads. I had enough of this garbage back in the day when it was flashing GIF's and Adobe Flash ads that sucked out enough life out of me that I'm allowed to block them all till end of my life.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

o.k,  so when they extinguish chrome or the Internet I'll agree.

Then you need to define extinguish. I don't think it is the definition that Microsoft, the US court, I or other people who talk about EEE uses. 

It does not mean kill competitors to the point where they do not exist anymore. 

 

I strongly recommend you read some of the court cases involving EEE. In the one involving IE and Netscape, McGeady testified that Microsoft's EEE plan was to embrace HTML, and then "extend it to the point where it was incompatible with the Netscape browser and encourage people to develop to their version of HTML so that pages couldn't be read with Netscape's browser".

That in and of itself did not make it so that nobody could download or use Netscape Navigator. It did however remove control away from the open standards which worked for everybody, and put Microsoft in control. That's what EEE is about. I think you're focusing too much on the literal meaning of "extinguish".

[rcmaehl]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

This. If it's a static image and is integrated well into the webpage I don't even have a problem with it. Like Madrina's coffee banner on the right side here. The issue I have is the fact this image seems to get pulled from web every time I open the forum and it's the element that takes the longest to load which is very annoying. And the fact most webpages have what you describe.

 

Biggest cancer is Youtube with it's obnoxiously loud VIDEO ads while you're watching a god damn video. You're watching something which is somewhat quiet and you have volume cranked up and then in the middle of it, video ad starts playing and almost gives you a heart attack. And banner ad on top of video with stupid tiny X in the corner isn't any better. Good luck clicking that shit with a finger on touch screen device...

 

So I just leave shit blocked. Fuck you and your annoying irritating ads. I had enough of this garbage back in the day when it was flashing GIF's and Adobe Flash ads that sucked out enough life out of me that I'm allowed to block them all till end of my life.

Things that would improve ad experiences

- ad caching
- if I haven't bought the product I looked at I OBVIOUSLY don't want it

- volume normalization/equalization (This should honestly be global across youtube)

- static ads
- limit ads 10-15% of the screen

- limit ads to 5 a page

Number of the above that'll get implemented anywhere:

Nada

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

If only they'd focus on making ads less malware spreading, less clickbaity, less resource intensive, less memory hogging, less loud, and not autoplaying videos.

 

But nope, they issue is definitely the adblocker

A few months ago (I haven't tried recently), we had an issue with scam alerts popping up in Edge - with a fresh installation of Windows, no less - while browsing the MSN start page.  Advertisements on that page would actually trigger a scam alert message.  The only way to ensure it wouldn't happen was with ad blocking (uBlock Origin, for the record).  I will NEVER browse without an ad blocker of some kind installed.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

13 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Biggest cancer is Youtube with it's obnoxiously loud VIDEO ads while you're watching a god damn video.

Thankfully uBlock Origin on Firefox still blocks ads on YT. 

 

I don't watch the vids on Youtube themselves anymore though, I simply download them and watch them offline. 

That way Google has no idea which ones I actually watch (I also download a load of videos about subjects that I'm not actually interested in, just to mess up the shadow profile that they undoubtedly have) or how often I watched them.

If Google ever manages to work around adblockers, I still have like half a dozen download tools, some which don't even require me to actually open the video page. 

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Then you need to define extinguish. I don't think it is the definition that Microsoft, the US court, I or other people who talk about EEE uses. 

It does not mean kill competitors to the point where they do not exist anymore. 

 

I strongly recommend you read some of the court cases involving EEE. In the one involving IE and Netscape, McGeady testified that Microsoft's EEE plan was to embrace HTML, and then "extend it to the point where it was incompatible with the Netscape browser and encourage people to develop to their version of HTML so that pages couldn't be read with Netscape's browser".

That in and of itself did not make it so that nobody could download or use Netscape Navigator. It did however remove control away from the open standards which worked for everybody, and put Microsoft in control. That's what EEE is about. I think you're focusing too much on the literal meaning of "extinguish".

So your saying MS own the internet then?  of course not, the standards are still open and we still have 3 different browsers.  MS did not successfully take control of HTML.

 

So I'll say it again (this time I won't use the word extinguish), when you can't use the internet without a google account or google product I'll agree.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

So your saying MS own the internet then?  of course not, the standards are still open and we still have 3 different browsers.  MS did not successfully take control of HTML.

Correct. They did not successfully take control of HTML.

Wanna know why? Because they were sued into oblivion when they tried it. The US court even considered splitting Microsoft into two separate companies because of their actions. They were seen as too dangerous to continue operating.

 

And which 3 browsers are you talking about?

Blink, Gecko and WebKit? Right, that means Google only controls ~80% of all web browsers currently used. Silly me. Clearly it is not a problem that one company has 80% of the market. Surely they won't be able to do anything bad to harm competitors with that.

I mean, it's not like we already have several major websites not functioning properly outside of Chrome. Nope, totally not happening and totally won't happen even more the longer CHrome stays so overly dominant.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

So I'll say it again (this time I won't use the word extinguish), when you can't use the internet without a google account or google product I'll agree.

Then you have a different definition of EEE from me, the US court, Microsoft, and most if not all other people who talk about EEE.

Please keep that in mind whenever you say "you can't EEE an open source thing" from now on.

EEE is about gaining control over open standards so that you can control their direction, and disadvantage competitors. I don't think anyone who knows a little bit about web standards, browsers and web development will tell you anything less than "Google controls the web".

Not only have they written a lot of the web standards, they also have their own proprietary solutions which do not work properly in other browsers, used all over the web.

Not even Microsoft felt like trying to keep up with Google anymore, and just decided to throw in the towel.