Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      DNS ad blockers are not sufficient to block all ads and often overly broad. So they have much higher rate of false positives and negatives compared to in-browser ad blockers. Differentiating between ads and useful content based on domain names will become more and more difficult. Both might use some url from the same cloud provider, and blocking those breaks a lot of stuff.

        • cmhe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          You where talking about “system wide AdGuard”, which is not the browser addon, but an app that uses DNS blocking, be it by either letting people set DNS servers manually, or automatically through VPN. Their VPN does not break TLS connection by inserting custom certificates and MITM proxies, so they cannot read/modifiy content.

          It might be possible to use TLS breaking proxies for systemwide ad blocking, but even that wouldn’t help, because nowadays a lot of content and ads are loaded dynamically via javascript. So a browser is required to filter ads.

        • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Maybe you are looking for SpamGuard, TrojanGuard, VirusGuard, MalwareGuard, SpywareGuard, RansomWareGuard, etc. instead.

    • Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      porque no los dos? I use both and there are things uBlock can catch/block that AdGuard Home doesn’t seem to be able to. That said AdGuard makes mobile pages readable, when most these days are a complete nightmare of ads

        • Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I misread system wide as network wide. My mistake. FWIW, I still prefer a network wide and browser plugin (ublock and privacy badger) combo.