vaccineboy

Level 2
I've fully moved to AdGuard desk & have lifetime licence so what Google or Chromium/FF do in their infinite wisdom & or what their (real) reasons are for me are irrelevant, few issues are but a slowdown using a VPN which I now use rarely so issue solved for me.
Plot twist: It was AdGuard who was colluding with Google to influence Chrome's manifest v3 in order to win over uBo. AdGuard is orchestrating a witch hunt against uBo.
 

Cortex

Level 19
Verified
Plot twist: It was AdGuard who was colluding with Google to influence Chrome's manifest v3 in order to win over uBo. AdGuard is orchestrating a witch hunt against uBo.
I have had some interesting emails from AdGuard regarding the Google thing, but they are a business & their pricing structure is very fair & have a very good product so it's OK with me :):)
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
System-wide and network-wide adblocking might be the only options if this continues and Chrome corners the market and implement some sort of DRM that excludes Firefox.
 

JoyousBudweiser

Level 6
Verified
Those who are concerned with blocking ads will find a way to block ads, no matter what google does. Those who are not bothered by all these will still continue to use IE explorer 11. ( pi hole, adguard, firefox, brave...options are endless)
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 10
Google must have scenario's backed-up by big-data answering how many people will switch browser. Around 50% pf the PC-users have an ad-blocker installed. Those 50% were dead-wood to Google anyway (no ads is no income). Looking at the mobile market at least 60% of the people don't care about advertisements. Imaging the worst case scenario, where only 10% of the PC-users (like smartphone users) accept that their browser does not has a ad-blocker and keep on using Chrome. In this scenario Google generates 20% or more income due to higher view and click through rates.

Just geeks like us on security forums making a fuzz about it (but as mentioned we have enough options to continue blocking advertisements).
A storm in a glas of water (as we say in Dutch) with only one winner: Google
 

bribon77

Level 32
Verified
Google must have scenario's backed-up by big-data answering how many people will switch browser. Around 50% pf the PC-users have an ad-blocker installed. Those 50% were dead-wood to Google anyway (no ads is no income). Looking at the mobile market at least 60% of the people don't care about advertisements. Imaging the worst case scenario, where only 10% of the PC-users (like smartphone users) accept that their browser does not has a ad-blocker and keep on using Chrome. In this scenario Google generates 20% or more income due to higher view and click through rates.

Just geeks like us on security forums making a fuzz about it (but as mentioned we have enough options to continue blocking advertisements).
A storm in a glas of water (as we say in Dutch) with only one winner: Google
Totally agree, those of us who know a little that we cannot support the ads, is one of the things I do first, install an ad blocker, in my case, uBlock Origin, but if it ends, I'll put another one.:p
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

lmao, Google can shut down its Chromium contributions
there's a lot of things that Google can do to derail the Chromium project if it so wished
ToS and EULA are not laws, but they sure are legally binding in a court of law
and you obviously don't know how FOSS can be shut down via various means
So yes, Google can do as it wishes to further it's anti-ad-blocker position if it really wanted to
+1
"When money comes, ideals fails."
 

Azure

Level 25
Verified
Content Creator
Speculation.

Once manifest v3 is in full effect, we shall truly see then if Chromium forks can deal with it.

Also a business typically goes for the choice that is more profitable for them. But there can be times when the "bad and evil" decision can be the one that actually gives you less money in the long run
 
Top