It wouldn't surprise me if there is an internal conflict at Microsoft about allowing Edge extensions.
Back when Windows 10 came out, Cortana opened Bing searches in your default browser. Someone made a Bing2Google extension for Chrome, and Microsoft responded by making Cortana only open Bing searches in Edge.
Now that Edge supports extensions, I can make a Bing2Google extension for Edge, but Microsoft will never accept it. If I make a Bing2Google userscript for Tampermonkey[1], Microsoft will probably take down Tampermonkey eventually once they learn about the userscript. There is already a very simple userscript available[2] that you can install right now to get this "banned" functionality in Edge.
Edge's extension ecosystem is a walled garden. When it comes to browsers, I prefer freedom over performance and efficiency. This is why I'm still not switching to Edge. I'll give Edge another chance if/when they open up their extension platform to everyone. For now, it's useless without Microsoft approval.
I use Tampermonkey for some userscripts on other sites and I don't feel comfortable relying on Microsoft's goodwill to not remove this extension.
> Edge's extension ecosystem is a walled garden. When it comes to browsers, I prefer freedom over performance and efficiency. This is why I'm still not switching to Edge.
That's one reason, I guess. My reason for not using Edge is that Edge still, after all this time, can't save files from the internet. That's, like, the second thing that I expect a web browser to be able to do after looking at files from the internet.
I can't remember for sure the usecase or which specific browser, but I remember sometime in the 90s (whatever IE W95 or 98 had? Possible Netscape?) having to create a barebone .html with just the href and opening that to have a link to right click.
I think it actually was specifically to save files, before content types, and saving binaries as raw text was unreliable at best.
I didn't expect the same to be true 20 years later.
Just tried this on my phone (Lumia 950) I never even noticed this was an issue until now. I tend to not download files on my phone and my pc has Linux.
Only option is to highlight it and save it using another program.
> There is a link right in your comment, right click it to download the text file
Go to the file. Then try to save it. Don't argue with a scenario that I'm not talking about.
HN adds that link, but not all links come from HN. I know this is asking a lot, but, maybe, just for the sake of argument, try to pretend like you were given the URL somewhere else that doesn't automatically hyperlink and that I didn't just make this up. Hell, pretend that you got it on a piece of paper and actually had to type it in like a caveman. Now save it.
> There is usually a link to whatever file you want to download.
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that in some cases you just cannot save the file, and that in all other cases you just cannot save the file while looking at the file without knowing that you need to go...somewhere nebulously else? That's what I said too. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
You're right, there is no point in arguing this. You gave an example of a file that was "impossible" to download with Edge and I told you how to do it. If you really need to type in the URL yourself, just type in into Notepad's open file dialog and save it from there.
It doesn't seem to be possible to download a file you already have open in Edge that you have no link to, but how often does that happen, really? I'm sure you can come up with lots of other scenarios that you can't do with Edge either, or Chrome.
> You gave an example of a file that was "impossible" to download with Edge and I told you how to do it.
You told how to download something referenced by a hyperlink within the browser, a problem that I did not say I had.
We call that moving the goalposts. It's very frustrating and I wish you would stop.
> If you really need to type in the URL yourself, just type in into Notepad's open file dialog and save it from there.
I 100% agree that the solution to a web browser not being able to do the 2nd most important function of a web browser is to use a different program. Suggesting Notepad instead of a more capable browser seems a tad strange though.
> but how often does that happen, really?
Why bend so far backwards to try to poke holes in my problem? Are you responsible for the decision to disallow saving documents? If I don't use Edge does your favorite nephew lose a toe? If you want to use Edge that's fine. Knock yourself out. I won't, and I gave my reason why.
Lack of save in Edge seems especially bizarre in view of IE's past. There were years when I used copy URLs from another browser to IE just to save them in mhtml (before extensions provided that on other browsers).
I know it's not what you're looking for, but there is built in functionality to save a raw text file directly from Edge. You can click the Make a Web Note button to save it to OneNote. This, of course, requires that you actually use OneNote, which is not ideal for everyone.
Edge's right-click menu is a joke. It has to be a joke, right? Every so often I'll decide get my feet wet in Edge, maybe login to a few websites, and then I hit right click and it's right back to Chrome/Firefox.
So I just spent the past few hours learning how and then trying...
msSaveOrOpenBlob currently silently fails in Edge extension content scripts.
My first workaround of creating an invisible objectURL download link from the document body text (trying to not re-download the file) and then programatically clicking it only partially works, because Edge currently ignores the download attribute value on links so you can't set the default file name and you get a disgusting GUID as the default filename instead. This is sadly the best option so far.
My second workaround of re-transferring the file using the document URL directly, again with injecting a hidden automatically clicked <a> tag, also only partially works. This is in fact worse than the first workaround, because it doesn't even prompt to save or choose a file name. It just pops the file open in Notepad with the right file name but the wrong file extension, changing, for instance, "constants.js" to "constants.txt".
And now I'm tired of this exercise. Back to just not caring about Edge.
> Someone made a Bing2Google extension for Chrome ... Edge's extension ecosystem is a walled garden. When it comes to browsers, I prefer freedom over performance and efficiency.
Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, but to me it seems like 1. you use Google Chrome and 2. Google search.
If so, how are these not walled gardens? How do these promote freedom? I'm not sure I see how those are any better.
If I misread your comment and you use actual free software for browsing the internet (which leaves you at Firefox and seemingly only Firefox), please have me and my comment excused :)
The difference here is that the user chose to walk into those gardens, and can walk out at any time (although I don't use Chrome - is it possible to change the search client?). It's not like Edge forcing them to use Bing.
You're not forced to use Cortana, but it's an integrated AI-based assistant, like Google Now or Siri. Bing provides the back end and stores personalization info for cross-platform use.
You can use your browser of choice in Windows 10, and your search engine of choice. Nothing forces you to use either Edge or Bing.
If you choose to use Cortana then you are asking Microsoft to deliver a different type of service, which it does.
Apple and Google control their own back-end systems in exactly the same way, and Siri also "forces" you to use Bing (among other things) without asking or telling you.
You can change the default search engine to any site that uses OpenSearch technology.
In Microsoft Edge, first go to the website of the search engine you want.
Then, select More actions (...) > Settings, scroll down, select View advanced settings, scroll down again, and then select Change search engine.
Select your search engine's website in the list, and then select Set as default.
If you don't see your search engine in the list, make sure that you've visited the search engine's website in Microsoft Edge, and that your search engine uses OpenSearch technology.
1. I bought a laptop with Windows 10 with secure boot that cannot be disabled. I am stuck with it. FOREVER.
2. Forced updates and forced spying that auto-turns-on after updates
3. Cannot turn off updates
4. AntimalwareServiceExecutable uses 50% of my CPU constantly. With 2 cores at 2.2 GHz, that's A LOT.
5. Crashes due to driver issues that Windows installs itself from Windows Update
6. BSODs from drivers from WU
7. More spying
8. Explorer crashes constantly and sometimes the whole computer freezes and I have to restart
Please note that this happens on multiple new and old computers, so don't give me the "oh it's a hardware issue" bullshit, my best friend who works as a PC service technician also experiences the same complaints from many people.
I had a taste of the update madness just this evening; I was planning to use my wife's laptop to enjoy my screen time in the same room with her while she was reading. We hadn't used the laptop in a few months, so of course the first thing it did when I turned it on was try to catch up on updates. Three hours later, she's done with her book and I'm still at 37%. It literally just finished, she's asleep and I'm typing this as quietly as possible in the dark. Very, very frustrating.
I simply don't understand why Microsoft can't do what Linux and the BSDs (including macOS) have been doing for years; no matter how big the update, it can be done in the background and only requires one quick restart to complete.
I agree, especially for seldom-used Windows machines. The updates take so long, it's hard to imagine what they could be doing.
That said, Windows actually has real file locks so it can't update libraries and executables that are in use, unlike Linux. And I have recently noticed Mac OS updates taking a long time at bootup as well, the last one took 15 minutes, I assume because of System Integrity Protection--granted it's very rare unlike with Windows.
My experience with windows 10 has been pretty awesome. And a lot of the points on your list (which is only about 4 points long when eliminating dramatic duplication) come down to being an informed consumer. Secure boot, for example, might be an impediment for you, but I'd rather my grandma's laptop wasn't clandestinely red-pilled with a hypervisor by malware.
I agree with you. But people need to understand that just because someone uses the computer for more than just a browser (I'm not judging those people like my (grand)parents) doesn't mean they have to pay large amounts of money and waste lots of time just to get a computer like it was 5-10 years ago. I want a $200 laptop that I can buy that will let me do with it whatever I want. My salary from freelancing is only about $300/mo so I can't afford a $1000 Dell XPS 13 or something like that, and old Thinkpads are slow and noisy and the batteries don't last long... I was satisfied with a MacBook Air but my father got sick and I had to sell it, and that's why I mainly bought the horrible glorified tablet with a Atom Z3735F CPU.
Oh, and I forgot, my mom hates Windows 10 because Flash that she uses to play some games crashes because the display driver it automatically installed for an AMD E1-2100 APU is bad and incompatible. Meanwhile Windows 7 works fine, so that's what I installed for her. My grandparents share a Ubuntu 12.04 which I will upgrade to 14.04 sometime next year, but that's only because their computer can barely run XP and I don't want XP anywhere on my network...
@trome I don't know, I usually buy new hardware, never thought of that, and I find it bulky, I like to carry a 11.6" in my backpack everywhere and a Lenovo 100s is so light. I don't know really, it's my fault anyways...
He says old ThinkPads are slow and noisy. For reference though, my second hand w510 is an i7/16B RAM, practically silent and plenty fast. It cost me €200. Yeah the battery life is not great, even with a new battery it lasts maybe 2 hours with heavy usage. Hard to beat the power to price ratio though
I can understand the impression, but having owned similar chips to what he described, at that price/performance point you are gonna get within 20min of the battery life of either of those chips with a good condition used Thinkpad.
I guess it depends on which one you buy. I can't get 3 hours out of a new battery for the w510, but the HP Spectre x360 I have for work can go the best part of a day without charging
But no one is going to red-pill your grandma's laptop. They're going to own it the old fashioned way with userspace malware that still steals her bank password.
> I bought a laptop with Windows 10 with secure boot that cannot be disabled. I am stuck with it. FOREVER.
I guess someone missed the news 5 or so years ago that Linux supports secure boot perfectly well.
It's an open spec any anyone is free to implement it. And Linux devs did! Amazing, eh?
Looking at your comment, I guess this is how life looks for the people who read and spread FUD on the internet without never actually checking out any of the claims them selves.
You've locked yourself down. And secure boot had nothing to do with it. Interesting eh?
I understand. I used to use Debian on an old Radeon card in 2009 on my first computer (was 9 yrs old at the time, got a family friend to install Debian Lenny for me). Used it up to Wheezy. Then I got new hardware, Debian wouldn't recognize the WiFi card and I kind of switched to Ubuntu. Then got other new hardware, Linux wouldn't work, shitty AMD APUs... I'm right now installing Ubuntu 16.10 on a new model netbook and it works pretty well, everything was recognized, and I'm typing this on it. It's very smooth and fast, but on an E1-2100 AMD APU it's extremely stuttering and slow and unreliable and crashing. And that's both with FOSS and Closed Source drivers.
Ha Ha it won't boot, because of SecureBoot which cannot be disabled without disabling UEFI which causes a delay of 10 seconds on power up. Stupid computers ugh!
Are you I/O limited perchance? I have a really low end x100e, and even that doesn't stutter. Your E1-2100 should be head and shoulders above it performance wise, hopefully it is less of a space heater too (tho the x100e gets 5hrs despite that)!
I simply don't understand how some people people (Such as you) are having so many issues. I'm not denying you have, but I've upgraded upwards of 10 PCs with hardware all the Way from Summer 2016 to Early 2008/2007, and except on the truly geriatric ex-XP hardware, I've had barely any issues. One Acer Laptop has a crashy sound driver, but apart from that...
>1. I bought a laptop with Windows 10 with secure boot that cannot be disabled. I am stuck with it. FOREVER.
I really doubt this is the case. Microsoft actually mandated that all OEMs provide a method to disable Secure Boot and allow for loading in arbitrary, user-defined keys as part of the Windows certification process.
I just checked, You're right. I'm sorry, I didn't look at it. Basically to disable SecureBoot you must disable UEFI. SecureBoot can't be changed but boot mode can and it's either UEFI or Legacy. UEFI is 32bit so it's somewhat of an issue, but not that big of a deal, Ubuntu handles it.
Let's not pretend Google Chrome is somehow less of a walled garden. You can only install extensions from their store, and yes, they've removed extensions for business reasons before.
The difference is that the extension platform itself is open. I can compile Chromium and create/install/redistribute extensions all without ever asking for Google's permission, and still have an acceptable user experience on non-Windows platforms. Afaik, Edge doesn't allow easy extension installation prompts from third party websites.
Yes, redistributing extensions for Windows Chrome users (not Windows Chromium) does require the Chrome Web Store. This is unfortunate, but at least Google has a better track record when it comes to banning extensions that modify their things on their own web properties.
Compiling UWP apps such as Chrome extensions doesn't "require Microsoft's permission" either and you can sideload them as well.
However, as you point out, Google prohibits side loading for the majority of real Chrome installs.
The time since I last found a malicious extension in the Chrome Web Store is five days[0]. They're terrible at policing this, which is a point I've actively complained about for years.
It can also be problematic if you want to author extensions on it... Google requires a $5 payment to be able to publish extensions. Reasonable, but what if you have issues making the payment? My 100% valid CC gets rejected though it obviously works everywhere else. Now, try to get support from Google for that...
If you enable Developer Mode and load unpacked extensions on Windows, it complains about it every time you start Chrome. I'd call that a (major) inconvenience.
Yeah it shows a tiny little balloon-tip style thing over the hamburger menu.
I was going to say it's not a big deal but I quite distinctly remember it being the entire reason I switched to Vivaldi instead of Chrome. Full extension store compatibility with none of the nagging, and all the other cool shit it does is just a bonus at this point.
It does. You can pay 5 bucks to get a dev account on the play store and then upload your extension there (unlisted if you want), and install it from there, and you won't get the nag popup
You can do the same for Windows. People bring their religions in here without facts and end up at the top of threads. The parent post is baseless and wrong.
> People bring their religions in here without facts and end up at the top of threads
Only popular religions ;)
I agree. I pointed out that your statement "You can only install extensions from their store" is incorrect for Chrome. Thank you for adding information about Edge.
Enabling local extension install in Chrome is a single checkbox at the top of chrome://extensions -- the same place where you manage the rest of your extensions. But point taken.
I doubt they'd kill tampermonkey for that. Switching their own app to use edge is a soft response, taking down a general extension because it might be used for that would be very hostile, and MS are not in the business of being openly hostile to developers of software for their platform
It's also worth pointing out they allowed an Evernote extension, even though its a direct competitor to OneNote
I am old enough to remember that Chrome didn't really take off until Google released an extension framework with many popularly supported extensions. There's likely a lot of room in the browser market for custom browsers curated and managed by trusted third parties but my sense is that a) given their history, people wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable having Microsoft fill that role and b) given their size, Microsoft wants Edge to compete directly with Chrome and Firefox for absolute majority market share, rather than chase single digit % niche markets (which would be a very exciting business for almost anyone else).
Interesting. My memory is probably hazy, but for me, Chrome took off because the choices at the time were IE and Firefox, which used to be an insane memory hog.
I've been using Firefox continuously as my only browser since it was in beta and called Phoenix. This has never been even remotely true, at least on my experience.
To carry on with your anecdotal evidence, I'm going to disagree and say that yes, there was a time where firefox was just dog slow to open - on all 3 of the PCs I owned at the time, two using only 2-3 extensions and one using none. If there wasn't, I never would have switched to chrome.
IE was pretty bad but Firefox was decent. I interfaced a bit with the early Chrome team. Better performance was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. Chrome was the fastest browser for at least six months but many early adopters wouldn't touch it without an extension framework. Certain extensions like Firebug had become extremely popular with developers by then. Google wanted these developers as early adopters. Once the extension framework was released then everybody hopped on the Chrome train (except for the Firefox purists), and Google proceeded to leverage their O&O sites (and spend billions of additional dollars) to pump distribution. Later on the extension frameworks (for all browsers) became riddled with malware and adware and are still a major source of vulnerability today.
Can I have your phone number so I can call and fight you personally instead every time I want to play a video game that didn't get a FreedomOS release?
Both. I write middleware for games for fun, which is a kind of middle ground between game programming and systems programming. The Windows APIs are horrible compared to their Unix counterparts.
It's amazing how Microsoft locks down every one of their products, from Edge to Cortana to Xbox, and then complains night & day when other companies do it.
I believe when they were astroturfing against Google, they also added a search experience to Xbox -- one that defaulted to Bing & one that you could not change to anything but Bing.
Microsoft (not being dependent on ad revenue) could make some big strides by incorporating UBlock into the browser and marketing Edge as "the internet, without ads."
'A faster browser' is why Internet Explorer lost users to Firefox and Chrome in the first place. Microsoft could still win that back.
In addition to all the points people brought up there is the problem of having a browser block ads without getting banned ("This site will not work with Edge") by the vast majority sites that rely on ads.
Edge doesn't have enough marketshare to deter retaliation and they are easy to detect because they are the only ones to use EdgeHTML so it would be hard to counteract that via spoofing.
Facebook bought the Atlas Advertiser Suite from Microsoft. However, Microsoft outsourced its non-Bing ad sales business to AOL, along with 1,200 staff.
Its slower on my Nexus 6P than Chrome, although it doesn't have to Deal with the ads. I often scroll on long pages only to end up in some still to be rendered viewports. Doesnt happen with Chrome.
Ok. I also had this "scrolling being faster than rendering" half a year ago or so, but switched to the Nightly version than which had the APZ feature (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/02/smoother-scrolling-in-fire...) integrated already on Android by then. And where this all worked pretty smooth. I thought this was already rolled out for stable, too...
Preinstalled ad-blocking would probably decimate what is left of quality media landscape within a few years. I'm quite happy if it requires at least a tiny bit of effort from the user. Some people simply don't mind ads, and we should all be grateful to them.
(I'm using uMatrix and try to allow all non-terrible ads on quality sites)
There is already a browser that ships with built-in ad blocking: Opera.
Although, as it's less known than others and it has no Microsoft or Google shoving it in users' faces, I guess you could count finding and installing it as "effort".
If this didn't work 5 years ago with Ballmer, when he should've done exactly that instead of pushing the useless "Do Not Track" thing by default, then it's definitely not going to happen under Nadella, who is filling Windows 10 with all sorts of tracking and ads.
It's the third biggest internet company by search ad revenue, behind Baidu but ahead of Yahoo. However, it's a very long way behind Google and Facebook by ad revenue.
I think security was also a big issue. Seems they've made some strides in that department, and now Chrome is the most targeted browser for 0-days. That'll change once Edge takes the remaining IE user market share and they do a Windows-10 style force-grade.
The problem with that - and also the reason why for example Mozilla is for the most part not doing that either - is that it takes away pretty much all incentive for webpage developers to support your browser.
What is your take on the morality / consequences of ad-blocking?
Having worked in the ad-industry for almost five years, I'm remarkably conflicted. Malware, duping users, and scams are a real issue on the modern web. However, blocking ads comes with significant consequences for businesses, as most users aren't willing to pay direct for content.
What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
The bottom line is that my security is more important than your ad revenue. On this issue, there can be no debate.
The fact that viewing the vast majority of ads involves running completely unaudited, often heavily obfuscated JavaScript, written, published and served by companies who don't give the slightest of shits about (or in some cases, actively seek to harm) the security of the people who view them, makes them a complete non-starter for me.
Any ‘immorality’ involved in blocking ads doesn't even begin to compare to that of the ad industry's disregard for security (let alone privacy).
What about the media? I know hating them is kinda in fashion, but do you think the world will be a better place without NYT / WSJ /Guardian?
I haven't had any security issues it 10+ years, often without ad blocking. And I'm more afraid of an internet that is only Facebook, Amazon and Breitbart and what it will do to the civil society.
Considering the NYT / WSJ / Guardian have shown themselves to be senseless immoral propaganda outlets/unofficial PR firms for the highest bidder, I will absolutely and unshakingly shed no tears.
Every single media outlet can be burned to the ground for all I care, there will always be a new one to readily and eagerly take its place.
Find me a media outlet that actually has moral standards and I will happily concede, but before that I will sleep soundly at night knowing that ad-blocking is the best way to defeat propaganda as well as protecting myself from malware.
> What is your take on the morality / consequences of ad-blocking?
Since I block ads, I don't get any viruses on my computer anymore. And no I do not visit porn sites. Many prominent websites have served malware to users in the past.
Second, my laptop battery lasts way longer since there is less Javascript to serve. Pages display faster and most auto-play video don't even show up anymore.
> What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
How about publishers serve ads from their own main domain ? I'm sure they'll be more careful what kind of bullshit is actually loaded , since there is no cross origin policy protection for them. And since they'll have to pay for the bandwidth, they'll also ask for lighter ads from networks. Ad networks can also offer campaigns that are not driven by pay per click or impression , but renting space on websites for a limited period of time at a fixed price.
> How about publishers serve ads from their own main domain ? ...
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the idea. Imagine this - what if advertisers would give you a small PHP script to include in the website source code, that would run random code on the server, instead of ga.js? Would they think twice before including that crap? I bet they would.
As it stands, I've encountered sites that wanted me to run even 10 different scripts on a page, for ad networks I haven't even heard about.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would make it virtually impossible for the ad provider to reliably measure how often their ads are viewed, forcing them to consider only clicks in their business model.
This may be a pro or a con, I'm not sure. Would optimising for ad-clicks instead of ad-views encourage more valuable and interesting ads, that one would actually want to know more about? Or would it encourage (literal) big mouse clickbait at the expense of understated, informative, Google Analytics-style text ads?
Ads are not the only nor, afaik, even the most common vector for malware. If your computer can get hacked by you just visiting a webpage, you need to fix that regardless of whether you block ads. It's a huge security problem
This reminds me of the argument that you should run SSH on an non-standard port. Sure, can't hurt. I'm sure it does stop many indiscriminate drive-by attacks. But it's hardly a real security solution. If your SSH server is so weak that it could fall to a drive-by attack then you have much bigger problems.
(And, FWIW, Google's malware blocking applies equally to ads as it does sites you type into the address bar)
Reputation doesn't work well enough because of ads. I think that's the gist of the complaint here.
Ads means otherwise reputable websites serve malware. Even when the ads themselves are trustworthy, they very often do not have acceptable security practices, preventing interception.
Publishers get to try sending whatever they want to my computer. I get to accept or reject the parts that I want. Based on whether I accept or reject ads, they can refuse to let me see content.
This is business, not morality. I have no moral obligation to support their business model. They have no moral obligation to deliver a website without intrusive advertising. (Okay, maybe they have a moral obligation not to invade my privacy by tracking me all over the internet, which is why when it comes down to it, adblocking is probably more moral than putting ads on your website).
Just because you have the /power/ to block their ads has nothing to do with the morality.
More intersting though::: Don't you think it is in your interest for these publishers to survive? It sometimes seems as if people are spending hours and hours reading these publications but have nothing but scorn for them, cheering their demise.
>Just because you have the /power/ to block their ads has nothing to do with the morality.
Sure, but one should probably have to start with making the argument for there being a moral burden incurred when sending a digital message to another persons computer that says "what have you got sitting there?" that requires the person to then execute everything they receive.
>Don't you think it is in your interest for these publishers to survive? It sometimes seems as if people are spending hours and hours reading these publications but have nothing but scorn for them, cheering their demise.
I don't think you necessarily need to be cheering to be fine with their demise. As for their heavy use? It's effectively dead time. I might read a lot of crap on the internet but if not that I'd be watching some tv show I don't really care about or doing a crossword or watching a bug on a wall. It's not high value entertainment it's something to do to make doing nothing slightly less boring.
I'm interested why you think this is a moral question. I don't have a moral responsibility to accept internet ads any more than I have to avoid changing the TV channel during an ad break, or to read instead of flipping past the ads in a free community newspaper. All three mediums use a business model based on the understanding that only some fraction of users will pay attention to the ads.
How about we let all the useless noise die?
I mean the sites here, not the ads.
I have fond memories of the 'old' internet, where web sites existed because someone cared, not because someone wanted to sell ad space. Maybe I have selective memory, though.
Hrm, maybe we are a little better off... but there is some charm in pages from that era. Even though it's not conventional modern design, it's like outsider art. You can see people's passion, just doing what they care about.
I remember popups, punch-the-monkeys, and junk on the internet long ago. Things have become more pervasive, but I think our use has also dramatically gone up.
Isn't the presumption by the content creator that that space will be filled with ads? I can see for in-stream advertisements just eliminating them, but side-bar ads or other banner ads being fully eliminated might result in poor layouts.
It's my computer and my browser, it renders pages the way I want it to.
Ads are pollution, IRL and online. I will block them and ignore them as much as I wish to.
I would be happy to set a header in my http requests, telling the site "Will not render" anything I consider to be advertising. But the moment you send me the content, it's fair game to display however I wish.
Ads provide literally no value to me. If you can't figure out a business model which serves both you and your users then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put up with your pop-ups and annoying gifs.
I realize that, but the problem is that I'm assaulted so often that "block by default" is the only reasonable option. I whitelist a few sites that I go to often, but that's it.
My opinion - people don't have a RIGHT to a business model. Internet is a free for all, so if someone clicks ad links that is good for for adplatform, if not - sorry, invent something else. You can block me from visiting (in fact it is a common practice of segregation upon IP/regional/adblocker factors) and I can block you from visiting or executing some code on my PC (e.g. ad scripts).
It is similar to people saying that just by owning a car they are entitled for a parking space for it.
Also adplatforms seem to underestimate amount of stuff in the modern Internet and overestimate their own importance - I've switched dozens of tech sites in the last 5-10 years, I don't even remember names of some of them, so even if there will be a mass extinction event for internet media there'll still be lots of stuff to read or watch.
Also - ad model obviously does not guarantee quality of material, as we all see on almost all websites.
I started using flashblock, which I thought was a reasonable compromise. It stopped the most aggressive as content and provided easy manual interaction to enable it.
Then websites started blocking me with ad-blocker-blockers. This occurred in tandem woth finding normal browsing getting slower and slower. This offended me that I switched to uBlock.
Its impossible to talk about the morality of online advertisement without first acknowledging how its unique compared to all other from of advertisement: it do not respect local advertisement laws. No publisher want to take responsibility for the advertisement they publish, especially if they happen to auction out space to criminals who distribute malware.
Advertisement is where spam was 20 years ago, and no amount of moral discussions can stop people from using spam filters. If the requirement to use gmail was that you had to turn off the spam filter and deal with all the scams, malware and crap every day, people would stop using gmail. For now people aren't forced into that choice, so people either just ignore the advertisements or filter it.
Online ads are unique in some ways, but emphasizing their uniqueness might not be the most effective way to have a society-wide conversation about them.
If I picked up a free, ad-supported newspaper from some booth on the street (pretty common where I live), and set up a Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers to black out all the ads from my copy, would the publisher have any right to complain? Not any more, I think, than if I had wiped my ass with that paper. As soon as that copy enters my possession, I have every right to rip it apart as I see fit.
Replace "some booth on the street" with "some website" and "Raspberry Pi with robotic arms and permanent markers" with "browser plugin". This should not change anything about the moral and/or legal conclusion.
Now assume that some of the ads on the free paper were printed with toxic ink (malware) that stinks up my living room (computer), or were embedded with tiny chips to track when and where I read which story. Few people in real life would tolerate such ads, but for some reason we are constantly being told that we should allow them online.
I think we really need to emphasize these offline analogies. They are among the strongest arguments that could convince non-technical judges and juries to come up with reasonable rules for acceptable ads.
"Users simply need to turn on Brave Payments from within Brave’s preferences page, then fund their Brave wallet (either with Coinbase, or by using Bitcoin they already have), and then browse as usual. While everything is automatic, once enabled, the Brave Payments UI allows you to control which sites receive your support by manually enabling or disabling funding for any of the sites you visit."
As a business that depends on ads we just have to write custom stuff to detect the blockers and ask them to turn it off. Those with resources will get around it, those who don't will have their stuff blocked.
Be careful with that attitude. The "blocker blockers" were something that convinced me to switch from flashblock (which is ad agnostic and quite minimalist) to uBlock.
Morality: I realize I want the content and it's paid for by ads. Viewing the content and not the ads might be seen as not fulfilling my end of that silent agreement. I realize it's not my decision how the site is financed, and I don't pay the bills or worry about click fraud or conversion rate issues with dumb non-tracking ads, but that's not my problem, neither legally or morally.
> What's the alternative most feel comfortable with? Google contributor? Patreon? Something that I'm not aware of?
I feel comfortable with dumb (non-tracking, non-targeted, non-animated) ads. I could go as far as allowing third party ads from a whitelisted ad network with a VERY strong integrity policy (uses ADSafe, states explicitly what limited information is given to advertisers, what information is used for targeting etc.).
If a site can't work without using dubious ad networks then by all means just kill the site. I'm choosing how to consume your site and I have moral quandries about helping kill ANY site that uses todays "normal" ad networks to finance their operation.
I don't CARE whether sites can prevent fraudulent clicks. I don't CARE whether the advertisers can actually be charged per impression or even get stats from their advertising.
I wouldn't lose any sleep if 90% of the content on the internet just disappeared tomorrow because all the browser vendors suddenly added on-by-default watertight ad blocking.
I wish they weren't necessary. In an ideal world, advertisers would work to present me with relevant ads that aren't intrusive. How else will I learn about new products and services? But I can't take a chance on getting infected with malware, and the current practices are far too intrusive (which of 3 floating Javascript floating windows do I have to close first to read the content I came for, as they fight to be top-most?)
Patreon, premium subscriptions, a bitcoin adress you take donations on or just selling the content. All of these are fine.
There are no moral or ethical concern with ad-blocking. And even if there were, they pale in comparisson to the despicable practice of advertising itself, even if you managed to fix malware and scams.
Under the current system, ads are a vector for surveillance, annoyance, and malware, so I block them with no regrets, and help my less nerdy friends do the same. I have no problem with non-annoying and non-tracking ads, like the ones you find in printed magazines and newspapers. I also have no problem with subscriptions. I would only pay for a few, and plenty of sites would probably go out of business if they moved to a subscription model, but that's fine by me. There are too many sites dedicated to pumping out garbage to fill the holes between the ads, instead of writing things that people are willing to pay to read.
Even if 99% of sites will die there will be millions of them left and billions filling the empty niche. Out of them millions will invent some new and hopefully working business models.
I'd like the price of all the products I buy reduced by the advertising expenses and then spend this additional money to pay for content directly cutting out the middle man. Ideally the money would go to a pool and be distributed from there according to the content I consume so that I am spared the hassle of signing up for a hundred services.
Nice. I've been using the version from off github. It works well, but it is annoying to have to confirm that you want to start it every time you start Edge.
Ooh finally. I've been using the github build for a while and Edge has this annoying design where any 'untrusted' (not from the store) extensions are disabled every time you (re)start the browser
Would really like to see Ghostery and Privacy Badger make their way to edge. I'm sure once they actually roll out extensions out of beta we'll get more. Supposedly porting is extremely easy from Chrome.
With uBlock Origin the "Customers also considered" section is hidden and the Read More link doesn't work. But they show up and work in Adblock Plus just fine.
I updated the neutered script from googletagservices.com, I found the site was throwing an error because of a missing method in uBO's neutered version of the script. Not sure whether it's a new method or whether I missed it when I created the neutered script.
There is no filter in EasyList or EasyPrivacy for googletagservices.com (hence it worked fine with ABP), it's something I added to "uBlock filters - Privacy" a long while ago, and created a neutered script to replace the real one to minimize web page breakage.
If you want uBO to behave just like ABP blocking-wise, just select the same exact filter lists -- though I strongly advise you at least keep "uBlock filters" for best results.
For reference, ABP comes with only EasyList enabled by default + a regional list if applicable. Privacy-wise though, you lose a lot by not using EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's and other uBO's own filter lists. See this graph[1]: second bar is when only using EasyList + "uBlock filters". Third bar is uBO's default list/settings.
Awesome, one of my bosses has been wanting adblocking for awhile but loves using Edge and wouldn't switch to Chrome like I've advised. He's going to be pretty happy knowing he can have the "best of both worlds."
It is unfortunate that you are required to use the MS Store (sign-up required) to install Edge extensions. This is not a requirement of the base browser application itself. Chrome doesn't force you to sign-in to install extensions, why does Edge?
I'd love to switch to Edge, but my only problem is that you can't synchronize your history, settings, etc. without having to convert the whole account to an MS account.
Chrome for iOS doesn't support extensions, Firefox for iOS doesn't support extensions, and iOS Safari supports Content Blocker extensions, which is a very different API from how uBlock Origin currently functions on the desktop.
A simple port has nowhere to go on iOS right now. (Though there are rumblings that Firefox might introduce some sort of add-on support for their iOS browser in the future.)
Back when Windows 10 came out, Cortana opened Bing searches in your default browser. Someone made a Bing2Google extension for Chrome, and Microsoft responded by making Cortana only open Bing searches in Edge.
Now that Edge supports extensions, I can make a Bing2Google extension for Edge, but Microsoft will never accept it. If I make a Bing2Google userscript for Tampermonkey[1], Microsoft will probably take down Tampermonkey eventually once they learn about the userscript. There is already a very simple userscript available[2] that you can install right now to get this "banned" functionality in Edge.
Edge's extension ecosystem is a walled garden. When it comes to browsers, I prefer freedom over performance and efficiency. This is why I'm still not switching to Edge. I'll give Edge another chance if/when they open up their extension platform to everyone. For now, it's useless without Microsoft approval.
I use Tampermonkey for some userscripts on other sites and I don't feel comfortable relying on Microsoft's goodwill to not remove this extension.
[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/tampermonkey/9nblggh...
[2]: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/11308-bing-to-google/code