HN is mostly developers. Why is there no palpable backlash against this? Security?! Have we fallen for that crap again?
If there's one place on the whole internet where it should begin taking shape, it's here. It's kinda sad. While I admire fellow Firefox users, 2% marketshare leaves no dent in Chrome's brutal dominance.
Has google really pushed chrome so far down our throats that there's no hope of destroying its monopoly?
I use Firefox, but I'm concerned that this move will change the narrative around the use of adblockers. Chrome is so dominant that if you have to go download a browser like Firefox with such a low market share, installing an adblocker can more easily be cast as something only techies who want to "pirate the web" do.
I agree that it will increase Firefox's market share in the short term, but I'm concerned it will decrease the number of people using adblockers in the long run by adding friction to the process. I would expect most Chrome users on HN to switch to Firefox after this, but I wouldn't expect people outside of techie circles to make that move en masse.
On mobile I only see 8 ads between the text. Not really annoying like sticky ads.
If the rest of the Internet would be like this it would acceptable for me.
Most of the time the internet is more like fandom sticky ads bottom and top that plays videos or x that are so small that you click on the ads.
The issue with ads is not just the fact that they prey on your attention, but also that they're a well-known vector for malware. You should never accept ads, because the risk that matters most to you if you don't have good mental hygiene is your person (i.e. identity theft, financial damage).
Yes, but it's the only way that keeps the internet alive.
I like the old school internet years ago where everyone put effort in websites as a hobby, but this was another time and good websites deserve making money.
Your point is apparently "you should expose yourself to malware so other people can make money". I think this is an unethical thing to say and think, because you are harming the actual human beings around you.
Opera on mobile is perfect with the built-in ad blocker. Its the only browser on mobile I use, and have gotten several family members and friends to use.
Firefox is a attempt to placate the original citizens of the web whos tools subvert the add surveillance industry .Google is clever enough to know how full blown antagonism to developers ends up. Oh and monopoly laws.
I'm against all those things as well - the only notable difference being that security lapses in the name of "social activism", in a leading browser than millions depend on for more than they should, is simply not permissible to me and many others.
The also impossible delineation between "socially activist ad" and "politically convenient" one make it a tainted resource, both security-wise, and bias-wise.
It is a organization, with no integrity; merely another institutional-preserving husk
I don't use Chrome much but I've been using uBlock Origin Lite when I do for a couple of months and I'd recommend it. I don't watch YouTube on Chrome so I can't comment on how good it is there.
I’ve been using Slimjet (chromium based) for a while now, it has a built-in ad blocker that works pretty good. What about “developer mode” in chrome have anyone tried to see if ublock works that way?
That may not be what you intended, but that is what you asked.
It looks like you intended "is there a good alternative to uBlock in Chrome", but what you asked can just as well be interpreted as "is there a good alternative to uBlock in Chrome."
More discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41809698
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178