Sorry for the poor quality / lack of screenshot, this is from my work computer which I isolate from my personal devices, so I just took a picture.
You easily could have found a way to transfer a screenshot while keeping your “devices isolated” (e.g. email), or just could have uploaded it to an image host and posted that link. You can do better in the future.
Also, it is worth investigating whether or not the extension actually contains malware instead of just jumping to the conclusion “Google bad” and ignoring the red flag.
I get what you’re saying. But remember - invidious is just another frontend to the same website that doesn’t care about your freedom. Now you are blocking at a server, instead of blocking in your browser. If you care about freedom, then you must leave that abusive service behind.
Don’t use Chrome then. There are plenty of browsers using the Chromium open source platform. So if you like how Chrome behaves but don’t like Google, use one of the Chromium-based systems.
The existence of Mozilla is based on Google investments, there are even Google devs in Mozilla which develop Firefox. Things that happen when you accept investments from others, you lose independence. Use independent browsers, best European browsers and services if you don’t want to feed Google.
The point they were making is about the underlying browser technology. Chrome and nowadays pretty much every major browser except Safari are based on Chromium. Except Firefox. Chromium is technically an open-source project and has external contributors, but in reality, it’s still very much controlled by Google. See the BS they constantly pull off, leveraging their monopolistic position to cram in non-standard stuff nobody asked for except Google: Manifest V3, FLoC, Web Environment Integrity, etc. Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, and a bunch of others, they all ship Chromium with their own features sprinkled on top. You’re still effectively using the Google product, just indirectly.
Not so easy. It is logical that Chromium is from Google and Google naturally fills it by default with all kinds of APIs to track the user. But precisely because it is FOSS, other companies also throw these APIs out, it is a game that has been going on for years. Do you think that there is still some remnant of Google in EDGE (Chromium)? Of course not, M$ has replaced it with its own, because it is M$ that wants to track the user. At Vivaldi they have spent more than 7 years gutting the Chromiumbase to prevent any tracking of the user and so far they do it very well. Naturally there are the majority of browsers that work with Chromium, some exceptions, for example Otter Browser, which has its own with a Qt% UI, recreating the old Opera, simply because Chromium, or rather Blink is the renderer that best fits To the new web formats, these are controlled by Google to a large extent, since many websites and services use Google APIs. This standard is no longer avoidable. Firefox Gecko, as a minority, has no influence on this development and Apple with its fixation on WebKit will only ensure that Safari is going to be the new IE. This is what it is.
Not always so simple either - wildly depends on the specific feature. Take Web Environment Integrity. Yes, Brave, Vivaldi or Edge could take it and refuse to roll with it. But with Chrome having a de facto monopoly, all it takes is some industry buying in (most likely banks or similar), and it would mean a browser not implementing this new API effectively cuts itself from a bunch of users cause their bank website won’t work (and will tell them to download Chrome).
Let’s put it this way, all browsers must include certain APIs to function and these APIs are independent of the browser engine. A bank or other official sites require these APIs and certificates for obvious security reasons. Other Google APIs, such as safe browsing, that supposedly protects against phishing sites, are also included in Firefox, but it is also from Google, although there it is called Firefox Save Browsing. With one difference, in Vivaldi I can disable it in the settings, since the adblocker filters do the same, but not in Firefox. I can also deactivate the other Google APIs there, which the devs have left in the configuration as optional use, since without them some users cannot access Google services. In Firefox they are activated yes or yes, whether you need them or not.*
But all this is not the current problem when Google manages to carry out its WEI DRM plan, this will affect any browser equally, since it has nothing to do with the engine they use. Although it is legitimate that websites can block insecure browsers without a certificate, to protect themselves, it is not legitimate when this certificate depends on the decision of a private commercial company, such as Google, which decides which browser deserves this certificate and which does not. This would only be acceptable when this certificate or token comes from an independent institution.
As an aside, although Google has long left this “Don’t be evil” motto behind and uses many dirty tricks to be able to profile and track users, because it makes money from this, not all Goggle APIs have this feature, some have a pure technical function. For this reason, it is advisable not to put on a tin foil hat when choosing a browser, the greatest danger to privacy, apart from the lack of common sense, is part of the Google search engine, this is the main source of user data for this company, not the browser (that is, if it is not precisely Chrome, Edge or Opera).
To all you uBlock Origin fans: Any reason why nobody ever recommend AdGuard over uBlock Origin? Anything questionable about it? Or is it just that uBlock is well-known?
Isn’t AdGuard just DNS? That means it blocks ads from everywhere, not just the browser. But you can’t customise the blocklist unless you selfhost it.
If there’s a web extension too, then idk. If you use say, Firefox for Android, then you don’t have much choice besides uBlock, and with… Hm, other mobile browsers you don’t have any at all.
If you use say, Firefox for Android, then you don’t have much choice besides uBlock,
Or AdGuard. I run the AdGuard browser extension on my Firefox for Android. It claims to also have one for iOS Safari. It has a paid desktop app, and that one add DNS blocks. I tried it once and paid for a license, but then I switched back to the free browser extensions for a reason I dont remember anymore.
AdGuard being ran by a for-profit company and some of the functionality being locked behind a paywall probably doesn’t help its case compared to uBlock Origin, though AdGuard is definitely the next best option currently. I also just find uBlock Origin supports more advanced features.
(Edit: Apparantly the paywall only applies to the Safari extension and their desktop app, but not the extension on most platforms, see the reply below, my other points still stand)
I also just find uBlock Origin supports more advanced features.
Googling it and according to one answer the only difference between uBlock Origin and AdGuard browser extensions is that uBlock has a feature where they can hide stuff instead of completely blocking it. Two comments said AdGuard was the more techy one, and most users would prefer uBlock Origin because of that. A bunch of comments are people who obviously havent tried them both. Some are confusion about the difference between AdGuard desktop program and AdGuard browser extensions.
Maybe better if I just test it for myself.
some of the functionality being locked behind a paywall
The entire desktop app, yes. That does DNS blocking. Not the browser extensions, no blocked features there.
Googling it and according to one answer the only difference between uBlock Origin and AdGuard browser extensions is that uBlock has a feature where they can hide stuff instead of completely blocking it.
The entire desktop app, yes. That does DNS blocking. Not the browser extensions, no blocked features there.
I know their Safari extension has some blocked functionality without paying, but fair enough, it may be different for other platforms, I’ll edit my reply then. Thanks for the correction. I stand by the other point though, I think uBlock Origin has an inherent advantage and added trust by being non-profit and fully community driven vs. AdGuard being ran by a for-profit company.
Expecting an advertising company to have your interests in mind (you are the nothing but eyeballs they are delivering to their customers) is the hight of naivety.
Maybe you’re right about the soapbox, but OP didn’t say anything inaccurate. Google is actively pushing to have more ads shown in Chrome wherever they can. The author of UbO even advocates for Firefox being the best experience regarding ads.
Also, add in SponsorBlock. It’s an extension that skips embedded adverts within the content but it’s community driven so if it’s not been submitted, it won’t know about it. (Hint: get involved!)
Add comment