Why we introduced Ad blocker to Vivaldi browser


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear , you can do some things through extensions, for example using this

    Chrome Store



  • @JohnConnorBear Well, from your words it seems though all we female users will still be ok. ๐Ÿ™Ž๐Ÿปโ™€

    More seriously however, if Mv3 really does officially deploy, & if then as expected it kills uMatrix [arguably my most Must-Have extension] in all chromium-based browsers, & if V Devs are unable to magic-up some workaround, then i shall have no option other than to revert to FF-Nightly again [ie, still with uM therein].

    Google disgust me.



  • @Catweazle
    Maybe I am wrong but I guess Google intentions are clear.
    Back in the day they needed to compete with Firefox and its ecosystem so they added extensions to Chromium as "second thought".
    Now that they are in control, they are slowly phasing out extensions to get back to the beginning, because they don't need them. Current idea of "extensions" is like "apps", which is a different concept.

    In theory nobody would need extensions IF the browser provided all the functions. Unfortunately, Google doesn't love us and their goal is to be in control of whatever we do over the Internet. For themselves and their own partners in the business.

    Please, don't get me wrong.
    I do not consider "extending" the browser when you develop some piece of software working for Google and that software somehow "plugs in" from the "store".

    In my opinion you "extend" the browser when you add some missing function (which is missing because Google doesn't want it) or even when you add the option of changing/inverting the default behavior of the browser (like from "allow" to "block"). In other words, you extend the browser when you give the "user" tools to take control of the browser. I say it again, you need extensions because the browser does not include those functions, otherwise you don't need extensions like you don't need software xyz.

    Back to "ads". Centuries ago Mozilla was "neutral", they did not want to add a function to filter out "ads" but they did not have any reason to stop users to get one. Same goes for anything else. Nowadays Mozilla is still "neutral" and they don't want to impose the "user" some feature either stop the "user" to get some feature from extensions.
    Much like Vivaldi, BTW.
    Now comes Google. It is not even advertisement any more but more to be in control of everything the "user" does when he/she is online. Google must be everywhere, provide all the tools to the "user" and those tools must allow exactly what is planned in Google strategies of controlling. Manifest v.3 is in the best interest of the "user" the way Google sees it.

    Mind you, I am reading my own bank is building two huge datacenters on top of Google's "cloud" and I am told I need a "Google phone" with a "Google app" to access my bank account that is on Google's network. What could possibly go wrong? It is all in my best interest.



  • @Steffie
    We are doomed, lady. ๐Ÿ™‚
    Problem is Mozilla does not have the firepower but even worse, the spirit, to go against Google. I expect them to comply with Manifest v.3 after some "consideration".
    I was talking about Vivaldi "blocker".
    I expect that kind of basic capability to be still allowed by Chromium with Manifest v.3, as part of the built-in blocker already present. What Google wants to remove is the "inspect and take action" capability on the client side. Unfortunately you can perform "inspect and take action" only from INSIDE the browser, otherwise we could simply add a local proxy that works for any software that connects to the Internet.
    We are doomed because must "users" don't know either don't care. We are back to the first days of the "Internet for the masses" when people did not know what a browser is, and the Internet was the "e" on the desktop ("e" for explorer).
    The main news site in my own country loads more than 100 JS files from external and in some case unknown domains. I guess they don't even know what gets loaded and executed in their own web pages. All this only to show me some text and some pictures.



  • @JohnConnorBear Well, i have now finished designing my new personal privacy policy.

    1. If goggle kill uM in chromium-based browsers, and if V Devs cannot replace it with some native functionality that provides ALL of the uM functionality, then i exit stage left from chromium browsers & return to FF-Nightly with uM.
    2. If Mozilla do as you fear & kowtow to gargle & also kill off uM, then i am switching off my pooter, climbing back under my doona, & holding my breath til i turn blue purple.

    I can almost see gargoyle shaking in their boots now...



  • @Steffie
    The funny thing is nowadays browsers are as complicated as operating systems. That is what killed the healthy competition, nobody has got the resources for developing a browser any more. Lets say old time Opera that could innovate the Internet from some corner of Norway.
    We, as "users", do need a very very small section of those functionalities. It is like big companies are making tools that answer questions we did not make and then they need to enforce those answers on us "for our own sake".
    Like, I am reading Mozilla celebrates their own VR engine. Good but who cares. I am not going to buy 3D goggles to play with "virtual reality" that was the hype in the '90s. It doesn't look like well spent man power to me.
    I do have an bad thought that is software companies measure the "user" on the american population, like they follow the american law. That translates in the idea that the "user" is really "dumb and playful" (like shooting at cans in the backyard while drinking beer) and translates in very bad habits about collecting data and surveillance (like NSA).
    If it wasn't for all the holes that are everywhere in those huge mountains of code and the fact we are told we absolutely need to apply patches, we could simply stop upgrading our browsers. I would like to make an experiment and see how nowadays Web renders in Opera 12, once you remove the unneeded crap.


  • Ambassador

    You can remove the "unneeded crap" from the browser, if the internet does too. If not, it is like getting naked in a tropical jungle full of dangerous animals.I suspect that if "naked" Opera 12 gets online today, it won't take until the PC is going to become suspiciously slow and the desktop is full of pop-ups and strange things And the browser doesn't necessarily get you where you want to go.



  • @Catweazle
    Not sure of it. You can't be slowed down by something you discard and don't process. I guess an old browser would "fall back" on "standard mode" when it finds something it does not recognize, like modern CSS selectors. By definition of "browser", it should display "something" in any case. Besides, those "strange things" come from third party JS, you block those scripts and you are (mostly) fine.

    At the end the browser must show you text and images in a readable form. Ok, lets add playing native videos instead of relying on plugins like the old times. Anything else can be discarded. I don't need the browser to execute an office suite, even the GMail runtime Web page. I am going to write an heresy now, I don't even need Amazon and buy a torch online when I can and should go buying at the local store.

    Because the price of "today's things" is I must obey, I must follow orders.

    These days I must show a paper to the Police just to get out.
    All browsers tell us how cool it is they can block "trackers" when we are tracked 24/7 by anybody. It is like a distopic FS story and the Manifest v.3 just piles up.



  • @Catweazle since I keep Opera 12 for mail backup, I can answer that question...

    The practical reality is that most sites still look okay, but there are far too many which simply don't work properly. Unfortunately, unless you only regularly visit a specific set of sites which happen to work, you can't really use it for browsing any more.

    On the security side, I can't say that seems to be an issue...



  • I bet the HTML part works, it is the JS part that doesn't.
    At some point in history people started to make Web sites as Flash animations. Because marketing people thought they were "cool". Then people started to make Web sites as JS runtimes, again because marketing people thought it added the "wow effect". Currently all those scripts are mostly developed for Chrome and they somehow work but not 100% with Firefox. Imagine when you come with Opera 12, you immediately fail the "client check".

    The "browser as OS" is old like Netscape.
    Again at some point folks at Mozilla believed they must develop an operating system for cheap smart phones on top of Firefox, much like Chrome OS, which is another nonsense when you can just grab a Linux distro for anything. Nobody really needs this stuff, it is all marketing and politics inside big companies.


  • Ambassador

    @mossman, it is clear that if you use an old and naked browser just to see the mail, post in this forum and little else, you will not have problems, but if you surf a lot, making intensive use of the network, things change. Apart from having compatibility problems with some current formats, the risk is not negligible to catch all kinds of unpleasant things.



  • Extensions arenโ€™t always the best solution

    Yes, because built-in solution that exposes only 3 options and which's whitelist is controlled by you and not by the user is definitely a better solution. This way you can decided which ads user will see and if there will be some complaints you just brush it off as 'oop,s that ad wasnt detected" and carry on collecting your revenue from whitelisted partners.
    How long it takes until we see blog post, convincing your users that "ad whitelists are good, this I what allows Vivaldi to continue existing!". I give 1.5-2 years tops. Boy, do I love hypocrisy.



  • @GT500 Has gorhill confirmed that he will not support ublock in chromium.?.
    As far as i am aware it is only the filters which will be capped in the chromium version.


  • Ambassador

    @Kein said in Why we introduced Ad blocker to Vivaldi browser:

    Extensions arenโ€™t always the best solution

    Yes, because built-in solution that exposes only 3 options and which's whitelist is controlled by you and not by the user is definitely a better solution. This way you can decided which ads user will see and if there will be some complaints you just brush it off as 'oop,s that ad wasnt detected" and carry on collecting your revenue from whitelisted partners.
    How long it takes until we see blog post, convincing your users that "ad whitelists are good, this I what allows Vivaldi to continue existing!". I give 1.5-2 years tops. Boy, do I love hypocrisy.

    For this I suppose they allow you to add your own lists to the ad and tracking blocker or those of uBO, if you want (although at the moment only in Vivaldi Desktop), to control us better.
    Think and inform yourself, before calling others hypocritical.



  • @Catweazle What? Stop trying to dilute the point, nobody was talking about managing exception, I was talking about built-in whitelists we never get to control. When you install uMatrix or uBlock you have total control of all blacklists and whitelists, there is nothing hidden from you because "creator/this_guy" knows better. If some ad or tracker go through you always can find out why and update lists.
    This isnt the first time Vivaldi caught in shady stuff and being no better than Google: https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/24029/return-of-spyware/14



  • @Kein You are very free to remove or add any tracker/ad blocking lists you want, including the built-in ones.

    As for "hidden stuff", you can also inspect the built-in lists; all it takes is a simple right-click.



  • @AltCode said in Why we introduced Ad blocker to Vivaldi browser:

    l

    can adding custom [filter list] be added for android version? https://filterlists.com



  • @rjackdaw As far as I know, not yet, but I do believe the devs said this ability will come in a later update.



  • Is there a way to trigger it off/on for specific webpages without manually adding it to the exclusion list (similar to how Brave handles it)?

    There are some websites where adblockers can ruin functionality + some websites use ads as their sole income.


  • Vivaldi Team

    @Blatchie You can change the blocking level per site from the badge icon on the address bar.
    More info on our Help Page.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.