Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

  • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Several government websites for the state of Pennsylvania complain and refuse to work if they detect that you aren’t using chrome/edge/safari.

    • poke@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do the sites work if you use an extension that lies to them about what browser you are using?

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You can spoof your useragent to appear as chrome. And you should as it makes your browser less “unique”

      • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        While you can do this, it’s not clear to me that you should. There are a number of additional laws having to do with perjury and misusing goverment sites and while I would undoubtedly agree with you, were you to assert the application of those laws to the utilization of a user agent switcher is a ridiculous overreach, I am just as certain I have no desire to be in the hot-seat on the day we all find out.

        • bitwolf@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh wow I didn’t know that. I’ll have to double check for the states that are relevant for me.

          I imagine many people naively install a privacy extension and unknowingly have altered useragents

          • datavoid@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Imagine the government coming after someone, demanding they give Google their fair share

            • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, because career-minded prosecutors and judges never fuck over little people for minor, technical, harmless violations of the law. 🙄