To give you an example, if you have no water in your house you need to report on wp. No other way. And this is the standard for a lot of services, wp is the ONLY way to ask for support.

whatsapp requires phone numbers. surely they can be called

It’s a nightmare, i really want to get rid of meta services but it is impossible for my case.

if you have tech skills, try running a matrix bridge for whatsapp for yourself. take it slowly if you need it, you are not in a hurry. your own server, federation off. keep using whatsapp as you did before, and check for a month or two if the bridge is running stable. subscribe to notifications for github releases of the bridge to know if there’s an important update.
you won’t be able to leave whatsapp behind, but at least you’ll be able to get rid of its apps that do whatever that’s not for your benefit

??

no. connecting it to the internet does not automatically mean using whatever websites that could infect you. be more cautious, limited web browsing and no public wifi, bluetooth off, and you will be fine.

how the hell would Microsoft implement a ban on a Minecraft server that Microsoft doesn’t host?

if a minecraft server wants to enforce verification of the game license, the server needs to be in contact with the authentication servers of microsoft. the server operator can turn this off, but then moderation becomes much harder, as usernane based banning becomes useless, and the paywall from ban evasion disappears.

other than that, in recent years there’s something with chat message verification that I think involves sending some of the messages to microsoft? I don’t remember exactly

but also the minecraft client could have a built in blacklist of servers. I don’t know if it has but it’s not much work.
a ban from the authentication server is probably easier though.

It’s not as fancy. No graphs, blinking lights, paneled layout.

apparently it has it all

https://lemmy.today/comment/20055580

as I understood you are complaining that they don’t have a package manager. they do, but not for system software.

you did not read the article

Out of curiosity - have you tried any of the fully Mv3 compatible adblockers yet?

I’m not using any chrome browsers.

and… it just works. Still blocks ads as well as uBlock ever did.

so your benchmark is what you see? that’s far too little in my opinion. I want to block tracking more than ads. but Mv3 blockers don’t have the capabilities for that anymore. Mv3 is useless for that, google knows full well what they have done.

I can’t find them now, but I saw some articles saying that actually Mv3 offers some new tools that help achieve adblock goals easier than Mv2 allowed.

I highly doubt there’s any truth in that. Mv2 blockers can do whatever they want with any asset that gets loaded.
ok, no, there’s an exception. on chrome, Mv2 blockers could not filter traffic at browser startup (when previous tabs are automatically loaded), but that’s a chrome defect and this was not an issue on Firefox for a very long time (if ever)

some wiki article s from the developer:

• https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/About-Google-Chrome’s-“This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported”
• https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)

all up to date chromium browsers support Mv3.

if you meant Mv2, I doubt they will be able to keep up with the support for long. for now it’s very easy, because all the code is still there in the engine (recently you could still reenable it even in google chrome), but once chromium starts to refactor code, to make it simpler or more modern, those changes will not be done with kerping Mv2 support in mind, and fork devs will have an increasingly harder time to patch back support for it (safely!) as time goes on.

panic about the change from Mv2 to Mv3, and also a lot of misinformation. It’s correct that Mv3 adblocker are somewhat less effective (independent tests don’t show much difference, but in change offer a way better security).

what do those test measure? only what is visible, that is percentage of ads hidden? or does it take into account all the tracking shit regular ublock origin can thwart? I don’t buy that it’s “somewhat” less effective, and neither that it is more secure.

Mv2 will disappear sooner or later,

that’s not a problem with browsers like firefox, where the webrequest api was kept for Mv3.

Only problem exist for uBO,

there are plenty of other addons that make use of the webrequest API, they are just not so well known that half of the average desktop users know it. those are affected too.

due to it’s specific structure need to be practically remade from scratch to be compatible with Mv3,

that’s false. ublock simply cannot do lots of things with Mv3 that it can with Mv2. lite is lite for a reason, and not because in short time thats all he could put together.

then your quote just brings up google propaganda. restrictions of useful features are dressed up as “security”, just like google does it again but now with android with a different approach.

I was answering forking and how realistic it is. You’re changing the conversation into specifics around chrome.

I’m not changing anything. they are powerless. if google decides to change chrome for the worse in a more significant way than UI design, they cannot avoid accepting that change.

and what can they do against the manifest v3 migration? they cannot afford to keep maintaining the code for mv2 addons. it is an important topic for efficient content blocking.

its funny you bring up edge as an alternative. brave too has opt-out telemetry and other shenanigans.

the “supposedly” fascist guy: has an opinion wants to get rid of people not like him and who did not do any wrong

So when they do just fork it?

say the same for chrome, and think again if you mean it seriously.

I’m pretty sure the law already said that the reject button cannot be more convoluted to access than the accept button, corporate websites just couldn’t care less

You said all bugs are there since day one,

I’m a different person

I meant over the lifetime after its first launch, they will updated.

that’s right, but after the phone does not get any more updates, it does not get more features either and so the number of bugs does not change anymore. the bugs exploitable in my 6 years old phone were exploitable much earlier.

But I see you think that old operating systems (which is extremely rich and complicated and error prone) which do no longer get patches and are used by millions, are perfect software and nobody will try to hack them…

I do not. the bugs are there, but when the maintenance stops there are no new bugs anymore, they were there for a while

Software gets updated and they will introduce new security issues over time.

well the software of those phones certainly did not get updated, so no, no new security bugs are introduced for them

yeah. I wouldn’t expect that opt out to be honored. maybe by your provider, but not by zoom.

that’s plausible. in my opinion a therapist should take the effort to take their own interpretation of what has been said, instead of relying on a machine that digests the system in a uniform way. words of a patient can mean a lot of things, even depending on things like their body language. but I have to admit I’m even more concerned about the privacy consequences which you pointed out. that’s like, it simply can’t go unabused in my opinion. too tempting. I wouldn’t even want to run a business that just stores it without abuse, it’s too risky too.

are you kidding? only available for google phones. are we supposed to give money to google for this situation?