Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.
Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.
The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.
Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.
Looks promising. Lets see where it goes. https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird
I am hopeful they will get some more corporate backing. We can donate all day but that is a drop in the bucket compared to a few million from some large companies
It’s hard to take a project seriously for championing our privacy if the only communication options are Discord & Microsoft Github
Feel free to offer hosting something else for them. Be the change you want to see.
There are free (both kinds) options to these problems if they can’t afford it—and that still isn’t an excuse to require all coms go thru US-based proprietary services with big privacy implications.
Although I‘m not a fan of the options either, the implications regarding the project are minimal and I wasnt talking about the money. Hosting communications platforms isnt easy. It requires the team to change their habits besides their already challenging tasks of producing usable software.
Being the change you want to see does not implicate money, it implicates you contacting them, talking about their reasons, convincing them the comfort loss of non big tech platforms is worth it and only them it becomes a question of money.
Contact how? When you cut yourself off from the FOSS com options to build FOSS projects, you are unwelcoming to those actually using the tools whose philosophy match your project—just not your communications for some reason. There isn’t a listed email address or a gateway or bridged room.
The few teeny, tiny projects I have, I welcome emails & XMPP chat for anyone that wishes to collaborate which doesn’t require anyone to create an account on any particular service.
For those still not getting it, it is as wild as saying you need to have a Facebook account to communicate to a project as these services are all on the same level of propriety & lacking in privacy.
You‘re barging into open doors mate. You should still accept that the best way of changing things is taking up responsibility. You can definitely open an issue regarding their communication choices and propose changes.
And again, they probably have an ongoing community on the existing platforms which means bridges will be necessary which means proprietary platforms will listen in on all convos on bridged platforms.
You cant make people do the thing you think is best. You can only help them.
You can’t just “open an issue” if you don’t have a Microsoft GitHub account or live in a region under US sanctions or censorship where you can’t get access to it. These are pillars of sand to build your community on that not only lack freedom for users, but access too & control for your own content + moderation.
Gateways don’t need to be the only answer too—even just mentioning an unofficial space lets those that don’t want their data harvest can hang out together under the same topic but away from those service (even if most of the chat log is public, unencrypted anyhow).
Developers of all folks should know better & know the issues caused by proprietary services. They should not plan for where users are now but where they want things no be in the future but there’s a myopic view of this is where the users are. They don’t even give folks a place to air grievances like you are suggesting.
Oh man… I don’t disagree completely but thats still not how this works.
Github alternatives are very early in their existence. Things like gitlab, forgejo and such are very limiting if you want to promote a new project.
Although you are technically right, your premise is much too strict. If you cant be asked to help people do the right thing, I dont think you‘re in the right place discussing foss things.
I can solely repeat what I said earlier: be the change you want to see. Help people do the right thing and stop bitching about all the things that unpaid volunteers are doing wrong in your opinion.