Chrome serves me just fine nowadays. Unlike you, I&#x27;m not some kind of Gandhi of the tech scene or anything like that. If it serves me fine I won&#x27;t stop using it. If Chrome ceases to support adblock extensions then I will go look for some other browser, I would probably change to Vivaldi or anything like that,  or even Firefox, they sure as hell will be there.

&quot;When&quot; they do that, it will be because they have judged that they have, by then, thoroughly extinguished all competition. If you (the royal &quot;you&quot;) want there to exist an alternative browser to which to jump to when the time comes, then consider making the jump today, when your influence might still make some small contribution to the competitiveness of the browser market.

Google never wanted to have these adblock extensions on their store in the first place, it just turns out that when chrome was released and had zero market share they had to make this huge compromise to gain territory in the browser arena and eventually overthrow Firefox and the competition. And when (not if, when – it will eventually happen) they do that I will jump off from the Chrome bandwagon.

Unfortunately it is unbearably slow on MacOS.

Another excellent browser that users should be switching to:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firefox.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firefox.com</a>

I&#x27;m also very fond of Vivaldi, and I intend to switch one of these days.It would be especially nice if we can get the Vivaldi developers to fork Blink to keep the old API around.

Chromium is much easier to compile once you take into account all the requirements.

Chromium is still controlled by Google. Exhibit A: this ad-blocking API issue, where Google decisions will affect all Chromium browsers. (Sure, they can maintain patches against upstream, but over time that becomes non-viable.)If Google&#x27;s behaviour concerns you, you need to use Firefox or Safari.

Chromium &#x2F; Blink is open source, we should be doing everything we can to get as many users using non-Google Chromium browsers. We really shouldn&#x27;t be having to worry so much about Google&#x27;s conflicts of interests. Brave and Blink-based Edge are looking to be better and better options.Another is UnGoogled-Chromium: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Eloston&#x2F;ungoogled-chromium" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Eloston&#x2F;ungoogled-chromium</a>Would love to see this latter option becoming something that appeals to a very large, mainstream market rather than just a few techies.

Can you elaborate as to why you recommend it? Thanks.

&gt; ungoogled-chromium retains the default Chromium experience as closely as possibleIt sounds like they would also be removing ad-blocking then

Personally I use and can recommend ungoogled-chromium <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Eloston&#x2F;ungoogled-chromium" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Eloston&#x2F;ungoogled-chromium</a>

You&#x27;re not wrong about what it boils down to, but, I&#x27;m all for it.  I didn&#x27;t mind ads, generally, until I did.  Until they started hijacking your browser, redirecting you, doing popups.  Ad people have shown they cannot be trusted on the whole.  What Brave seems to be doing is doing their own &#x27;safe ads&#x27; system, and sharing the money.  It will likely be less for the content creators, but as a &#x27;at-my-wits-end-with-ads&#x27; Brave user, I just don&#x27;t care.

I mean we would be paid for viewing ads this way instead of being paid nothing as it is now, and losing all our privacy instead.Seems like a win&#x2F;win to me. Advertisers would actually pay the eyeballs that should be paid for seeing ads instead of the middleman in the attention economy. The technology in the Basic Attention Token performs all the functions instead.

I use Brave and have never bought any cryptocurrency, nor do I intend to.I think it will be a net positive if every targeted ad company stops using that model, so Brave shutting this down is a huge plus for me.Note, I used a similar setup in chrome and Firefox that some might find gross as well as it removed the ability for websites to monetize me using ads or data from surveillance.

Maybe it&#x27;s unfair, but I can&#x27;t help but think of Brave as just a scheme to push their cryptocurrency. They&#x27;re removing the website&#x27;s ability to monetize and replacing it with their own system. That seems gross.

Without source available, it seems like it&#x27;s targeted for a section of power users.

UI in javascript = still to this day it can take 2-3 seconds when opening new tabs or going fullscreen. Plus they released a statement about &quot;observing&quot; Google adblock decisions instead of going hard in with &quot;we will not deprecate webrequest usability in our fork&quot;.

The original creators of Opera have been building out Vivaldi for a while, which has the specific design goal of being a browser for power users<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vivaldi.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vivaldi.com&#x2F;</a>

It won&#x27;t effect Brave. Brave is a Chromium fork, not an extension, so have full control over the browser&#x2F;APIs.

Does the webRequest API deprecation also impact Chromium, and therefore Brave as well? Brave seems like it&#x27;s willing to backfill in changes to Chromium, but I&#x27;m wondering how this impacts the browser overall.I use Brave as my daily driver (with Shields Up and uBlock Origin), but I&#x27;m not sure what the actual impact will be when it comes.

I&#x27;m not an apple user, so sorry if this is way off but...... isn&#x27;t the direction Google&#x27;s taking here the same as what Apple already did with Safari? Is Safari actually any better in this particular regard?

I love Brendan, but if Google&#x27;s browser domination concerns you, use Firefox or Safari. Using Chromium browsers leaves Google firmly in control.

By fling, do you mean the two-finger horizontal scroll to move back and forward through history? If so, I miss it too.

The only thing I&#x27;m missing on Firefox is when I am on my Macbook, is that fling when using my touchpad. It&#x27;s essential to any MacOS app and it feels weird not to have it. I&#x27;m used to it on Linux and Windows though.

Brave still uses Chromium. I already use Chromium.

Here are browsers that aren&#x27;t just &#x27;not Chrome,&#x27; they are better.Brave: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brave.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brave.com&#x2F;</a>Firefox: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;</a>

I mean, mobile Safari doesn&#x27;t allow extensions, and only recently allowed content blockers. Safari also has essentially the same model that Chrome wants to adopt:&gt; Apps tell Safari in advance what kinds of content to block. Because Safari doesn&#x27;t have to consult with the app during loading, and because Xcode compiles Content Blockers into bytecode, this model runs efficiently. Additionally, Content Blockers have no knowledge of users&#x27; history or the websites they visit.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;safariservices&#x2F;creating_a_content_blocker" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;safariservices&#x2F;cre...</a>

This is not entirely surprising. There is a reason why mobile Chrome, unlike mobile Firefox, never allowed extensions in the first place.

Chrome&#x27;s DevTools handles developing large unbundled webapps better. When your loader is reaching to the fs for thousands of source files for a single page load, Chrome performs significantly better than Firefox. Same goes for Ctrl+P jumping to files and debugging performance.It&#x27;s gotten a lot better over the last two years, especially when FF DevTools got support for source maps and TypeScript debugging, but it still lags enough to keep me using Chrome for my job, Firefox at home.

Do you have some reasons you prefer chrome dev tools to FF? I consider FF to have the more featureful devtools, for example the sheer amount of stuff under the styles tab, you can tweak fonts in browser.I do remember back when I used chrome there would be new `console.x` features that were chrome only from time to time, but after I switched to FF I never really looked back

Devtools are baked into standard chrome. I find it odd I&#x27;d have to download a special version of Firefox made for developers.

Don&#x27;t forget there is a Firefox Developer version that includes additional devtools.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;developer&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;developer&#x2F;</a>

Modern firefox is an awesome experience. The only reason I use Chrome is because the dev tools are that good.

Aren&#x27;t they already doing this with theyr &quot;Acceptable Ads Program&quot;?

&gt; Step 3: Allow only ads from Google ad-networkThey can&#x27;t do that, this is an anti-trust lost case for them.

Going as planned I presume.Step 1: Enable &quot;Built-In Ad-Blocker&quot;Step 2: Disable all other ad-blocks from store for some reasonStep 3: Allow only ads from Google ad-network

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn&#x27;t. Sometimes it just restores some of the tabs and windows. It&#x27;s really inconsistent.Also it lacks the granularity of session buddy, which has a list of every tab and window configuration I&#x27;ve ever had.

Firefox has session restore, which also works when the browser is closed abruptly. Is it now working for you?

It&#x27;s not exactly sessions, but you can bookmark all open tabs (perhaps into a folder called sessions&#x2F;worktrip_boston), and then later &quot;open all as tabs&quot; using that folder.I find this useful when researching a particular thing, and wanting to save the resources for later. Sorry I can&#x27;t remember the exact menu items, as I&#x27;m on Firefox mobile and it doesn&#x27;t do it.

Yes!  Thank you!  I don&#x27;t know why my searching failed to find this, but it is in fact exactly what I was looking for.  If this were Reddit I&#x27;d give you Gold.  You&#x27;re my hero.

I use a Firefox addon called Session Boss. It might be what you&#x27;re looking for.

I tried that one but it didn&#x27;t handle containers.

There&#x27;s also Tab Session Manager, which I&#x27;ve been using with great success for hundreds of years!<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;tab-session-manager&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;tab-session-m...</a>

You just gave me flashbacks to when I upgraded from DOS 2.0 to 2.1...

&gt; I only use Chrome to access Google apps, because for some strange reason they work a lot better in Chrome...DOS 2.1 ain&#x27;t done until Lotus won&#x27;t run

This impacts you if you&#x27;re on FF too... if this works and Google is able to monetize Chrome more directly than FF then FF is going to have less development resources.

Former Session Buddy user. I&#x27;m using Session Sync and it&#x27;s pretty neat. I think Session Buddy UI is still better and Session Sync needs some improvements (such as selecting multiple tabs in a session simultaneously). However, once I got used to it, I didn&#x27;t miss it at all.In addition, I like the integration with Firefox Bookmarks. It creates a folder &quot;Session Sync&quot; and stores sessions as sub-folders. So, if anything happens, I still have them as simple, curated bookmarks.

I&#x27;m glad I already made the switch to FireFox. I only use Chrome to access Google apps, because for some strange reason they work a lot better in Chrome...The only thing I miss is a Session Buddy equivalent. When my computer crashes, it&#x27;s nice to be able to restore all my tabs and windows, and also it&#x27;s nice to be able to close a bunch of windows when I travel and then go back to my tab state from three weeks ago.

Is it this?<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cloud.google.com&#x2F;chrome-enterprise&#x2F;browser&#x2F;download" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cloud.google.com&#x2F;chrome-enterprise&#x2F;browser&#x2F;download</a>

One of my favorite things with Firefox is the ability to “edit and resend” requests in the browser devtools. I’m sure there are plugins that do something similar on chrome&#x2F;chromium. But I use it all the time and my colleagues are always blown away when I show them this.

I don&#x27;t believe it&#x27;s accurate to say it&#x27;s &quot;accessible by any user&quot;, the net effect of the policy will be (over a time span of months or years) to limit ad blocking only to the most technically capable users who understand how to do what you describe.Moreover, extensions that continue to use this behavior are required to adhere to manifest v2, and support for that manifest will likely eventually be deprecated. Chrome blocked the store from serving and updating manifest v1 extensions after a deprecation period.Google rapidly deprecated version 1, from Chrome 18&#x27;s release adding version 2 in March 2012 to blocking updating in March 2013, to removal of all extensions that had not updated from the Chrome Web Store in September 2013.If Manifest v3 follows a similar trajectory, Chrome is on a path to remove uBlock Origin from its web store in 2 years.

What platform are you on? I tried Firefox quantum yesterday and could not stand the text rendering. Gmail looks awful. But I don&#x27;t have a 4k monitor yet...

Googler here, but I do not work on Chrome and I’m speaking on a personal capacity.I believe this is a misnomer. The enterprise deployment stuff I’m aware of in Chrome&#x2F;Chromium is accessible by any user, as far as I know, and in the past I’ve used it to force private browsing on always for my own personal usage.That said, I switched to Firefox when Quantum came out and haven’t looked back. Mozilla has done some annoying stuff over time, but imo the browser itself is really solid, and with some tweaks is very good.

&quot;Content can still be blocked with extensions&quot;Well, without live heuristics. Chrome ad blocking is basically now limited to a dumb, limited list of URI patterns. Better than nothing, but much less capable than before.

This is essentially not true.Content can still be blocked with extensions, but it will be more difficult to handle large block lists.See this comment from the author of uBlock Origin and uMatrix.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;338#issuecomment-496009417" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;338#iss...</a>

&gt; Never heard of a paid version of Chrome before!Is there such a thing? The &quot;paid&quot; part comes from the article&#x27;s gloss, not from Google. I could see it instead being &quot;this is a switch you can turn on in Group Policy.&quot;

Can you elaborate on what this is and why you think it’s so great?

Chromium will still contain this change, in fact its where it will appear first.

Check out Ungoogled Chromium, it&#x27;s pretty great.

Funny how sometimes what everybody was waiting to happen just.... happens

&gt; People were predicting this as the Chrome endgame years ago. It&#x27;s playing out exactly as everyone cynically expected.Would you happen to have any links to previous discussions anticipating this exact endgame?

People were predicting this as the Chrome endgame years ago. It&#x27;s playing out exactly as everyone cynically expected.It&#x27;s time to eliminate Google from your life as much as possible if you haven&#x27;t already. Too many wake up calls. They are not a tech company, they are data monopolists. Stop giving them your data.

They mean Chrome extensions installed via gsuite - Google&#x27;s enterprise management system. Ie - you can have managed Chromebooks and force install extensions. A lot of school&#x27;s use it for web filtering.

Are brave in control of the web request API within their build? I know it&#x27;s a fork of Chromium, just not sure how much is available for them to change.I have been using brave for months and intend to continue if uBo keeps working. Braves internal ad blocking doesn&#x27;t stop everything.

Brave user here, 1&#x2F;10 the CPU and memory usage and built on the same tech. Welcome!

<pre><code> Google is essentially saying that Chrome will still have the 
 capability to block unwanted content, but this will be 
 restricted to only paid, enterprise users of Chrome.
</code></pre>
Never heard of a paid version of Chrome before! Can anyone elaborate on this?I gotta say I&#x27;m kind of glad Google is doing this. It will force me to finally abandon Chrome, something I should have done awhile ago.

Vivaldi builds on top of Chromium. All Chromium browsers will eventually receive these extensions changes as well unless they fork their codebase. Most of them support extensions via the Chrome Web Store though which means they&#x27;ll need to adopt Manifest V3.

Ditched Chrome a few years ago and switched to Vivaldi. Couldn&#x27;t be happier.

Bye bye Chrome...it was good while it lasted, although you have become a bit of a resource hog in recent years.

I run Firefox on my Chromebook in Ubuntu via Crostini, works pretty well and appears right next to native ChromeOS apps on the screen.

&gt; Firefox is available on all platforms (including Chrome OS via the Android or Linux app)Maybe this is a viable solution on brand new chromebooks, but on my Acer R11 both Android apps and Linux containers run pretty poorly. I use an Android app as my password tool just fine, but trying Firefox was a rather poor experience. And the linux container just dogs trying to do anything.I have Ubuntu loaded on via crouton (to use tools like GIMP or actual VLC), but if chrome gets rid of ad blocking that removes much of the point of ChromeOS for me entirely.

&gt; I really think it is a bad practice to force adoption of a new API that can&#x27;t fulfill the same functions as the previous one.I agree, which incidentally is the reason I switched from Firefox to Chromium a couple years back as Mozilla dropped XUL extensions for their own development convenience, toward an ideal of cross-browser extension compatibility, and in hoping to win over Chrome users by making Firefox more alike in both looks and performance.How many of those motivations have changed, and do we know that Mozilla aren&#x27;t actually going to follow suit with a similar restructuring of APIs some time after such changes have settled into and been normalized in Chrome?

And if those features happen to never be implemented?I really think it is a bad practice to force adoption of a new API that can&#x27;t fulfill the same functions as the previous one.Nobody would be here talking about this if they just made the new API without breaking add blocking (useful add blocking), and then forced people to move.Even more so given that it looks really bad when your main goal is to serve people ads.

I&#x27;m tired of major corps doing this with their APIs, either the new API is a drop in replacement for the old API or you&#x27;re doing shady shit in the guise of &quot;it&#x27;s coming! soonish~&quot;

I found this post highly editorialized. Here&#x27;s the actual response if you want to understand the context, instead of simply seeing bits and pieces with a journalist&#x27;s spin.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;chromium-extensions&#x2F;veJy9uAwS00%5B1-25%5D" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;chrom...</a>Also, the headline seems mostly incorrect. The gist of it, as I understand, is that Chrome is enforcing a migration from the webRequest API to a new declarativeNetRequest API. The latter API doesn&#x27;t currently have all the capabilities of the former, which is important for context blocking extensions. However, features are still being added and the team states that they are interested in more feedback from extension developers.

Is this applicable to chromium too or just chrome? Would like to see how Microsoft approaches this with their new browser

Microsoft might just have the horsepower to keep up with any particularly shitty changes that Google might potentially try to push through, better than some of the other Chromium skins. At least if they want to.

Unless they backfill it... I can see Microsoft going all out with Edge Chromium and Brave also trying their best. Both have manpower to try overcome Google&#x27;s decisions on Chromium with their forks.

Did you miss the part where these Google decisions affect all Chromium browsers?

Why wouldn&#x27;t you have an adblocker?  Manifest V3 supports ad blocking.

The new Chromium based Edge suddenly got a whole lot more relevant. I certainly won&#x27;t use Chrome if I can&#x27;t have an ad-blocker!

This is why it’s so unfortunate and frustrating that people are depending so much on Chromium&#x2F;Blink. Electron, various browsers that are just skins over the embedded framework...We were still dealing with legacy IE6 (and IE 7&#x2F;8 by that point also) in 2013! Almost a decade since we got Firefox and the first version of Chrome.The web has empirically suffered through homogeneity and the lack of strong competitors in the browser space, not helped by the underlying HTML&#x2F;JS spec becoming exponentially more convoluted to the point where building your own renderer is nigh impossible.And since everyone is standardising on a Google, their decisions on ad blocking and supporting APIs are automatically going to flow down into every dependent product.It’s frustrating that MS copped out and went Chromium. Like we never learned this lesson the first time.We still have WebKit and Firefox and (sooner or later), more of Servo at least. These need to be protected if we don’t want Google and the ad network to totally control the browsing experience.Although, controversially, we as a web dev collective have learned nothing if we continue to only develop for a single browser. Not for the web itself, but for one particular rendering engine. “Only works in Chrome,” is poor engineering for anything more than a prototype or proof of concept.

&gt;almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market.This makes me wonder if there&#x27;s any way we can give gorhill a bunch of money in donations. He&#x27;s in a much more important position than I previously realized, and despite the statement in the uBlock readme (&quot;Free. Open source. For users by users. No donations sought.&quot;) I think it would be an excellent idea to make sure he has permanent financial stability for as long as he continues to work on uBlock.If he wants a multi-million dollar corporate buyer to come along, I&#x27;m sure he can get it. But as long as he&#x27;s incentivized to continue building a truly pro-user ad blocker, we should at least make sure he&#x27;s not in a situation where he could be forced to sell out.

&gt; uBlock (not confused with uBO)This naming is a catastrophe. I just tried to find out which is which and it isn&#x27;t easy, even if you know what you&#x27;re looking for.I&#x27;d think that uBlock Origin should consider changing the name. Yes, &quot;it means giving up&quot;, but it&#x27;s a battle they can&#x27;t win anyway, and at least users will be able to tell which one is owned by eyeo.EDIT: AdBlock and AdBlock Plus are similarly confusing.

Adblock plus have a committee that is supposed to be independent companies that they consult but they invested in some of them and made those people the head of each group so its not even independenteyeo is a pure scam and they make 99% profit because they have no costs

There is an additional danger here.Currently, we can go use Firefox or Joe&#x27;s homemade browser to to back the features that Chrome removes, such as the ability for an ad-blocker to access and remove content. But we&#x27;ve already seen just last month [1] that Google actively prevents Firefox from using some features of Google products (need to find the HN link). Thus Google as a content provider can easily steep people into using the Google web browser.This is really starting to smell similar to the Microsoft - IE debacle all over again.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19669586" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19669586</a>

Just want to emphasise this point:&gt; I recently had a look at another system of someone who uses ABP I noticed that the blocking really is only visual, theres still a profile that is being sold to data brokersIt&#x27;s quite shocking, anti-intuitive, and really shows what the web advertising business is really all about.

&gt; Someone at Google in the higher ups probably realized at one point that giving the user so much freedom and control could theoretically backfire enourmously.That&#x27;s ... well, so much for the internet ... :-(It&#x27;s really against what I imagine to be some of the core principles of the internet.

&gt; Someone at Google in the higher ups probably realized at one point that giving the user so much freedom and control could theoretically backfire enourmously.If that is the case, it seems very short sighted.While this change is obviously not in the interest of any user, there are multiple ways around it.. the alternative solutions are not so easy right now, but they will become more user friendly as they rise to the surface as the new way to block ads. The affect on Google&#x27;s revenue will be short term (if any), but I suspect the affect on Google&#x27;s public image will be significant and lasting. It doesn&#x27;t seem worth the risk to Google for such a short term gain.

Indeed, almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market. The fact that Eyeo has &gt;150 employees tells us something about the amount of money to be made from ad blocking. Although they have only published the numbers from 2016, it seems they are quickly approaching around €50 million yearly revenue, with almost 50% of pure profit. For Google this Acceptable Ads Program may be more than a 100 million dollar business.The only real nuisance is uBO and the future possibility that someone comes along and uses Google&#x27;s own software to eliminate their core business model.Basically in this entire environment if an extension does not take part in extracting money out of people, it becomes a problem for most parties involved.Someone at Google in the higher ups probably realized at one point that giving the user so much freedom and control could theoretically backfire enourmously.Google indirectly controls ABP, but they want the ABP model to apply to all blockers, so that they both get money from non-blocking users as well as from blocking-users.In the perfect world of Google content-blocking does not exist beyond mere visual ad-blocking of the most annoying ads.ABP already allows cookies and network connections, so google still knows everything about those users.Personally I use a combination of pi-hole, third-party cookie blocking and uBO, which takes care of basically all cross-site tracking. But when I recently had a look at another system of someone who uses ABP I noticed that the blocking really is only visual, theres still a profile that is being sold to data brokers, you just don&#x27;t see the stuff they recommend to you.The default settings of ABP are also extremely anti-user.ABP&#x2F;Eyeo is a wolf in sheep&#x27;s clothing.uBO users on the other hand are basically invisible to the survaillance capitalists.

Yes we can ditch chrome. But what about general population? Now that websites may choose to give incompatiblity prompts to Firefox since it impacts there revenue through ads. They will ask users to switch to chrome. This might affect Firefox in long run. It&#x27;s market share might drop.

How about Vivaldi? Or Opera with built-in ad-blocker (which I&#x27;m currently using and it works great, at least with uBlock Origin installed too)? Unfortunately I can&#x27;t use Firefox on my system ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;comments&#x2F;a42xei&#x2F;state_of_firefox_in_macos&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;comments&#x2F;a42xei&#x2F;state_of_fi...</a> nothing changed for years with these problems and I believe it will unfortunately stay that way)

uBlock should really just instruct users to &quot;switch to firefox for a fast, up-to-date ad-blocking experience&quot;

The filters 99.9% of people use are completely public. Otherwise how would you use them?

&quot;The deprecation of the blocking ability of the WebRequest API is to gain back this control, and to further now instrument and report how web pages are filtered since now the exact filters which are applied to web page is information which will be collectable by Google Chrome.&quot;In the same way a company trying to determine what a user looks at on their computer screen is a privacy issue, this is too. Those filters should be private.

I am as free market as they come.I don&#x27;t consider Google a monopoly. I figure many &quot;free market people&quot; define a monopoly pretty strictly. They&#x27;re not forcing me to use their browser, search engine, maps, email, or many other services.However, they do have a disturbingly high level of market dominance. So seeing as I am a part of the free market (after all, the &quot;economy is us&quot;), I have opted to minimize my use of Google products and services and encourage others to do the same. This wasn&#x27;t the tipping point for me; I&#x27;ve been advocating alternatives for quite some time.I don&#x27;t want Google punished with anti-trust laws if that can be avoided. I&#x27;d much rather see users apply corrective pressure. Of course, that assumes users appreciate the importance of their privacy, which makes this a lengthy game of messaging and persuasion.

Welcome to the point when even free market people will no longer defend your monopoly, Google.The number of egregious examples of their centralization backfiring against the freedoms within the day-to-day life of internet users keeps growing bigger at a seemingly exponential rate.The barrier for competition may be high but history is littered with examples of giants withering under their own decision making. Nor will they forever be immune from antitrust laws.

Even if you decide to believe that Google is doing this for the &quot;right reasons&quot; (improving performance for instance) it should still be a huge red flag. Due their conflicting business model they have no incentive to improve the adblocking interface later on. You can therefore expect the adblocking capabilities to degrade every time they can come up with a reasonable reason to do so while they&#x27;ll never take the time to actually come up with a better solution.Switch to Firefox people, it&#x27;s not perfect but at least it&#x27;s not Chrome.

AKA the old bait and switch! Well I&#x27;ve been needing a reason to finally make the full switch to firefox ( the containers were already compelling )

From the author of uBlock on this:What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to &quot;sell&quot; the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business. So we have to judge not by what is said for public consumption purpose, but by what in effect is being done, or what they plan to do.This is how personally I see the deprecation of the blocking ability of the webRequest API in manifest v3:In order for Google Chrome to reach its current user base, it had to support content blockers -- these are the top most popular extensions for any browser. Google strategy has been to find the optimal point between the two goals of growing the user base of Google Chrome and preventing content blockers from harming its business.The blocking ability of the webRequest API caused Google to yield control of content blocking to content blockers. Now that Google Chrome is the dominant browser, it is in a better position to shift the optimal point between the two goals which benefits Google&#x27;s primary business.The deprecation of the blocking ability of the webRequest API is to gain back this control, and to further now instrument and report how web pages are filtered since now the exact filters which are applied to web page is information which will be collectable by Google Chrome.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;338#issuecomment-496009417" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;338#iss...</a>

That&#x27;s a pretty good amount to be making. Should easily pay for the time spent maintaining the project.

It saddens me that Pi-Hole is pulling a mere $1,700&#x2F;mo on Patreon.There must be just way too much friction for a user to say, yeah, charge me $1&#x2F;mo please.

You only need to set it up once per network, instead of once per browser, and it is capable of filtering (most) ads even on closed platforms (e.g. apps on non-rooted phones).The downside is that it is much less granular and harder to set up exceptions.

Pi-hole will also catch all kinds of tracking and analytics requests that are sent via your mobile devices, non-browser apps, etc. There&#x27;s a whole lot more of your data leaking out into the world than just the stuff that comes and goes via ad networks.

If you are keen to try out how it works, give <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nextdns.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nextdns.io&#x2F;</a> a try.I&#x27;m not the maker of the app not can vouch for its integrity but you get a sense of how much network bandwidth ad and tracking takes up on your network.

Can you help a newbie understand why I&#x27;d want to use this instead of Firefox + uBlock Origin? Seems like a lot of extra maintenance overhead...

Yes, it&#x27;s an issue and there&#x27;s nothing a pi-hole can do to solve the issue. YouTube is the most notable server of ads from content servers, but one can imagine more content providers following suit eventually.However, you can have your pi-hole up and running in a few minutes and enjoy excellent network wide ad blocking for virtually every service that isn&#x27;t YouTube.

I have used a pi-hole based blocker for a while, and I have noticed increasingly ads showing up because they are using same domains, both in-app(iOS) and normal desktop. I&#x27;ve settled for a mix of network wide ad-block via pi-hole and adguard(uses mitm for https blocking) to remove almost all ads. In my experience uBlock Origin has made my aging laptop battery drain a lot quicker.PS: I&#x27;m not sure if I would recommend Adguard, but works fine, but somehow the root certificate keeps me left a little bit dreary about possible future Adguard intentions.

I&#x27;ve thought about using pi-hole but wonder about ads being served from the same domains as the content providers. Is&#x2F;has this been an issue at all?

Definitely time to ditch Chrome, but also even more of a reason to set up a PiHole <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pi-hole.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pi-hole.net&#x2F;</a>

That&#x27;s it, Getting myself a pi-hole.

Yes but as far as I understand it doesn&#x27;t actually use the native API. The Content Blocker API has benefits from a performance and privacy perspective.

Does your uBO actually do anything now? I seem to recall seeing that message and letting it run but also noticed that stopped blocking things

Development has stopped on the Safari extension due to the kneecapping of its capabilities in Mojave. Maybe the upcoming Chrome change will spark renewed interest in getting it to work to the extent possible.

This will likely stop before the next version of macOS ships: Safari Technology Preview refuses to load legacy extensions already.

Currently Safari complains that uBO will slow down your browser. But it still lets you load it.

Safari has essentially the same content blocking model that Chrome wants to adopt.&gt; Apps tell Safari in advance what kinds of content to block. Because Safari doesn&#x27;t have to consult with the app during loading, and because Xcode compiles Content Blockers into bytecode, this model runs efficiently. Additionally, Content Blockers have no knowledge of users&#x27; history or the websites they visit.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;safariservices&#x2F;creating_a_content_blocker" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;safariservices&#x2F;cre...</a>

This should be good news for Firefox and Safari. I&#x27;d be interested to hear from Gorhill on whether uBlock Origin works with the Content Blocker API for Safari and if not what needs to change to make it possible.

That is rich!!! There are far too many companies selling my private information without my consent. As long as companies can sell user information, it is only fair for users to block access to such information.

A trivial way to check for Firefox in javascript:<pre><code> !!{}.toSource
</code></pre>
There are many others, of course.

I mean, those annoying “join our newsletter”, “quit using adblockers”, and “allow us access to cookies and all your data or else” popovers went from nonexistent to everywhere in the span of 2 weeks.Once one major site does it, they all will.

Blocking a user agent?  Oh no, whatever shall we do?  Thankfully, we can still just change it, though I suppose a really insidious web site could use feature checks.

If that happens then ad blockers will just also change the user agent to say chrome.

Another big issue is that if chrome makes it difficult to disable ads such that 99% of chrome users aren&#x27;t able to do it, websites may simply choose to block Firefox as it would be easy to do so without losing a large part of user base while making sure no users are blocking ads. Right now there are far too many users using ad blockers.

I&#x27;m not a fan of antitrust as a tool to punish tech companies, but I think there would be great benefit in cleaving Chrome off of Google. The tension between Google&#x27;s business model and what is good for users is just too great.

It&#x27;d be lovely if I could get the speed of Firefox Quantum while still being able to put the damn tabs and address bar wherever I want them.

Pale Moon exists if you want the old school Firefox add-in capabilities

Ugh. Now I&#x27;m going to have to switch my passel of family members, neighbors, and friends who rely on me for tech support over to Firefox.Not that Firefox isn&#x27;t going the same way eventually. Firefox crippled the ability for real customization with Firefox 57 and it&#x27;s only gotten worse since then.

Do you need permission? Just cause Firefox users have turned into the new hipster Mac fanclub doesn&#x27;t mean you have to join them.

Okay so is Chromium safe? Can I switch to that?

If you&#x27;re talking about the issue Mozilla had with add-ons at the beginning of May, yes! Everyone did, haha!All my other settings seem fine, however.

Hmm.  My situation might have a weird circumstance as well: I installed a new version of manjaro, which ships a profile by default with manjaro homepage etc. bookmarked.  I signed into sync; normal one pulled down.  The manjaro one is what got mysteriously applied.  Old profile gone.   I can only imagine what would be causing it; don&#x27;t remember changing anything whatsoever.  Did you by any chance sign in on a new computer before it happened?  My windows was the one that went wonky; linux was the newly signed in.  Glad to hear it&#x27;s not just me, though.  I was to the point of thinking a rabid script went crazy and deleted my profile.

Yes!!! I&#x27;ve had this happen several times, and it&#x27;s incredibly annoying! I was just about to comment on this issue before I saw your post (as a &quot;this is a good opportunity for Firefox but they still have some seriously irritating bugs&quot;).It seems like my entire profile (about:profiles) got switched out several times with a brand new one. Exact same symptoms as you - bookmarks, custom UI tweaks, extensions, etc. all gone (basically consistent with creating a new profile yourself). For a regular user, I think that only needs to happen once for them to uninstall and never come back.Most of the time I&#x27;ve been able to restore it to my old profile, but one time a file was corrupted and I had to start from scratch again. It happened before the extension signing fiasco, and those two things combined led me to explore new options (Vivaldi, Chromium, etc.) although those didn&#x27;t pan out for me so here I am, still on Firefox and crossing my fingers hoping it won&#x27;t happen again.Perhaps relevant: I do have Nightly and Developer Edition installed alongside the regular version. I used to use Nightly as my daily driver, but switched to the regular version after the first time my profile got messed up.

Yep. Can confirm this exact experience from an update yesterday. Dislike.

I tried to like RSS feeds in Firefox but I ultimately decided to self-host my own TinyTinyRSS server among all my other stuff (Plex, Wireguard, SFTP)

Firefox has been doing a few rather questionable things. They had the Mr Roboto add-on which was pushed out to advertise a TV show, they stuck ads in the &quot;Recommendations&quot; [1], they proactively destroyed peoples&#x27; bookmarks when they dropped support for RSS, they dropped support for RSS (because, apparently, a decentralized way to track website updates is anti-Google), and they destroyed a lot of useful add-ons.I basically can&#x27;t trust them anymore.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;5&#x2F;7&#x2F;17326184&#x2F;firefox-ads-sponsored-content-pocket-suggestions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;5&#x2F;7&#x2F;17326184&#x2F;firefox-ads-spons...</a>

The new version that just came out added a new feature where different channels (Release, Nightly, etc.) have different profiles, and for some people it seems to have not picked the right profile for the channel they use. You can try looking at about:profiles. Your old profile might be in there, and then I think you can switch back to it.

For what it&#x27;s worth, I&#x27;ve had a great experience with firefox for the past year (since quantum convinced me to give it another chance). All though, it recently basically factory-reset itself. Signed out of sync, extensions gone, custom settings gone. Any one else have this happen?It&#x27;s also got a weird memory leak, which I think is related to the pdf viewer. Never really checked in detail or tried to measure.

Have fun cleaning out Chrome if you are around again and they didn&#x27;t even realize that it came along some other software...We need a chrome install blocker...

Now that&#x27;s an advantage my non-tech family and friends will appreciate if it gets implemented and ad blockers stop being efficient in Chrome.I&#x27;ll install Firefox, they will see things are better and the switch is done. No need to talk about Quantum, freedom, etc.Mozilla should be sending one of those cakes to the Chrome team.

Yes, I&#x27;m pretty sure this is what they count on.  
Everyone who is knowledgeable or motivated enough, did already change. The rest obviously didn&#x27;t so even if a part of those will change, they can keep on pushing it through bundling or advertising to regain a part of them. The bulk will just stay. This is the &quot;internet program&quot; for them.

I know this is contentious, but I think the problem might be that you&#x27;re using a razor-thin device with extreme thermal throttling problems. I experience no such slowdowns on a 2011 Acer econobook with an i5 and 4gb ram.

Firefox is often faster than chrome for me on my 2015 MacBook air

I&#x27;m having the exact opposite experience with Chromium: Sometimes, two to three tabs (regular websites, no videos, no fancy stuff) already make it freeze. My Firefox, in contrast, runs smoothly even with dozens of tabs open.

Agree with the performance problem (initial rendering). Mid-2015 MBP 15&#x27;&#x27; (&quot;the best laptop ever made&quot;).

&gt; It also seems to get stuck resolving DNS sometimes, which is probably an artifact of the corporate network, but Chrome doesn&#x27;t have that problem.OMG I thought I was the only one running into this exact same problem! This has been a deal killer for me.

The DNS thing is probably caused by Firefox&#x27;s OS-agnostic DNS. You see, in Windows Chrome will use IE&#x27;s networking stack (so changing your IE proxy settings changes them in Chrome) if you have the &quot;enterprise version&quot; installed. Also, if your company has installed &quot;security software&quot; that screws with web requests and&#x2F;or DNS resolution in order to &quot;keep you safe&quot; it&#x27;ll treat Firefox&#x27;s outbound HTTP requests like they&#x27;re coming from a script and treat them with heavy suspicion (which slows everything down and can even result in timeouts).It&#x27;s super annoying. This is the state of things at my workplace and it&#x27;s ridiculous.

I&#x27;ve been using Firefox for the last two weeks or so. It&#x27;s fine, but noticeably slower (on a 2018 MacBook Pro) when opening new tabs and especially dragging tabs into new windows. It also seems to get stuck resolving DNS sometimes, which is probably an artifact of the corporate network, but Chrome doesn&#x27;t have that problem.

&gt; Dev tools are inferiorYou must not have used any recent version of Firefox. It has vastly better and more useful Dev Tools compared to Chrome, especially in regards to the frontend. Firefox Quantum is also significantly more performant.

it&#x27;s not true even if some wish it were. Firefox isn&#x27;t as performant, has fewer extensions, and is less polished. not to mention Dev tools are inferior (but typical users don&#x27;t care about that).

Yup, let&#x27;s not sugar coat it. Most HN says &quot;switched to Firefox and haven&#x27;t looked back&quot; but Chrome does a lot of magic that makes everything faster (or at least seem faster - doesn&#x27;t matter to me as a user). Firefox also still occasionally freezes even for a few seconds with some busy javascript, haven&#x27;t had that experience on Chrome in a long time. I&#x27;m using FF for ideological reasons but currently Chrome is simply better in terms of user experience.And sadly web became so dominated by Chrome that some pages simply don&#x27;t work correctly under Firefox. I&#x27;m not going to switch bank or my mobile operator just because they suck at properly designing websites.

Uh, that&#x27;s not my experience at all...I use FF normally, and Chrome not uncommonly (sometimes it&#x27;s handy to have an entirely separate browser, plus compatibility testing), and I find no noticeable difference.

It&#x27;s not &quot;as good.&quot; I&#x27;ve tried every release of Firefox for the past decade. On Linux and Mac the video performance is noticeably worse than Chrome with significant frame drops, lag, and tearing. Yes, I&#x27;ve tried enabling&#x2F;disabling hardware acceleration, flash, and all sorts of other flags and options, but the two are still incomparable. Furthermore, even with the quantum update Firefox is still slower for general web browsing and usage than Chrome. I&#x27;ve measured both dropped frames and load times to confirm this.

I, too, find that the simple new-tab ads that I can easily disable with one option are the worst of all possible ads.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;new-tab-override&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;new-tab-overr...</a>

Google Chrome (desktop) does not contain ads&#x2F;&quot;suggested content&quot; on the New Tab page. For that reason alone I&#x27;ll continue using Chromium on desktop until they actually pull the trigger and remove&#x2F;neuter uBO.

My money would be on you having an ATI graphics card and that being a good bit of the graphics jank.2013 intel chip+integrated graphics runs like a champ and with lower memory usage than chrome (though I am blocking all the ads, which does significantly change performance everywhere).

&gt; How about a sane Profile manager? This is something I use heavily on Chrome. The &quot;about:profiles&quot; UI doesn&#x27;t cut it.What&#x27;s your thoughts on Multi-Account Containers? I think it&#x27;s better to use if your use case for multiple profiles is to keep sessions separate (i.e., keeping work and personal logins to clearly identifiable tabs &#x2F; windows)It&#x27;s not as thorough compared to switching entire profiles but sometimes the above is sufficient. (ex: your history, add-ons and bookmarks are still under the same profile)

I&#x27;ve always used the -ProfileManager command line option in the past and shortcuts to &quot;-P &lt;profilename&gt;&quot; when wanting to launch&#x2F;send actions to sessions. (didn&#x27;t know of about:profiles UI, neat)I haven&#x27;t played with MAC (Multi-account Containers) yet but I understand they&#x27;re a lightweight version of Profiles that can co-exist in a single browser session and have a bunch of neat features (like auto-binding certain sites to certain containers when visited). Would recommend trying out if you&#x27;ve been dissatisfied with the previous approach.

Firefox isn&#x27;t quite there.How about a sane Profile manager? This is something I use heavily on Chrome. The &quot;about:profiles&quot; UI doesn&#x27;t cut it.Also when I use Firefox on my non-work Fedora machines (and this is going from Fedora 21 to 29) it seriously chews up memory and CPU. Facebook (yeah, I know) is rendered unusable after about 30 mins. And as other post(s) have pointed out, video playback can be a bit janky. These machines aren&#x27;t slouches either, i5 ~2.5Ghz 4th or 5th gen, 8GB RAM, SSD, and dedicated graphics cards.I&#x27;d love to switch, but these are things that are deal breakers.

I have been running Firefox on Ubuntu for years and have never had this problem. Try deleting your profile?

Try removing custom css from the firefox profile(userchrome.css&#x2F;usercontent.css) and disabling themes.

What extensions do you have loaded? Done anything else to customize it?I&#x27;ve been running Firefox for over a year now on my Kubuntu desktop and haven&#x27;t had that issue. Not with pre-Quantum or post-Quantum Firefox.Also, some tabs will continually use more and more memory due to poorly-written JavaScript. That&#x27;s not really Firefox&#x27;s fault but Chrome seems to be much more aggressive in shutting those sorts of things down (which can be annoying because if you go over that threshold in your own JavaScript it&#x27;ll stop working and you&#x27;ll get ambiguous resource errors in the console).

Unfortunately, my Firefox on Ubuntu just keeps claiming more and more memory until it runs out and freezes the system.I don’t want to use Chrome, but I still wouldn’t call that very great.

&gt;or motivated enough to switch browsersYep, to be honest this is probably me. I use UBo, but I&#x27;m willing to make do with less effective rule-based blockers as long as the most obnoxious and intrusive ads are blocked.

I&#x27;ve been trying to force Firefox (latest Firefox Developer Edition) upon myself yet again for the past week, and aside from performance problems which still seem to exist on the Mac (initial rendering of pages is slow), some things just annoy the hell out of me:- Search results are not highlighted on the scroll bar, which means no information on grouping at a glance, and can&#x27;t just scroll to the relevant part. I have to go through matches one by one.- Font rendering is subtly broken as always. A specific example is font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums, which seems completely broken at least for -apple-system (.SF NS Text); as a result a data aggregation site of mine which I read all the time looks awful, larger numbers may be narrower and vice versa. (Oddly, font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums seems to work for &quot;Fira Sans&quot; on MDN; I haven&#x27;t found another font it works on.)- With developer tools open, pages are really slow.I&#x27;m probably forgetting something else.(I should add that I also forced Safari upon myself, which is a shitshow, problems too numerous to list. Until Google completely removes ad-blocking capabilities I need, Chrome is simply the best there is.)

From my experience, it seems that those who used the Internet in it&#x27;s earlier years before and around Firefox 2 dominating the scene, have a  much, much easier time going back to using Firefox again. Whereas those that first jumped online with Chrome was dominated, simply will never switch.

I don&#x27;t get it. I&#x27;ve used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?

They dont care. That&#x27;s your problem  not theirs. Which is why I want to see more data protection laws in the US. I want to give them problems.

Running Chrome without adblock is a security risk.  Google has turned a blind eye to malicious ad behavior for their own profit, and this is going to lead to infected corporate networks.

and hopefully this shall be the high water mark of the chrome browser. rise firefox, rise!!!

iridium is another chrome based browser without some of the googleisms.

This is a big opportunity for MS to keep this functionality as a side-patch that&#x27;s maintained and applied to every new version of Chromium they use.

I wonder what MS will do with Edge(Chromium)?I&#x27;ve been using it for couple of weeks now as a secondary browser to Brave (separate sessions etc) and it is looks and behave like a normal Chrome.Hope MS fight this.

True, but at that point you can elect to stop using Chrome altogether. #firefoxGang

My fear is something like pihole may end up being a temporary stopgap; it can only help with DNS queries that go through it, and so it too may end up in the same position as chrome + ublock origin.  For instance, if chrome decides to use a trr or dns-over-https and removes options to change it.

DNS &#x2F; domain based blockers are entirely too coarse in my experience. There are plenty of cases where an ad or a tracking script comes from the exact same domain as real content. A real ad blocking extension can match only parts of the URL, or block certain file types, etc. Ad blocking extensions can also do CSS to clean up the page after blocking the ad, or &quot;display: none&quot; ads that for some reason can&#x27;t be blocked any other way.

Depending on how powerful your laptop is, you could always install a lightweight version of Linux using Hyper V (assuming you&#x27;re running Windows), and install a pihole server in that. It might be a bit of a pain changing the dns settings for every network, but maybe someone else knows a way to make that easier.

Sub-optimal for laptop users who might connect to various networks (home, office, the coffee shop) throughout a single day.

I recently setup Pihole as the DNS server for my entire home network and said farewell to my Adblock extensions. It&#x27;s glorious.

Chrome restricting extension APIs won&#x27;t affect Brave&#x27;s ad-blocking.See: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;BrendanEich&#x2F;status&#x2F;1133878509342846977" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;BrendanEich&#x2F;status&#x2F;1133878509342846977</a>

How about Brave or Dissenter?Edit: I&#x27;ve just been informed this will effect all Chromium browsers. My goodness.

I propose we create a new browser fork due to this issue and back it by the main ad block developers.The other issue is that Chrome on mobile doesn&#x27;t support extensions.They tried to away with not having ad-block on mobile this way. No extensions means no ad-block.Let&#x27;s just have a new browser based on Chrome that supports mobile + extensions and ad block and tell Google they can go pound sand.

I don&#x27;t know how current this is:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;kb&#x2F;switching-chrome-firefox" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;kb&#x2F;switching-chrome-firefo...</a>

This is why my 1password subscription is totally worth it!

ffpass works. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;louisabraham&#x2F;ffpass" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;louisabraham&#x2F;ffpass</a>

Is there a good way to convert chrome saved passwords&#x2F;history to firefox? Thinking I&#x27;ll switch back to firefox.

&gt; I&#x27;m wondering how Firefox for Android manages on ChromeOSI&#x27;ve done this before, it works pretty well, but Firefox for Android doesn&#x27;t have a great extension experience as far as I&#x27;ve seen, though it could have improved since last I tried.

Yeah, it&#x27;s time to unscrew the write protect screw.I&#x27;m wondering how Firefox for Android manages on ChromeOS. For now it&#x27;s too slow on Crostini. But my cheap Chromebook is not performing well with both Crostini and Android containers. So straight up Linux should be hopefully better.It&#x27;s certainly harder for my old Tegra K1 Chromebook.

I guess my Chromebook will not be running Chrome.

That part of the code doesn&#x27;t exist in a vacuum, and it&#x27;s baked in at a rather low level in the browser. That&#x27;s how it can block requests! In JavaScript!Google will begin by deprecating the webRequest block API (that&#x27;s in progress). Then they will begin deprecating the code that supports it.Then they will begin removing and deleting the &quot;unnecessary&quot; code. Then, at some point in the future, they may make other breaking changes to the webRequest flow that assume that requests cannot be blocked. Each time Google writes new code that assumes webRequests cannot be blocked, Microsoft must patch that code too.With each successive change, Microsoft will be forced to make a choice:1. Support both Google&#x27;s webRequest API and the Microsoft&#x27;s, at increasing cost with every merge and rebase where Google has cut off or altered another piece of functionality2. Adopt Google&#x27;s API and break ad blockersGoogle has a profit motive in shrinking the ad blocking market, and therefore they have a perverse incentive to make their browser worse for users, and more expensive for any forks that want to maintain ad blocking functionality.

Why wouldn&#x27;t they just patch that part of the code? I&#x27;m seriously surprised though Microsoft didn&#x27;t build an adblock in IE much earlier, that would have stopped google in the tracks.

I think it&#x27;s time for Microsoft to rethink their decision to base Edge on Chromium.It&#x27;s a painful decision, to be sure, but the Microsoft team has to make a decision here: fork or adhere. The immediate benefit of forking and not following Chromium on this change is obvious. However, the cost of the fork will grow over time and it will be in Google&#x27;s interest to deprecate and replace all of the infrastructure that supports the webRequest API to make it maximally painful to maintain the functionality in a fork.On the other hand, had Microsoft decided to base Edge on Gecko, they wouldn&#x27;t be working off a forked codebase whose owner has a perverse incentive to make the fork as painful and expensive as possible.How many engineer hours, months, years are going to be wasted just shoring up features like this?

Clearly this is the line for me: let&#x27;s sue them for abuse of their dominant position, and get them toward antitrust lawsuit&#x2F;procedure.It&#x27;s maybe not gonna fly in the US but definitely workable in Europe.

Unfortunately, Firefox’s resistFingerprinting is nowhere near as good as Safari’s. I still use Firefox on Windows, though.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...</a>If you are not using&#x2F;contributing to firefox, you sold yourself short.

So, in the new Edge, they could still support this?Would be a good point of difference for them.

Mute Tab and the place I was modifying to restore Ctrl+shift+q was removed. It was too much effort to maintain these features.

Which features were removed in 74?The only particular thing I can find is that hyperlink auditing can no longer be disabled. I doubt this is what you meant when you said features you &quot;depend on&quot;.

I just switched back to Firefox after using Chrome since pretty the day it came out. I switched after updating to 74 and noticing how many features I depended on were removed. I originally intended to just revert some of the changes (using Chromium on Linux) but I decided that amount of work was silly. Switched back to Firefox. After this news, glad I did.

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users