Isn’t every chromium browser going to lose manifest v2 eventually, causing the real ublock origin to stop working?
Comment on Why I recommend against Brave.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks agoOkay, but that’s not a privacy reason.
fakeplastic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
I don’t know about every Chromium-based browser, but I can tell you that I went back to Firefox and regret nothing (I was on Brave). Firefox has gotten a lot better lately, especially on desktop. For example, they added a native auto-PiP option, which is super helpful for those of us who watch YouTube/videos while flipping through tons of tabs.
TheLastOfHisName@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
I’m using Vivaldi, and ublock origin seems to be still working for me.
fakeplastic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
June 2025 is when manifest v2 is supposed to die for good. I think the issue is that it’s not really possible for Vivaldi or Microsoft or whoever to keep the code in there long term even if they wanted to.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It is still a privacy reason. You are still contributing to googles plans to dominate and control the internet by using a chromium product.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
But neutered Chrome (aka repurposed + degoogled Chromium) isn’t the same as Google Chrome. I 100% understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t file this under “privacy” (at least not without some asterisks).
HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
A neutered fascist is still a fascist.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
If one forks Chromium like Firefox has been forked to hell and back, then I view it as effectively taking the power out of Google’s hands. The issue with Chrome supremacy is that Google gets to, directly or indirectly, shape how websites/the internet operates/are built/optimized (since web devs will use it to do their web dev).
So then wouldn’t a better strategy be to make a Firefox-like, Chromium browser that is truly “neutral” (like Firefox is *on paper)? Also, remember that Mozilla receives a huge chunk of funding from Google, directly, in order to “keep Chrome from being a monopoly”.
Now, that last part depends on whether you considering Chrome to be Chromium, which I don’t. Here’s my understanding/view, overall (feel free to cherrypick or challenge any of it; I welcome and respect your opinions/corrections):
Firefox has existed for longer than Chrome, but Chrome on release was leaner and faster (I speak from personal experience). The only other option was Internet Explorer, which was “Chrome” at the time (as in, average people defaulted to the “blue e” icon)
Chrome became the dominant browser because it was lean and fast for its time. It’s obviously different now, but you cannot retroactively fault people for choosing an objectively-better browser [for the time]
Genuinely not defending Google here, but my opinion is that a large reason we began to transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is because of Chrome (and any other modern browsers). This meant Chrome-optimized sites that didn’t work well with other browsers, but I view it as a no-fault situation (it’s just how tech progresses; it breaks compatibility with existing tech sometimes)
Most people use “Google-everything” these days; I myself have had a Gmail account since it was a closed beta. This means they’re more likely to lean towards Chrome, because Google recommends it anyway
So to me, the issues are actually that people default to Google-everything, including Chrome (thus feeding Google info about their entire lives, 24/7). But I don’t see Chromium itself as evil. On its own, it’s open-source (minus Google bits obviously), which is what allows forks to be made that not only avoid the Google bits, but outright block them. I think it’s taking power back. I don’t think “EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO FIREFOX OR A FIREFOX FORK IMMEDIATELY” is realistic (and I say that as someone who switched back to Firefox months ago)
I also think that web devs themselves should stop being biased towards…“Chrome-sponsored” (figure of speech) best practices. But I also think that Mozilla should [continue] making their browser more compatible with modern websites, and even maybe get more involved in establishing web design best-practices (meaning practices/technologies that work well equally regardless of browser or rendering engine). In fact, recently Mozilla highlighted their Web Compatibility reporting tool, so that people can let them know about sites that don’t render correctly in their browser
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
its still furthering googles control of the internet, which is an inherent threat to privacy, regardless if you think you are participating in it or not.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Once again, that’s not privacy (the context of this discussion). Your point is that using Chromium encourages websites (as in, developers) to keep making sites that are Chromium-optimized, instead of browser-agnostic.
When you take all the “Google” out of a browser, they’re not getting any information from you because those mechanisms no longer exist. Again, I’m talking about Google and Chrome. You’re combining 3 different “issues” and slapping a “PRIVACY” label on them.
ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Forks of Firefox are still Firefox, no matter how neutered it is.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
That’s my point. So then what’s the solution when there are essentially two mainstream/mainline browsers? How far do you believe one needs to take it? Is a fork that de-Mozilla’s/de-Google’s the browser enough (and changes the name)? Or is that “still bad”?
Because eventually you’ll run out of [usable/daily-drivable] browsers, if you consider any fork to be “evil” by virtue of coming from Chromium/etc.