Google's Chrome Browser Starts Disabling uBlock Origin

Google needs to be broken up. It's extremely concerning that a company that derives most of its revenue from internet ads, can use its control over the world’s most dominant browser to limit apps that are a risk to its bottom line as it pleases.

Between Wordpress's bullshit and capitalist bullshit like Google doing things like this, I'm honestly just in utter shock at what the internet actually _is_ now adays.

What a dystopia.

Folks, Google just saved Mozilla. For nearly two decades, Google dumped limitless resources into Chrome and gave it all away to gain maximal adoption. That would be considered anti-competitive behavior in any other context. By acting more competitively, Google is giving the competition an opportunity to finally compete. Firefox was so close to hitting that red line in terms of market share. Now Firefox is going to not only survive, but thrive, and so will other newer browsers like Brave and Ladybird too.

How exactly do you think Mozilla is going to get funding to continue Firefox development with Google now unable to pay them billions to keep Google Search the #1 default?

This Google breakup is only going to destroy Mozilla entirely. Brave will survive as long as it can piggyback on Chrome development, and by getting bribed/paid by advertisers to have their ads shown instead of blocked. Ladybird can survive because it's all-volunteer, but it's not even close to being a viable browser for regular use, and with the limited development resources it has, it's questionable it will ever be really usable for general users.

The real winners of this "antitrust" action will be Microsoft (who can then dedicate more resources to Edge and make that the new IE6.0) and Apple. There will only be two browsers you can use in the future: Edge (Windows-only) and Safari (Mac/iOS-only). Other browsers will wither and die since you won't be able to use them for your internet banking and various other tasks. You'll just get a message like we did back in 2002, saying "this browser not supported, please install Microsoft Edge or Apple Safari to continue".

Have they even tried getting funding via national digital sovereignty efforts?

The justification seems easy - "fund us so your citizens don't need to depend on foreign ad companies and US-based tracking to access local and national services."

Make sure any parts which are dependent on Mozilla infrastructure can be re-hosted by other providers.

Have releases which are fully free software, with reproducible builds, which can be audited to ensure privacy protections.

And commit to legal agreements to preserve those protections.

The countries in turn can require that services in those countries must support Firefox, or perhaps specifically ESR versions of Firefox.

> The countries in turn can require that services in those countries must support Firefox, or perhaps specifically ESR versions of Firefox.

The countries can also trade that support for features that might not be in the best interest of its users, such as introducing closed blobs to the code, "benign" trackers that allow government oversight of surfing, breakage when using VPNs, etc.

People could fork those browsers if the code is still open, but look at how many people use Floorp, or Vivaldi.

I feel it's akin to government support of journalism.

Firefox can decline that money.

Firefox can be bound to enough different sovereign funds which explicit reject it, so they can't be controlled that way.

By "fully free software" I deliberately meant to exclude closed blobs.

I also deliberately did not say mandate use of that browser, only that use of that browser is acceptable.

I mean, Naenara, a Firefox fork, shows your dread is easily possible by even a third-world country. It doesn't take all of the EU to pull it off.

The US already has government support for journalism, both with special legal protections, and in some cases with direct funding, as with NPR and PBS.