Building a UMatrix Replacement(lock.cmpxchg8b.com) |
Building a UMatrix Replacement(lock.cmpxchg8b.com) |
If you find yourself in a "only Internet Explorer 5.5 is supported" situation, you could perhaps use Ungoogled Chromium and manually install Ublock Origin to buy yourself time to get out of that dead lock.
Firefox works fine now, I don't think I've had those memory issues that used to plague it in forever!
Firefox hasn't (yet) crippled their add-ons, and says they have no plans to do so (today).
NoScript can do what you want, and more.
open -b com.google.Chrome --new --args --disable-features=ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported,ExtensionManifestV2Disabled
Once Google removes MV2 and it's supporting code, Brave is not going to shoulder the cost of keeping all of that patched to run on newer builds of Chromium. Especially not because their own blocking doesn't rely on it, uMatrix has been deprecated since 2021, and AdGuard is already committed to transitioning to MV3.
This is part of what forced my hand and made Firefox my daily driver, at least for personal use.
Yes! I have uMatrix on all my computers. I wish it was still being updated but.. it still works great. The best ever.
I miss uMatrix, too. Thank you for working on this!
but cloudflare blocks my "outdated browser" all the time
Besides the blocking, being able to see at the click of a button what kind of crap most sites want to load is really eye opening. And they would do so completely silently if you're using a "normie" browser created or financially supported by the largest advertising company in the world.
Instead the mainstream gets "security features" like Safe Browsing, where it connects to a Google server every day without most people's consent or even knowledge, downloading a list of hashes of "bad stuff" to block. Like open source software to download videos from YouTube (yt-dlp), which it flags as malware. Of course the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that it's also sending every URL you visit to their server isn't true -- only the ones that match a hash, "to check for false positives". It's easy to see how this mechanism could be abused to log who is visiting particular URLs of interest, without alerting the user to it happening. As far as I see it, you would just have to trust them when they super-double-pinky-swear they would never do this. And of course the TLAs wouldn't allow them to disclose it if something like this happened on their orders.
Users want websites to work. The agent excludes a feature that, you admit, break most websites.
Yet you find it puzzling and anti-user behavior? Can you elaborate?
Would you be okay if it was built-in but disabled by default and hidden behind a setting or a flag?
Also browsers by default using a blocklist from some company, and showing a giant scary warning and contacting their server when the user deliberately navigates to an URL that is on that list. That should be opt-in as well, rather than something that just happens and is considered acceptable.
Use Firefox, uBO works great. While I really enjoy seeing people find creative technical workarounds, the reason for it being needed in the first place is Googles fight against Adblockers with Manifest V3. Firefox allows people to sidestep this artificial downgrade of adblocking capabilities.