This page uses Doubleclick, which doesn’t respect user privacy, and should be removed from this page imo. Google resources are only permitted on Google search, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, etc, they’re blocked everywhere else). As for sites trying to load requests for totally unrelated sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Amazon ads, anything Google related, etc, that’s just completely messed up imo - I block all that stuff globally using uBlock Origin and only allow it on sites where I need it (e.g. So Disqus for comments I can understand for example, but tracking cookies, other types of tracker, analytics and fingerprinting without user knowledge or consent I totally disagree with. I also have a low opinion of any website that attempts to load content that has nothing to do with the functioning of the site. I’m not averse to ads in principle, people need to make money after all, but things have got way out of hand and as far as I’m concerned the ad industry is completely out of control and has shown itself to be totally unwilling to self-regulate. (And talking about annoyances, I also use the add-on “I don’t care about cookies” so I’m not pointlessly and idiotically told by every other site that it uses cookies.) It’s pretty obvious why Google would want to do away with ad blockers, but not only are ads an annoyance, malicious ads are a security risk, so I view a strict adblocker an essential part of a layered defensive setup. The more advanced features are a bit of a steep learning curve, but they’re well worth learning about. blocking third-party frames will block a lot of malware). In its basic setup it will provide good protection to even non-tech-savvy users without breaking sites, but if someone wants to read up on how it works in detail at then it provides many useful features to make you even safer online (e.g. It DOES block ads (including malicious ones), but it also blocks trackers and malicious sites out of the box, as well as having many other advanced features. And it should be said that uBlock Origin (not to be confused with uBlock) is not just an adblocker, it does far more than just that. I’ve used Firefox and uBlock Origin for years. Now You: What is your take on the development? While it is certainly possible that the stable extension update would be allowed by Google, it seems more likely that it will be rejected as well by the company. It is impossible to know why the extension was rejected from the Chrome Web Store unless Google would provide further information on the issue. The latest version of the extension is available for many major browsers including Mozilla Firefox and other Chromium-based web browsers. Hill recommends that users find another browser that continues to support uBlock Origin if they want to continue using the extension. Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store - there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0. While there is still the chance that it will go through, it is more likely that it too will be rejected by Google and that this could effectively end uBlock Origin for Google Chrome. The main issue with the rejection is that the next stable version of the extension will be more or less identical to the rejected developer version. The developer version of the extension is used by fewer users than the stable version which means that the rejection does not affect the bulk of users of the extension yet. No point speculating one way or another, my experience with the CWS in the past is that we will never know why it was labelled "REJECTED", they never disclose the exact "why". Hill, a long-time developer, had no illusions that Google would provide actionable information about the rejection. The email provides no information on the actual violation other than that, a practice that Google has been criticized for in the past. In an email to the developer, Google stated that the extension violated one of the Chrome Store's policies that prohibits the bundling of unrelated functionality in extensions. Developers upload new extension versions to the Chrome Web Store to replace existing versions Google runs automated scans of these tools and may also look at the uploaded extensions manually before allowing or rejecting them. Raymond Hill (gorhill), the developer of uBlock Origin revealed recently that Google rejected a new developer version of the extension. Update: uBlock Origin Dev is now available again on the Chrome Web Store. Google changed some parameters after it faced heavy user and developer criticism but did not revert the course completely. The new manifest file for Chrome extensions could end extensions like uBlock Origin for the web browser.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |