Correct. They indeed do this in the name of security as announcing they do it for profit would probably be bad PR.
reply"We're doing it for your own good, pinky promise"
replyI primarily use Safari, and only switch to Chrome if a site misbehaves; every time I do so, I'm aghast by the ads and popups I suddenly get everywhere - despite having uBlock installed. I refuse to take that as an acceptable state of browsing the internet.
replySafari has never supported MV2 uBlock Origin. Chrome with uBlock Lite is exactly the same as Safari with uBlock Lite.
replyIn Safari, I use AdGuard and Consent-O-Matic, which catches pretty much everything.
replyOthers in this thread disagree with you! But, if they're good enough for Safari, then you'll find they're exactly as good in Chrome.
replyhttps://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-adblocker/b...
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/consent-o-matic/mdj...
Blink 3 times if you're being held against your will, dude. "Trillion dollar advertising company neuters ad blocking because it wants to protect you" is some "I love Big Brother" stuff.
reply> they're doing this in the name of security
replyIt is always in the name of security and good intentions.
Aaah the beautiful inability to see what is so obvious because your salary depends on it.
replyEh, Google controls the add-ons marketplace though. They control what add-ons are allowed, and they could even audit the add-ons for malicious code/behavior. Google, being a company that collects 75% of its revenue from ads, is being disingenuous by claiming this is a security-centered position. If security were the priority then the add-ons themselves should be inspected thoroughly, that much is obvious.
reply