Another example of advertising corrupting ad supported media. Chrome runs on individually-owned computers. Ads consume those individuals' resources, storage space, CPU (in the case of ads that use JavaScript) and network bandwidth. Individuals should have the choice of allowing some outside entity using their resources. In this, we see why web advertising is so alluring to corporations: it uses other peoples' resources. Web advertising is cheaper because of this.
> the Chrome team has tried to reduce the potential for abuse in the new “Manifest V3” system, but pundits and others have popularized elaborate conspiracy theories that this was just a way for Google to crack down on adblockers for their own business interests.
Trash press. Click-baity article that doesn't even attempt to explain that the solution is to install the similarly named "uBlock Origin Lite" which is the Manifest v3 counterpart and works perfectly fine out of the box, and is on-par with uBlock Origin after giving it a few extra permissions (2 clicks).
> If you're affected by Google's Manifest V2 deprecation, you can switch to Manifest V3-supported extensions, such as the uBlock Origin Lite (uBOL), which the uBlock Origin developer has created.
> However, if you prefer uBlock Origin's advanced filtering, you may find the Lite version too limited.
The article is not FUD or trash press. At least they explain the background and what is going on. I had this issue popping up in my Chrome without knowing why. Google Chrome did not tell anything about why they wanted to disable it. It seemed really weird.
At least from that article I get some background and know what to do to get uBlock Origin back.
Another example of advertising corrupting ad supported media. Chrome runs on individually-owned computers. Ads consume those individuals' resources, storage space, CPU (in the case of ads that use JavaScript) and network bandwidth. Individuals should have the choice of allowing some outside entity using their resources. In this, we see why web advertising is so alluring to corporations: it uses other peoples' resources. Web advertising is cheaper because of this.
It doesn't seem to be about ads at all, AFAICT. https://textslashplain.com/2024/03/07/browser-extensions-pow...
> the Chrome team has tried to reduce the potential for abuse in the new “Manifest V3” system, but pundits and others have popularized elaborate conspiracy theories that this was just a way for Google to crack down on adblockers for their own business interests.
> (This is an especially silly claim, since [Google ads are trivially blockable in the new system](https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-ma...).)
..I was just quoting the article, I don't necessarily agree with their opinion.
Are you reacting to your downvote(s)? That's just driveby downvotes from google haters, nothing substantive.
The medium is the message.
Just use Firefox:
- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2024/03/18/sensible-firefox-s...
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43133288
Trash press. Click-baity article that doesn't even attempt to explain that the solution is to install the similarly named "uBlock Origin Lite" which is the Manifest v3 counterpart and works perfectly fine out of the box, and is on-par with uBlock Origin after giving it a few extra permissions (2 clicks).
The v3 FUD spreaders remind me of systemd haters.
From tfa
> If you're affected by Google's Manifest V2 deprecation, you can switch to Manifest V3-supported extensions, such as the uBlock Origin Lite (uBOL), which the uBlock Origin developer has created.
> However, if you prefer uBlock Origin's advanced filtering, you may find the Lite version too limited.
The article is not FUD or trash press. At least they explain the background and what is going on. I had this issue popping up in my Chrome without knowing why. Google Chrome did not tell anything about why they wanted to disable it. It seemed really weird.
At least from that article I get some background and know what to do to get uBlock Origin back.