Poll of the Day > google chrome is banning ad blockers to 'preserve privacy'

(+) Yeah! (+)

For a website to even know you are running an adblock is a violation of your privacy

Uhh no it's not. It's basic DOM monitoring. If you're tampering with the DOM of a site, then the site can do whatever it wants to add those elements back in. You're lucky that they aren't more aggressive about this type of stuff.

Uhh no it's not. It's basic DOM monitoring. If you're tampering with the DOM of a site, then the site can do whatever it wants to add those elements back in. You're lucky that they aren't more aggressive about this type of stuff.

Do you not actually know what "DOM monitoring" (an apparent redundancy) means? Or were you so injured by my passive aggressiveness that you don't want to answer? I really would like to know what you're talking about when you say that. If you don't want to explain yourself then why speak up at all? Adding quite literally nothing to the conversation.

Because as far as I know ad blockers like uBO work entirely on the host machine within your browser, which seems to me makes it nobody's business but my own. It's my browser, so I should be able to determine exactly what is or isn't displayed within it.

I doubt anybody takes the W3C seriously anymore, but google is a member, and one of their stated ethical principals is that websites should never restrict what users can do with their browser, including using blockers of unwanted content.

Which means that Edge is the better browser.

The first problem there is you were using Google Chrome in the first place.

Or just switch to Brave. Which is significantly better than Chrome.

For NOW.

Brave is Chromium, along with Edge and Opera.
Chromium is maintained by google who forced through the manifest v3 update.

You don't think they're gonna force changes on chromium that all these browsers are forced to take up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)

Realistically firefox is the only one outside of that walled garden.

No it's not. Monitoring the DOM is not a violation of the GDPR. Why do people make this shit up? This would be like saying that a site does not have access to the form data input by its users. Do you think sites are 100% fully end to end encrypted and the backend has no visibility in the messages being posted?

Fuck, this would be like saying that all userscripts and browser addons are in violation of the GDPR because they can tamper with user data.

Also hilariously enough the GDPR is a joke. I work for a cybersecurity company that has customers in Europe and our EPP software exfiltrates massive amounts of telemetry without the end user even being aware that our software is running. Said software is constantly scanning all of memory and could collect whatever personal information it wanted to (but we don't do this) to be sent up to our servers. This is also literally what any video game's anticheat can do and I've never seen a single GDPR warning for any game with anticheat.

You guys do understand there is zero privacy right?

Brave does not use plugins to block ads or those damn cookie accept messages. So it is unaffected by the change

dom monitoring is only allowed under gdpr for employees of a business

judg

dom monitoring is only allowed under gdpr for employees of a business

Lol.
So what, your saying fontawesome is illegal now?
Because it monitors the DOM looking for i tags to replace them with vector graphics.

if fontawesome is hosted locally, then it does not violate gdpr.

b b but i love chrome

Hosted? Its a JS library. You run it on your computer. It downloads the SVG graphics and it replaces in real time.

It's on nearly every website.
https://fontawesome.com/icons

And here is the mutation API for monitoring DOM changes.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MutationObserver

I think it is important to remember law makers have zero fucking clue how anything works. And no one thinks to ask the programmers.

fontawesome can be hosted locally on the companies servers, or it can be hosted remotely from fontawesome itself through its own cdn. all this does is dictate where the actual files are pulled from to show for you.

the former is fine under gdpr, the latter isn't.

idk what else to tell you man, fontawesome isn't always locally hosted, and if it's not then it's not gdpr compliant.

if you really wanna debate this, go find one of the thousands of stackexchange threads talking about it.

You can still use ad blockers in Edge.

Which means that Edge is the better browser.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2b01c554.jpg