Google making Chromium block adblockers?

LonM

@MattSolo45 said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

can add add-ons from firefox by creating an add-in that translates the structure of add-ons from firefox to chromium.

The web extension format used by modern firefox is largely compatible with vivaldi already. The only thing that's missing is sidebar API support.

ficciones

As a user who flips back and forth between Vivaldi and Firefox, and finds them both excellent, I'd be happy to see Vivaldi move towards leveraging the Firefox code base and rendering engine. They're just getting Webrender ready for full scale release so this is not a bad time to think about switching.

Steffie

I admit that my naive pollyanna mind simply cannot grasp that evilcorp would really truly go ahead & do this crazy thing. It just seems so utterly bizarre.

MattSolo45

@Gwen-Dragon So let's create a post for support for firefox add-ins as an alternative to the user. It would be best to create a proprietary Web Store from Vivaldi where the user will have a choice from whom the add-on will be installed either from the Chrome Web Store or Firefox, and of course it will link to the right side of the add-on and maybe add the third choice directly from the Vivaldi store. Who is behind? :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_cold_sweat:

Pesala

@raed I don't use an ad-blocking extension, and never have. Dodgy sites are often full of ads, so their presence is a red flag to go elsewhere.

Pesala

@raed Those sites are often those that infect visitors with malware or sell your browsing history to advertisers. I don't see that as a restriction. YMMV.

Pesala

@raed You can subscribe to such legitimate sites to avoid the ads.

Pesala

@LordOfTheNet Your money, and your choice.

We monks get a free lunch, and many other things free too, but there are associated responsibilities, and we give up a lot of freedom of choice.

tokyovigilante

I haven't seen any discussion of what to me, is the obvious answer: replace Blink/Chromium with the WebKit engine. It would require the WebExtension API to be implemented for WebKit or within Vivaldi, but patches are already being maintained against Chromium (vivaldi.com/source), and the WebKitGTK maintainers are interested in implementing this API in WebKit also.

The WebExtension API is being standardised by W3C - https://browserext.github.io/browserext/

I would also point out WebKit is actually faster than Chromium:
alt text

I'm not suggesting that it would not be a significant amount of work, but I've loaded the UI code in WebKit and it seems to be a solvable problem to port over the interface code and add/implement extra functionality in WebKit to support Vivaldi's UI.

If ever there was a time to support open standards, open source and an open web, it is now.

ismcd

Firstly, I apologize for making a duplicate thread yesterday, I had not found this one.

I find it strange that an open source project is owned/controlled by a company whose main aim (like most companies) is to make money. The problem, as I see it, is when one group/company has the majority or a monopoly, they begin (intended or unintended) to mold the product in a way that is most beneficial to them. This reduces the users choice, and especially in Google's case, their privacy.

I admit I don't understand the technical challenges of this, but I do not want Vivaldi to be shaped/molded (even if only in regards to extensions) by anyone else, other than the Vivaldi team themselves.

Gaëlle

From Vivaldi side regarding this discussion, we’re continuing to watch the situation closely - a lot can still change. It’s our intention to continue to support content blockers. Our mission will always be to ensure users have the choice.

Steffie

@gaelle Phew!

Gaëlle

@raed thanks for your kind words, this statement comes from Vivaldi team actually so these words represent the company.

xyzzy

I could be okay with Google's Manifest v3 changes if Vivaldi also implemented tracking prevention mechanisms (such as https://webkit.org/blog/8613/intelligent-tracking-prevention-2-1/ ) and other privacy protections into the browser.

dalinar

@Dr-Flay what is better (more effective) about those banned blockers than the ones allowed in the store?

greybeard

@Pesala Subscriptions cost $.
I do subscribe to a couple of sites with which I interact often and provide valuable resources to me and I wish to support, As I've said in other threads, I would have no problem paying for Vivaldi if that was what was needed.
Having said that, as an old geezer on a fixed income I have other priorities for my limited $.

Subscriptions can be a quite a burden on those of us with limited $ and are not always an option.

I am sure I am not the only V user in this position.

dalinar

@greybeard I'm really thinking of subscribing to youtube red because ad blockers don't work for it on the TV or tablet lol - they used to but then google hired more engineers I guess. But I mean how crass (and greedy) is google? ads between videos is one thing but just stopping your video every 10 minutes to play an ad is insansity.. there are no parallels to TV because TV content was made for that ("we'll be back after a short break")... with youtube things just stop mid sentence. And it's unnecessary, most videos people watch are under 10 or 20 minutes anyhow.

xyzzy

@Gwen-Dragon Remember this? https://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/forbes-malware-ad-blocker-advertisements.html

dalinar

@raed I admit I haven't had time to fully read this thread yet but I'm still confused as to whether chromium based browsers will probably also be screwed when google implements this in chrome - or not...

I mean it would make much more sense for google to screw over chromium users as well, but then again, there probably aren't that many users not using chrome or firefox or IE (IE is really popular in China) out there

luetage

@raed Would be something to look forward to, but I don't believe it. People use Chrome out of laziness, staying with the browser they know. For most it is of utmost importance to have the sign in to Google to have access to their data – adblocking is important, but it's a fact that the majority of users doesn't even bother to install an adblocker. Small players will likely not profit, but I could see a move to Firefox or Opera. On Firefox ublock will still work, while Opera has built in adblocking, with the possibility to load custom lists. I don't see how Vivaldi is gonna profit in the short term, they would have to act now. This would probably mean implementing native adblocking too (like Opera), or creating an independent store for extensions and keeping the webrequest api. All things I don't see happening in the coming years.