• takeda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

          When I was working for an ad exchange, everyone had adblock installed in their browsers, I found that quite ironic.

          • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I would argue it’s a security issue not to have any ad blocking. Many scams online start with popups or fake ads.

            So if you get the opportunity to talk to IT that’s what I would mention.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 days ago

          Officially only Edge is supported, but Chrome is tolerated. It’s a full MS environment.

          • reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Same here. The worst thing is in their justification of disallowing Firefox they listed that it was not an enterprise application. I get that it might be extra effort to support it but don’t list something factually untrue as a lame cop out for why you don’t want to.

            • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              8 days ago

              Was told it wouldn’t be allowed because you couldn’t restrict it using GPO… Until I told them they could absolutely apply those restrictions using GPO and even provided the ADMX templates.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 days ago

            Click on every single ad and banner, click “I agree” on every pop-up. Make that computer hate it’s life!

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          8 days ago

          At large organizations you’re generally not allowed to download much of anything without it passing through IT security and management first. If it’s a no, it will probably stay a no.

          • Flagstaff@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 days ago

            I work for a non-profit and they are way more lenient about what we would like to install as long as the job gets done.

  • Nanook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Google is not an IT company. It’s an advertising company. Surprised Pikachu, it blocks ad blockers.

    • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Missing critical features:

      Filter lists only update with the extension, you cannot update them dynamically

      No making your own filters and thus no element picker for blocking annoyances on a webpage (a feature so good apple literally baked it into safari)

      No support for external lists (which means if you back up your own filters into a list you cannot easily reimport)

      No changing behavior on a per site basis

      A number of other features as well that are more strictly power user features but still really handy like dynamic filtering and strict blocking domains.

      If you have the option stop using chrome and edge, they are some of the worst options you could choose. Even outside of adblock and manifest v3 chrome is horrendous for data harvesting bullshit and edge isn’t great. If you don’t have the option because of an overzealous it dept or whatever and are forced to use it ubo lite is your best option probably and my heart goes out to you

      • Pamasich@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m a bit confused as an Adblock Plus user, why did the ublock dev drop those features? ABP uses manifest v3 too and it still has all of those. So it’s clearly not about them being impossible.

      • OpenHammer6677@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        My work uses a web-based interface that’s very annoying to use on Firefox. I’m unfortunately tied to Chrome in the meantime, so uBlock lite is a lifesaver.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    There’s a way to save your already-installed extension, in “Manage Extensions…” Enable dev mode, then Pack Extension.

    However the browser will probably just refuse to run it soon.

    Vivaldi, for what it’s worth, seems to still run uBlock Origin just fine. I am afraid to uninstall it now to test if it’ll re-install properly.

    My version: 7.1.3570.39 (Stable channel) (64-bit)

    Might be time to finally move to Firefox though, if Vivaldi doesn’t keep Manifest V2 support.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I wish Vivaldi wasn’t Chromium-based, because I think it’s the slickest browser out there.

        But it’s chromium, so it’s time to move on to Firefox regardless.

        Ladybird development can’t happen fast enough.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          By that argument the time was a long time ago then. Vivaldi still works with uBlock so nothing has changed on their end. I think it’s still reasonable to use Vivaldi until they are forced to Manifest 3. Despite being Chromium based they’ve always been privacy focused and vocally pro ad blocking. As far as the cult of Firefox, they’ve been showing their true colors lately. They are no saints and their biggest funder is Google. Never forget to follow the money. I’m not personally convinced that a switch on a purely ideological level is indicated.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 days ago

    I really hope some team has been following the changes in Chrome/Chromium by Google to remove Manifest v2, and has been keeping a patchset that will undo the damage? Time to make a hard fork and get some funding to try to keep it going?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 days ago

      Multiple browsers have said they will keep support while the code is still there (in Chromium it’s still there, only disabled for now).

      When it is removed from Chromium, it’s probably going to disappear for most or all major Chromium browsers.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Well I would seriously consider paying money to a team that keeps it there, if Chromium actually removes the code. I hope others will consider it as well. We need to fight this, even if it means paying some money to a foundation to do so.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      i expect at least the ‘big’ ‘non megacorp’ chromium based ones like vivaldi, opera, brave to keep mv2 as long as it is possible.

      but i can totally see google doing some serious mangling of the codebase to make patching-in mv2 difficult.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        There’s the futile hope I suppose that antitrust cases going on against Alphabet might force Google to divest Chrome from its advertising arm, so that there’s no pressure to make this whole thing worse. Hah, in my dreams.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          On paper they gave the keys to the Linux foundation, but since they still pay most of the developers working on it the only thing it might achieve is taking resources away from Servo.

        • adarza@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          that would be funny, won’t happen–but funny af. google loses chrome, new owners revert mv2’s removal and go all-in on user control of their browser experience.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    i was able to load it in a (not chrome) chromium-based browser without issue, just the notice across the addon’s page.

    the ‘lite’ version is also on there, seems to work ‘ok’. adguard and a few others are also there–they must all be mv3, as only the full ubo has the warning notice on its page of those i checked.

    all the mv3 ones run the risk of having updates rejected or delayed by google, especially if they contain code or filter updates (filters must be packed with the addon in mv3) to combat changes google makes to their own sites. firefox or a trusted customized build or maintained fork is the way to go now.

  • Engywook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Many chromium browser have built-in adblockers and some of them are on-par with uBO. These are not extensions, so Google can’t really do anything about them. Not worried in the slightest.

      • Engywook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Shields.

        EDIT: Let’s both save our time: "Brave bad, CEO evil, Chromium, cryptoooo, etc… ". I don’t care. Mozilla isn’t less shitty at all and Firefox is mediocre (source: have been a FF user/advocate from 2002 to 2021).

        I’m not interesting in debating.

        • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          You’re not interested in debating because you’re scared of being shown how wrong you are. Don’t say anything if you don’t wish to debate anyone, it’s an open forum, in case you forgot. You don’t dictate the rules.

          • Engywook@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I’m wrong for having a differente opinion/preference?

            Go away, Mozilla shill. I do dictate the rules, by simply blocking you.