top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 187 points 6 months ago (1 child)

A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 141 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    As long as it doesn't interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that's fine.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 129 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    "Quietly™" by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    As someone whose employer blocks the installation of browser extensions, I am more than excited to hear that!

    Using the web sucks since that policy has been implemented a year or so ago.
    Integrated adblock engine would rectify that again.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 6 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    If he can't even install an addon for a browser, what do you think he can do with DNS?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    It depends whether or not they left the DNS setting unlocked, which is actually highly likely.

    Would have to use a public server, but it should in theory work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    I wouldn't think so. I would also assume that direct DNS requests to external servers aren't allowed in the firewall. But even if they are, they probably can't use a non-company DNS server if he needs to reach internally hosted services. So it would at least require using different browser for internal and external browsing, assuming DNS requests to external servers really are allowed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Great.
    Now you can be responsible for why group policies arent applying and the user is not able to access drive shares.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    No company that doesn't allow you to install browser add-ons will allow you to run a pi-hole instance. Not on your machine, and much less as an actual pi plugged into their network. If you did plug an actual pi into the network it would probably reason to be just straight up fired.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 269 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (21 children)

    I said it for Waterfox and I'm gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).

    The biggest difference between Firefox and Waterfox in implementation is the WaterFox developers noticed this FF change early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news for users.

    A few more reasons this is good:

    1. Rust is faster than JavaScript
    2. Native functionality is faster than an extension
    3. Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Rust is faster than JavaScript

    isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?

    Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do

    seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

    isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?

    From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just one two modules. (It's in the "wasm" folder near the top of the list).

    (Edit: I was looking at outdated code; the newer version uses more, but IMO pales in comparison to the JavaScript filtering logic)

    seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share

    Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.

    my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don't even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.

    brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    firefox support is often not a priority even today

    Dunno if I can name a time it was ;)

    I guess it might be a priority for Mozilla sometimes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share

    They should have built it in years ago, but called it "web security filtering" or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).

    I think you're right but I'm sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?

    I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don't think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn't stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    Using entirely unrelated ad blocking technology is bad for what reason?

    You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that's not the only skeleton in their closet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I mean what's wrong with buying a company to access it proprietary code. NFTs were a dumb grift, but if the specific software product they offered was sound what's the issue?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago

    If the code was good, nothing would be wrong with it. It would be even better if the code was free. And that's my point.

    (In Mozilla's case, it's actually much worse because they bought private customer data along with the technology and then canned the technology while keeping the data, but that's a different story.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Why?

    I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.

    It doesn't really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 100 points 6 months ago (40 children)

    Cool.

    Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the "this video was sponsored by" segments on YouTube).

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I wish SponsorBlock and DeArrow were integrated into Invidious, like with Piped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Freetube has integrated sponsor block (might have to enable it in the settings first). I've generally been very happy with the Freetube flatpak, although there have been times when YouTube actively fought against third parties where Freetube did not work for a month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    SponsorBlock

    I believe uBlock manages to remove all ads on yt by tickling the subscription of some list bundled in its installation already

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -64 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (28 children)
  • [–] 44 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    Sponsors don't see if you skipped their ad segment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Citation needed. When you hover over a video's progress bar, there is displayed a little graph showing something resembling a probability density function for timestamps users most frequently skip to. Advertisers can use this information to determine how likely a user is to sit through a sponsorship for a given channel.

    Not that that matters. Don't feel like you need to watch ads. Advertising is bad in all its forms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (16 children)

    Sure they do.

    Edit: I have a YouTube channel. The metrics are exportable. This is not a debate — advertisers often ask for these metrics. They absolutely can see when big channels have high SponsorBlock rates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    Sure they do.

    How, exactly, do they see that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    YouTube knows exactly where you start and stop the video, what segments you skip, etc., etc. and the channel has access to those analytics. Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors, but the mechanism IS in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors,

    That's my point. The sponsors of individual youtubers don't have access to that information

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I don't know anything about sponsor agreements. Just because the sponsors don't have direct access, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways for them to get that information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Of course, the creator has an interest to show this data to the advertisers if they have a good audience retention during these sponsored segments. The creators that want to hide this probably can be assumed to have a worse retention... So the advertisers can just ask for the data and know how much money that ad space is worth, and make decent estimates even when the creator refuses to share that data.

    In the end, that data may very well influence how much the creator receives.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    They don't require it as they already have metrics and data, by the unique promo code from each ad read. That tells them viewers of X will go to the website and buy something.

    But I have never done that, because I don't buy something because one person I like to watch was paid to talk about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    Do you have proof it harms them?

    Unless you personally click the link and sign up using code WeAreAScam at checkout, they don't get anything extra. They already have been paid for the ad read.

    It's like saying you're stealing from a TV station because you took a piss during the ad break.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren't the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count. AFAIK it hasn't made too much of a difference yet (though channels with high skip-counts are less likely to be given the decent sponsor deals) but if youtube makes the analytics easier to access it probably will have a pretty big impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren’t the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count

    If they're that paranoid, they aren't worth taking the money because a YouTuber forgot to include a capital letter in their pre-approved script.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If they personally scan the timeline on a video, they are the same company that gets mad at an ad being wrong because they read it as ThingLy and not Thing-ly.

    If they are that paranoid, they don't deserve to your money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    oh, thank you for clarifying. I'm not arguing they're decent people - just that this sort of thing could potentially harm a creator. Unfortunately while in an ideal world creators would be able to tell the companies with this sort of overbearing contract to go fuck themselves, that's not the one we live in. "Creators don't have the power in the relationship: a capitalism story..."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I'm never removing SponsorBlock until YouTube cracks down on scams being promoted by big yotubers.

    So, never.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Are you watching vids of youtubers who promote scams?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    So many yt'ers promoted honey, that weird Scottish land certificate thing and betterhelp. I would argue all of those are basically scams.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The Scottish thing is a scam because they aren't even legally allowed to sell souvenir plots of land. Like obviously nobody in their right mind thinks it makes you a Lord or Lady, but they don't even sell you the land!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 71 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Quietly

    The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.

    Shhhhhh.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Despite this trope, public libraries usually don't have a guideline or enforcement on noise levels.

    But the developer was definitely using silent tactile switches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe not in Canada but every library in Asia has

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    That's cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    I used brave for a while. Recently switched to zen browser to try some better tab management. But despite all braves issues, it’s ad/tracker blocking was always very good imo. I think it will be a good addition to Firefox.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think you can separate a product from their CEO

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    3 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post