~~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.

  • Dju@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    299
    ·
    2 years ago

    Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):

    I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      119
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      “uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.

      • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word “slam” on the daily in headlines?

          It’s straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.

            • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Unless you’re lucky enough to get tenure, or stumble upon a fact of the universe that no one knew and just happens to be relevant to a modern economy.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.

            Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

            It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              it’s also just an objectively fantastic word

              100% disagree

              “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

              All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

              Fuck “slam” in headlines.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”

                I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.

                I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.

                All of these are better

                No they aren’t, for the very reason I already stated. They aren’t concise, which is paramount when it comes to crafting a headline.

                Slam in headlines implies violence

                Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question

                  I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.

                  Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                  Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):

                  I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.

                  My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:

                  if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    231
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It’s clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.

  • watson@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    2 years ago

    I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.

      It’s the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.

      The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn’t work on other browsers, where they failed to test.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            41
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Out of principle, I refuse to pretend I am not browsing with Firefox. 🦊❤️✊ Let website statistics show! And I will boycott sites that break due to not testing on multiple browsers!

            • dmtalon@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 years ago

              That works until it’s your bank or credit card website. I cannot use Capital One’s (CC) “pay bill” any longer.

            • teft@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I thought like that until youtube started intentionally slowing firefox identifying clients. As soon as I changed my user-agent to match chrome’s the speed was back to normal.

              • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Lol I blocked all but essential JS on YouTube with NoScript and never faced any problems at all. Videos load just fine without extra penalties.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 years ago

      Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.

      • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        I worked somewhere like that back in the 2008-2010 time frame. Thankfully, there was a extension, I believe the name was “IETab”, that would spawn a new tab in Trident (IE’s browser engine). So you could set certain sites to launch in one of those tabs and everything else would use standard Firefox. None of the people I supported were any the wiser. They just thought everything worked in Firefox.

        Granted it was only that seamless because Windows already had that rendering engine built in. There are some extensions that do something similar with Chrome, but because of more modern security standards and whatnot you have to install extension helper applications which is gross.

  • uzay@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    What the uBlock dev actually said:

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/wiki/About-Google-Chrome’s-“This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported”

    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.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      I love Librewolf currently but I worry it’s going to stray too much from what it originally was like Waterfox and others ended up doing, and then end up randomly breaking compatibility with certain plugins or introducing other issues.

      Right now, Librewolf is the best way to experience Firefox. Will that still be the case in 5, 10, 15 years? That remains to be seen. I hope it’s still the best way to experience Firefox years from now. Having to change browsers every so often does suck tbh.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Meh.

        Librewolf already breaks loads of websites with it’s fingerprinting resistance - just get used to turning it off.

        In any case, you already need a chromium fork handy for all the sites that just plain don’t support firefox any more. I’ve run in to weird issues in firefox that don’t arise in chromium several times in the last month. This is going to get much worse.

        As for changing browsers. I don’t care very much. I don’t use many browser features like bookmarks or passwords.

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Which websites did you run into issues with Firefox? I haven’t had any issues with any websites. I do think you’re right that it’s probably going to get worse over time, but maybe not if more people make the switch to Firefox.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            booking.com is the worst I’ve encountered. There’s a captcha type anti-bot thing that I can’t pass with firefox. I think it uses canvas.

            edit: another I use all the time is called echo360. It’s the platform my university uses to host lecture videos. The player just plain doesn’t work in firefox - blank screen.

    • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      hello, i have chosen to value your opinion above my own based on very shaky reasoning i will not be sharing

      I abandoned chrome for being too RAM-hungry when im playing games w the browser open

      i abandoned Internet Explorer for being too slow

      and i abandoned firefox for being too bloated and sluggish, but that was like 2010 and things change

      im currently using Opera but why do you choose firefox over its contemporaries?

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because it’s not based on chromium(blink web engine), there are two other well supported web engines which browsers can be based on, WebKit (Apple), and Gecko (Mozilla).

        At the end of the day, if it’s built on Blink, it’s liable to have Google break things they don’t like on the back end. Including ad blockers.

        Opera used to be built on it’s own web engine (presto) but since 2013 it’s been built on Blink.

        • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          that was a great summary, thank you

          trying to research such a broad topic was overwhelming

  • Axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The ‘block element’ picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.

    Also included block lists can’t update unless the extension itself updates.

    If you’re not stuck on chrome due to workplace policy or something, now is the time to switch to Firefox

  • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 years ago

    The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.

    I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome’s add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did

    • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      i crave decisiveness like that. it would make me so happy if that sort of behavior became the norm.

      too many corpos getting away with murder because they are more convenient than their competitors or because switching is too hard

    • Bonesince1997@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I switched somewhere in the early 2000s, from Internet Explorer (Microsoft), and never looked back. (Using IE and now Edge as alternatives only, when I get the rare non-functional Firefox issue.) Never created an account either. I manually save and port my bookmarks!

  • FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 years ago

    ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        not the original commenter but FLOORP, BABYYYY!!! let’s go let’s get this floorp action come on floorp is the best reign supreme for a thousand years floorp woooooo

  • Butterpaderp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 years ago

    I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).

        It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.

        As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.

        It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s ruling. They are a direct competitor.

  • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    So what are the consequences of it being flagged? Does it change how it operates?

    I don’t use chrome so it doesn’t directly impact me but I like being up-to-date on this stuff

    Edit: actually read the article lol so this is related to compatibility with manifest v3