if folks here are annoyed at Google policies, maybe, they should use Firefox more. If Mozilla, who is right now the only major vendor shipping a browser which is not in the webkit/blink familly tree, get more user then it accrues more leverage in political matters. You may not agree with all that Mozilla does but it is better to have a fairer playing ground by helping to strength the small players, than allow Google monopoly to keep going forever.
Well said! I just can’t understand IT people (ie my colegues at work) who use chrome when firefox is just asgood and far away from sucking up all the private data. It should be obvious to everyone now that chrome no longer performs better, that it’s just a bad choise
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts seems like a good workaround, and works on all programs you use, not just your browser. Additionally, it’s optionally capable of blocking porn, social media, gambling and fake news sites.
Setup a pi-hole on your network and it’s all set. All devices covered. If you don’t have a Raspberry Pi to spare, set it up in a Docker container on one of the computers in the network.
I run a pi-hole on a Raspberry Pi connected to my switch, powered through the network cable. It’s never been easier.
https://pi-hole.net/
Really confused why this is news. Has anyone here ever tried submitting apps to any “App” store? I once worked at a company who made branded apps for their customers, and so when we’d update the code all the branded apps used, we’d resubmit updates for dozens of what were essentially the same application. Regularly, Apple would reject a select few submissions arbitrarily, and very often they’d be approved if simply resubmitted as-is. I’d imagine the Chrome Web Store is no different, and if anybody here scrolled down to the bottom of the thread, they’d see that the dev build was resubmitted and accepted. Time for a comment section of correct, but completely unrelated sermons about Google hating ad-blocking, as if it’s not something we all already knew.
That update at the end of the thread only appeared after the thread was posted all over social media and caught the attention of a Google employee who was browsing reddit.
When a company refuses to give reasons, you have to speculate. Why should we accept “Google is terrible, therefore let’s cut them infinite slack?”
Why should we accept “Google is terrible, therefore let’s cut them infinite slack?”
Because for some godforsaken reason that I can never understand, people like to imagine large corporations like being their grandma (a singular person) making mistakes. They don’t or won’t be at peace with the fact that a large corporation should be given less slack because there’s enough people to review and say “wait a minute, this isn’t right!”
Grandma doesn’t have the resources to hire more people to ensure she doesn’t offend or act like a monster. Google does.
There are very, very few thinking problems that get easier when you add more people. Group ethics is much, much harder than personal ethics (see: practically every government).
It’s newsworthy because Google is (ostensibly) acting to use monopoly powers, just as if Chrome were to start blocking all but Google’s own ads, natively.
Please educate a Chrome hater: does it not allow installing extensions from source by hand at all, or the procedure is just too complex for a casual user?
That doesn’t matter. Most people don’t, and shouldn’t, instead add-ons from outside the chrome store. Too much chrome-targeted malware floating around.
Also, if Google starts blocking ad blockers from the store, then they are probably going to go ahead and break them at the API level, too. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with the declarative network API, but actually refusing to provide ublock origin is too much.
By this analogy most people shouldn’t install Windows software from outside the Windows Store because there’s too much malware for Windows floating around, which would imply they shouldn’t install Firefox, GIMP, or OpenVPN.
Yes, Windows does have a serious malware problem. I’m glad that you’re willing to engage in a conversation on how we can arrange for simple rules that everyone can follow to ensure that any software they install has been vetted, since not everyone can read code, and even people who can don’t necessarily have the time to read all of it. A nice ideal, simple solution would be “never install software from outside the Windows Store.” Too bad too much good software predates the Windows Store for that to be practical, and Microsoft’s rules are way too strict.
In the real world there are also many people taking advantage of people’s inexperience and inattention. Does it mean we should limit people’s ability to make deals and sign contracts? The solution is to educate people about the ways malicious people can screw them up and punish malicious people. And improve the underlying software of course.
Why in the software industry we should create nanny states that tell people what they can and cannot do? App stores operators can’t and don’t read all the source code either. They are not even willing (or unable) to actually have a human look at all submissions, if they resort to automated reviews and replies. App store operators can themselves do malicious things like inserting adware and spyware, and if people don’t read their user agreements carefully, they can legally get away with it (or if the platform is locked down and users have no alternative, they may have to put up with it even after reading the agreement).
Does it mean we should limit people’s ability to make deals and sign contracts?
There are limits on people’s ability to make contacts. Most nations don’t allow you to sign away your right to vote, for example. And that’s a good thing, because such contracts are invariably coerced.
But that really isn’t relevant here, since I don’t actually support making side-loading illegal, just discouraging it.
The solution is to educate people about the ways malicious people can screw them up and punish malicious people.
Too bad it’s so hard to trace people’s identities on the internet, so that they can be effectively punished. That’s why Google collects like $2 for a Play Store licence; most people can pay it, very few can pay for it millions of times if they keep getting kicked off.
As for education… What do you even teach? Even professionals fall for phishing attacks.
And improve the underlying software of course.
Let’s do that, too.
Why in the software industry we should create nanny states that tell people what they can and cannot do?
Harm reduction. I’m guessing that’s a rhetorical question, since the answer is so obvious, and is identical for all “nanny state” initiatives.
App stores operators can’t and don’t read all the source code either. They are not even willing (or unable) to actually have a human look at all submissions, if they resort to automated reviews and replies.
Still better than the wild web.
App store operators can themselves do malicious things like inserting adware and spyware, and if people don’t read their user agreements carefully, they can legally get away with it
That’s been possible the whole time, and it’s been done since at least Windows XP and the so-called Genuine Windows Install gadget that they shipped through Windows Update. If your OS vendor is malicious, you’re screwed either way.
It’s actually pretty straightforward.You just have to enable a developer mode and select a directory. These days, you can’t expect (capable) users to do so, though. Times have changed. I’m speaking from my own perspective; installing and in particular, updating, extensions manually isn’t something I’d be happy to do, nor is it something I’d recommend to most people.
I’ve been using Chrome for a few years now. Prior to that I’d used Firefox and it was a rather painful experience because of the crashes and incompatible changes. And even before that, I used Opera 12.x. I gave up after a year or so without (Linux) updates and never came back. I thought they would just replace the rendering core and keep the UI, but they completely rebuilt the browser in a way that made me think I could just use Chrome.
Why do I use Chrome over Chromium? Well, that’s a good question. I switched from Chromium to Chrome after some crazy Debian developer decided to compile it with extensions disabled and I found myself in a position where I needed to jump into a new working day and had to fix my browser ASAP.
I used to believe in the power of free market, and I still do. The problem with free market is it only works given a reasonably large competition. The situation we witness regarding the web browsers today is anything but that. The technology is so crazy complex it’s not a viable option to create a competing browser from scratch, and that’s just what Google wants. Modern web is a technological tragedy and I wouldn’t be surprised if Google intentionally supported its adoption and the trend to make it even more powerful (and complicated) in general just so they can leverage it and use it to their advantage in the end.
I probably will consider giving Firefox (or Firefox-based browser, such as Palemoon) an another chance, and will probably setup Syncthing so that I can cancel my Google Play Music subscription (unlike Spotify, it allows to upload music and share it between devices; at least that’s how it was the last time I checked). The thing is, I’m becoming more and more sceptical this is good for anything. Majority of users doesn’t care. It’s really sad I have to say this, but regulatory bodies (for example in the EU) might be the best cards we hold in our hand. As a devoted libertarian, this troubles me deeply.
What alternatives do you (people) see? Trying to convince as many people as possible that Google is evil and they are morally obligated to switch to anything else? When Mozilla does something stupid, do that again? Well, maybe. I still want to believe this is the way to go, and it’s what I’ve been trying to do in the past, but there’s only so much discomfort one can handle. Majority of people doesn’t care, doesn’t want to care and will not care. That’s what I value people like RMS for, as much as I don’t like him on a personal level: standing behind his opinions is more valuable for him than a comfort he could enjoy by simply following the crowd.
I’m not 100% sure but I think they removed being able to install extensions manually to prevent malware. I think you can still do it on a domain with GPOs.
I think it’s a good thing. A lot of apps try to install extensions without your consent. Not sure what Google could do to allow non-entreprise users to install extensions manually while preventing malware to do so.
I believe youtube is able to sidestep host-based solutions because they serve ads from their own domain. also there’s crazy hacks like sending ads over a websocket connection, which ublock somehow is able to defeat
Resolverless DNS will evade this as the DNS records for 3rd party page assets will be shipped in the HTTP headers.
Starting to wonder how long before this happens… and when the outrage from security folks will make news. I guess since they didn’t care about the consequences of DoH they won’t care about this either.
It’s a canned message, and got approved a few days later. Perhaps the employee sneezed and clicked the wrong button, or perhaps they misunderstood something, or perhaps something else. In other words: an individual just made a wrong judgement call. It happens.
Yeah I meant an non-automated one. Like saying it was a false positive.
Maybe we wont have one like last time with the rules limit since that changes affected all ad-blockers. But I think we should be careful when people cry wolf without even waiting to see if it was deliberate on google’s side.
Last time there was a shit load of “google is going to ban ad-blockers” articles and it was more nuanced than that. But I don’t know if Google increased the rules limit or whatever as a PR move or in good faith.
The reason why people love grabbing pitchforks about this is that Google never gives a “real” explanation, or any acknowledgement whatsoever that an actual human has even seen the issue. The only exception being that sometimes a tweet or social media post about a specific case gets enough attention for an actual Google employee with some authority to notice it.
Maybe you can configure your mail server to require “I am not a robot” puzzle solving so you are sure an actual human at Google sent the mail?!
Are you mocking me? That’s not how email servers work.
How/where can you get this non-automated response?
A bug report maybe? I have no idea if it’s even possible to contact a human at Google but I would hope there’s a way to appeal when your extension is rejected.
That’s the point: There’s no way to contact Google except by raising a huge fuss on social media, or happening to know someone on the inside. That’s the way they’ve set it up.
There’s no such thing as a second chance for a company that won’t talk to you.
ETA: I just rechecked the thread after posting this, and 30 minutes ago, there was an update: Google has approved the extension because someone at Google saw the fuss on social media. See what I mean?
I hold no particular love for Chrome for many reasons (e.g. this), but if you want to have an audited “app store” then mistakes will happen. People get confused, click wrong buttons, mix things up, etc. It’s hardly proof of some Google conspiracy, or indeed, anything else.
My #1 excuse to keep using Chrome was that I was too used to cVim’s bindings, and couldn’t find an equivalent.
Today I just installed Firefox 69 with Vim-Vixen. A few minutes with the Vim-Vixen JSON key binding editor got me pretty close to cVim. Fully committed this time…
edit
Also this (in case you liberally use Alt+ to scroll tabs, and Alt+backtick/Alt+tab in Gnome like I do): about:config?filter=ui.key.menuAccessKeyFocuses
Stop with the “workarounds” and dump Chrome. It will only get worse from here on.
if folks here are annoyed at Google policies, maybe, they should use Firefox more. If Mozilla, who is right now the only major vendor shipping a browser which is not in the webkit/blink familly tree, get more user then it accrues more leverage in political matters. You may not agree with all that Mozilla does but it is better to have a fairer playing ground by helping to strength the small players, than allow Google monopoly to keep going forever.
Well said! I just can’t understand IT people (ie my colegues at work) who use chrome when firefox is just asgood and far away from sucking up all the private data. It should be obvious to everyone now that chrome no longer performs better, that it’s just a bad choise
…multiple times. Well, that’s that, then. Google is getting more serious about evicting ad-blockers from their walled garden.
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts seems like a good workaround, and works on all programs you use, not just your browser. Additionally, it’s optionally capable of blocking porn, social media, gambling and fake news sites.
Better yet, switch to Firefox!
That’s what I switched to on macOS after reading the news about the ad block policy changes in chrome/safari.
I pair Steven’s hosts with Gas Mask. It catches about 95% of all ads.
Except battery life on Safari is significantly better. My laptop barely lasts 4.5 hours on Firefox but can go 6+ on Safari.
No choice anymore though now that Safari has no uBlock.
Battery life should be much improved in Firefox 70: https://www.zdnet.com/article/upcoming-firefox-update-will-decrease-power-usage-on-macos-by-up-to-three-times/
uMatrix works better than noscript and ublock.
Setup a pi-hole on your network and it’s all set. All devices covered. If you don’t have a Raspberry Pi to spare, set it up in a Docker container on one of the computers in the network.
I run a pi-hole on a Raspberry Pi connected to my switch, powered through the network cable. It’s never been easier. https://pi-hole.net/
Ah yes, that will definitely work at the office, or on café wifi, or at a friend’s house. :-)
When you are away you can use https://nextdns.io which is kind of Pi-hole as-a-service. That will work everywhere
It’s not like having such a setup is a commonly viable option. Installing an extension is extremely easier than becoming your own sysadmin.
until your users start using Dns-over-HTTPS and you’re back at square one for blocking malicious domains
Really confused why this is news. Has anyone here ever tried submitting apps to any “App” store? I once worked at a company who made branded apps for their customers, and so when we’d update the code all the branded apps used, we’d resubmit updates for dozens of what were essentially the same application. Regularly, Apple would reject a select few submissions arbitrarily, and very often they’d be approved if simply resubmitted as-is. I’d imagine the Chrome Web Store is no different, and if anybody here scrolled down to the bottom of the thread, they’d see that the dev build was resubmitted and accepted. Time for a comment section of correct, but completely unrelated sermons about Google hating ad-blocking, as if it’s not something we all already knew.
That update at the end of the thread only appeared after the thread was posted all over social media and caught the attention of a Google employee who was browsing reddit.
When a company refuses to give reasons, you have to speculate. Why should we accept “Google is terrible, therefore let’s cut them infinite slack?”
Because for some godforsaken reason that I can never understand, people like to imagine large corporations like being their grandma (a singular person) making mistakes. They don’t or won’t be at peace with the fact that a large corporation should be given less slack because there’s enough people to review and say “wait a minute, this isn’t right!”
Grandma doesn’t have the resources to hire more people to ensure she doesn’t offend or act like a monster. Google does.
There are very, very few thinking problems that get easier when you add more people. Group ethics is much, much harder than personal ethics (see: practically every government).
Good catch, I didn’t notice this, thanks
It’s not what I’d personally say. What I’d say is that an advertising company exercising prejudice against ad-blocking is not news.
It’s newsworthy because Google is (ostensibly) acting to use monopoly powers, just as if Chrome were to start blocking all but Google’s own ads, natively.
Please educate a Chrome hater: does it not allow installing extensions from source by hand at all, or the procedure is just too complex for a casual user?
That doesn’t matter. Most people don’t, and shouldn’t, instead add-ons from outside the chrome store. Too much chrome-targeted malware floating around.
Also, if Google starts blocking ad blockers from the store, then they are probably going to go ahead and break them at the API level, too. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with the declarative network API, but actually refusing to provide ublock origin is too much.
By this analogy most people shouldn’t install Windows software from outside the Windows Store because there’s too much malware for Windows floating around, which would imply they shouldn’t install Firefox, GIMP, or OpenVPN.
Yes, Windows does have a serious malware problem. I’m glad that you’re willing to engage in a conversation on how we can arrange for simple rules that everyone can follow to ensure that any software they install has been vetted, since not everyone can read code, and even people who can don’t necessarily have the time to read all of it. A nice ideal, simple solution would be “never install software from outside the Windows Store.” Too bad too much good software predates the Windows Store for that to be practical, and Microsoft’s rules are way too strict.
In the real world there are also many people taking advantage of people’s inexperience and inattention. Does it mean we should limit people’s ability to make deals and sign contracts? The solution is to educate people about the ways malicious people can screw them up and punish malicious people. And improve the underlying software of course.
Why in the software industry we should create nanny states that tell people what they can and cannot do? App stores operators can’t and don’t read all the source code either. They are not even willing (or unable) to actually have a human look at all submissions, if they resort to automated reviews and replies. App store operators can themselves do malicious things like inserting adware and spyware, and if people don’t read their user agreements carefully, they can legally get away with it (or if the platform is locked down and users have no alternative, they may have to put up with it even after reading the agreement).
There are limits on people’s ability to make contacts. Most nations don’t allow you to sign away your right to vote, for example. And that’s a good thing, because such contracts are invariably coerced.
But that really isn’t relevant here, since I don’t actually support making side-loading illegal, just discouraging it.
Too bad it’s so hard to trace people’s identities on the internet, so that they can be effectively punished. That’s why Google collects like $2 for a Play Store licence; most people can pay it, very few can pay for it millions of times if they keep getting kicked off.
As for education… What do you even teach? Even professionals fall for phishing attacks.
Let’s do that, too.
Harm reduction. I’m guessing that’s a rhetorical question, since the answer is so obvious, and is identical for all “nanny state” initiatives.
Still better than the wild web.
That’s been possible the whole time, and it’s been done since at least Windows XP and the so-called Genuine Windows Install gadget that they shipped through Windows Update. If your OS vendor is malicious, you’re screwed either way.
It’s actually pretty straightforward.You just have to enable a developer mode and select a directory. These days, you can’t expect (capable) users to do so, though. Times have changed. I’m speaking from my own perspective; installing and in particular, updating, extensions manually isn’t something I’d be happy to do, nor is it something I’d recommend to most people.
I’ve been using Chrome for a few years now. Prior to that I’d used Firefox and it was a rather painful experience because of the crashes and incompatible changes. And even before that, I used Opera 12.x. I gave up after a year or so without (Linux) updates and never came back. I thought they would just replace the rendering core and keep the UI, but they completely rebuilt the browser in a way that made me think I could just use Chrome.
Why do I use Chrome over Chromium? Well, that’s a good question. I switched from Chromium to Chrome after some crazy Debian developer decided to compile it with extensions disabled and I found myself in a position where I needed to jump into a new working day and had to fix my browser ASAP.
I used to believe in the power of free market, and I still do. The problem with free market is it only works given a reasonably large competition. The situation we witness regarding the web browsers today is anything but that. The technology is so crazy complex it’s not a viable option to create a competing browser from scratch, and that’s just what Google wants. Modern web is a technological tragedy and I wouldn’t be surprised if Google intentionally supported its adoption and the trend to make it even more powerful (and complicated) in general just so they can leverage it and use it to their advantage in the end.
I probably will consider giving Firefox (or Firefox-based browser, such as Palemoon) an another chance, and will probably setup Syncthing so that I can cancel my Google Play Music subscription (unlike Spotify, it allows to upload music and share it between devices; at least that’s how it was the last time I checked). The thing is, I’m becoming more and more sceptical this is good for anything. Majority of users doesn’t care. It’s really sad I have to say this, but regulatory bodies (for example in the EU) might be the best cards we hold in our hand. As a devoted libertarian, this troubles me deeply.
What alternatives do you (people) see? Trying to convince as many people as possible that Google is evil and they are morally obligated to switch to anything else? When Mozilla does something stupid, do that again? Well, maybe. I still want to believe this is the way to go, and it’s what I’ve been trying to do in the past, but there’s only so much discomfort one can handle. Majority of people doesn’t care, doesn’t want to care and will not care. That’s what I value people like RMS for, as much as I don’t like him on a personal level: standing behind his opinions is more valuable for him than a comfort he could enjoy by simply following the crowd.
I’m not 100% sure but I think they removed being able to install extensions manually to prevent malware. I think you can still do it on a domain with GPOs.
I think it’s a good thing. A lot of apps try to install extensions without your consent. Not sure what Google could do to allow non-entreprise users to install extensions manually while preventing malware to do so.
Pi-hole to the rescue. Outmanoeuvre that Google!
Also, part of me believe that things like this will actually, eventually, contribute to ending the reign of Google Chrome.
I believe youtube is able to sidestep host-based solutions because they serve ads from their own domain. also there’s crazy hacks like sending ads over a websocket connection, which ublock somehow is able to defeat
Resolverless DNS will evade this as the DNS records for 3rd party page assets will be shipped in the HTTP headers.
Starting to wonder how long before this happens… and when the outrage from security folks will make news. I guess since they didn’t care about the consequences of DoH they won’t care about this either.
DoH, which I admit does have actual privacy benefits, also happens to help work around the ad-blocker problem for Google.
[Comment removed by author]
Man people seems to love grabbing their pitchfork without even wanting to ear Google’s explanation.
We did hear Google’s official explanation though? They think uBlock Origin does too many things and should be split up.
Sure, it’s complete BS and probably automated, but that was their response even when they were inquired about the decision.
It’s a canned message, and got approved a few days later. Perhaps the employee sneezed and clicked the wrong button, or perhaps they misunderstood something, or perhaps something else. In other words: an individual just made a wrong judgement call. It happens.
Yeah I meant an non-automated one. Like saying it was a false positive.
Maybe we wont have one like last time with the rules limit since that changes affected all ad-blockers. But I think we should be careful when people cry wolf without even waiting to see if it was deliberate on google’s side.
Last time there was a shit load of “google is going to ban ad-blockers” articles and it was more nuanced than that. But I don’t know if Google increased the rules limit or whatever as a PR move or in good faith.
The reason why people love grabbing pitchforks about this is that Google never gives a “real” explanation, or any acknowledgement whatsoever that an actual human has even seen the issue. The only exception being that sometimes a tweet or social media post about a specific case gets enough attention for an actual Google employee with some authority to notice it.
How/where can you get this non-automated response?
Maybe you can configure your mail server to require “I am not a robot” puzzle solving so you are sure an actual human at Google sent the mail?!
Are you mocking me? That’s not how email servers work.
A bug report maybe? I have no idea if it’s even possible to contact a human at Google but I would hope there’s a way to appeal when your extension is rejected.
That’s the point: There’s no way to contact Google except by raising a huge fuss on social media, or happening to know someone on the inside. That’s the way they’ve set it up.
There’s no such thing as a second chance for a company that won’t talk to you.
ETA: I just rechecked the thread after posting this, and 30 minutes ago, there was an update: Google has approved the extension because someone at Google saw the fuss on social media. See what I mean?
No, not you, but Google. It was my cynical take on this Kafkaesque situation.
But it eventually got approved.
I hold no particular love for Chrome for many reasons (e.g. this), but if you want to have an audited “app store” then mistakes will happen. People get confused, click wrong buttons, mix things up, etc. It’s hardly proof of some Google conspiracy, or indeed, anything else.
My #1 excuse to keep using Chrome was that I was too used to cVim’s bindings, and couldn’t find an equivalent.
Today I just installed Firefox 69 with Vim-Vixen. A few minutes with the Vim-Vixen JSON key binding editor got me pretty close to cVim. Fully committed this time…
edit Also this (in case you liberally use Alt+ to scroll tabs, and Alt+backtick/Alt+tab in Gnome like I do): about:config?filter=ui.key.menuAccessKeyFocuses
[Comment removed by author]
So far I’ve found Vivaldi to be a great alternative to Chrome.
I hope that uBlockOrigin will support it (and other forks) even if Google rejects them from the “Chrome Store”.