570
Google Chrome’s uBlock Origin phaseout has begun
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
570 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59672 readers
4563 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No. Brave has a history of modifying links you click on to add affiliate information. The only time to use Brave is if user agent spoofing for "chrome only" websites doesn't make it work.
ps. i also first started using Brave when certain streaming sites refused to work in Firefox :)
Try this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/
they appear to have stopped that 4 years ago and apologized for the mistake
Right, but I don't trust them as a result and I don't feel comfortable recommending them or not pointing it out. Meddling with links you click is malware behavior.
they have not acted as malware since correcting this mistake
Also the recent case when they installed VPN. In general, they give off the impression that they don't respect users' consent a lot. Mozilla has been similarly sneaky, like with the opt-out ad tracking recently - thus I would only consider Librewolf or hardening - but Brave seems to be more extreme in their advertising business.
the VPN was a feature of the software at the time and not enabled unless you signed up but as you point out if software changes its service without explicitly telling users these days it feels bad
Welll yeah - point was that they installed a service without consent. And not just a browser feature, but something crossing a whole another boundary. AFAIK also, while the tunnel itself was not enabled, the service itself was turned on automatically.
according to the minutes of research i did ;-) i got the impression the service was disabled by default. i don't know the tech details otherwise so i don't know if it made the system vulnerable or unstable in any way. i didn't find anything like that.
more to the point is that they should have said that VPN resources were being installed