Comment on Google to weaken ad blockers on Chrome in a push for security

TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• radix@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The security of their cash flow.

  source
• stopthatgirl7@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Literally my reaction when I saw that.

  source

  • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    they obviously mean their financial security.

    source
• gregorum@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The security of their profits

  source
• Spotlight7573@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  An extension having access to everything on every page you visit is a potential security issue.

  Whether that’s an acceptable risk for you in order to have an extension that blocks ads is another question.

  source

  • draughtcyclist@programming.dev ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Extensions by definition are a security issue. For that matter, so is being connected to the Internet in the case of a browser.

    source
  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    As far as I know, the plan for Manifest V3 only included removing blocking from the WebRequest API and extensions using WebRequest could still see whatever activity they are given permission to view.

    source

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Correct, and the reasoning for removing blocking was performance.

      source

      • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Wouldn’t loading the ads impact performance moreso than loading them? Not really a browser nerd so no idea it just seems like blocking a piece of content from loading outright would be less demanding than loading it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments