you WILL download firefox
you WILL switch to mostly the same stuff
you WILL be moderately freer from google it really depends

ah I think I left something in the other thread while packing my things.

>>1771
Firefox or some other MV2 using browser basically. I've already been using it and haven't had any issues. For Chrome you're going to have to take Ublock Origin Lite or find some other alternative.
>>1774
バカ

Personally, I hate chrome. I keep Brave on my computer to test stuff out once in a while, like with broken websites or something, but I really don't like it much.
This adblocker thing has been known for a while now unfortunately, so it's not news exactly. Chrome and its derivatives are like 95% of the browser share these days so I'm probably on borrowed time. I'm sure there will eventually be some important website script thing added and google will manage to avoid monopoly charges over it.

You had years to switch browser in protest, but almost nobody did. If you're still using a Chromium browser, just suffer the consequences please. I have no sympathy for people using browser engines made by a data collecting ad-company.

i use firefox but when downloading some big file from the internet archive i had to try it with chrome because chrome could pause and resume the in-progress download while firefox couldn't, it'd try to download fresh every time :/

>>1778
I've never had this issue, but for what it's worth IA offers to download via Bittorrent on every single file.
If there's something you really like there you can even use the various decentralized swarms (or just add the most common public trackers) and seed it yourself should IA ever take the file down.
I've never used this feature since I've only downloaded 1GB files at most and I'd rather just download it and upload a normal torrent elsewhere with appropriate trackers included, but it seems like it would be good for your usecase if you're trying to download massive files.

Notably firefox supposedly does support pausing and resuming downloads though, but it's possible there's some type of authentication making it think it's a new file.
Did you open the downloads tab to press resume or did you click the download link again?

Firefox needs to kill UBO too so I don't have to switch

>>1780
Suck my cock dude.

Chromium will no longer be able to manipulate the DOM (in order to prevent advertisements)

>>1776
Isn't brave itself a Chrome derivative?

>>1771
I'll laugh when the government allows youtube to block all non Chrome browsers in the future. The US is a complete cartel of monopolies at this stage and is just allowing Google to fuck everyone in the ass.

>>1839
That kind of thing is going to be tough outside of the US. Australia for example made Valve, an American company, bend the knee and allow refunds. Similarly their courts told HBO to fuck off when they tried going after people pirating Game of Thrones. While the US is a corporate cocksleeve those companies will bend when it means the can lose millions of customers and entire markets because they crossed the line in other countries with different consumer rights laws, and in doing so create competitors filling the demand for those lost customers and markets.
While a poor example since the site has issues, imagine if Japan stopped using Youtube and exclusively used NicoNicoDouga? That's a huge market and think of all those vtumorfags outside of Japan taking their viewership to NicoNico instead of Youtube.

Imma revert to using firefox when the deprecated support is removed and hope ladybird comes together.

>>1779
I never responded to this sorry...
>Did you open the downloads tab to press resume or did you click the download link again?
in firefox I was always trying to click the link again. didn't think to try pausing manually and restarting the download.
with chrome the download would cut off automatically but it presented as it switching to a paused state rather than just telling me it failed, and i could wait a bit and resume it. so that's how i eventually got the file, and i didn't bother to experiment in firefox after that

>>1844
If everyone switched when it was announced in the first place the internet would not have been so dogshit, but nobody has any principles anymore. In the first place, we were idiotic to ever trust an ad company. Never making that mistake again.

firefox doesnt have vertical tabs? SIGH

>>1910
It doesn't? Waterfox does at least, although I don't use them

OP here
im still using chrome

>>1910
What you want is the sideberry add-on. But I find myself using it less and less because now I just run a new window in each buffer of my emacs session.

>>1907
>>1778
I know what issue you're talking about because I ran into it fairly often when uploading/downloading stuff to MEGA for distro to end users. What is happening is Firefox wants to buffer everything into RAM when you download it before copying it over to the disk. I'm not exactly sure what Chrome does differently but I suspect it uses some kind of swap file by default for temp. storage before compiling the final file and placing it in your ~/Downloads

A better solution to this problem is using a proper application to download the file when possible. Like curl or wget. But this isn't always possible on these modern "platforms" like MEGA with locked down APIs.

The web was never supposed to get this bad and it's 100% on Google for it being this way. They are worse than Microsoft with IE ever thought about being. We spent years fighting back against that kind of crap only for Google to come along, court everyone with promises then turn on us the moment they got a monopoly. They bought out the W3C and all competition. That's how they managed to make HTML a "living standard" that they control (Chrome is the reference now) and how they ruined Firefox (Google is like 80%+ of yearly income for Mozilla. Most of which is not spent on improving the software or paying developers. Hell they laid off most of the developers a few years ago).

I do not expect the WWW to be usable much longer. Between the crap Google is pulling and the shady stuff going on with companies like CF and the TLS/SSL certs it's only a matter of a few more years before it becomes impossible to publish anything on the web without being both doxed and censored. It's already very hard. We're seeing the last of the anonymous services being killed off right now.

Similarly, email is becoming much harder to use anonymously and there is a major push happening right now to lock down everything with 2FA tied to SIM cards and soon DNA/Government ID. Believe it or not until the late 90s it was possible to fire off anonymous email from random IP address to most any email server and you could be sure it would be routed to wherever you wanted to send it. Mailing lists and services like USENET were much more "free" than what we have today with the web. Back then the web was also very "free" in the sense that you could set-up a server and host webpages/platforms without having to have so many third parties (CF, verisign, certs approved etc. etc.). Even though there were legions of skids with Windows 9x botnets no one really ddos'd anything provided you weren't some asshole Government agency or shady company. You could run a web server from your home IP and expect it not to be fucked with for the most part if it had decent content. Now it's almost impossible to run something like that. The moment it goes online every Government sponsored cracker on the planet will pwn it if you don't have high end security. They do it to force you to put it behind one of the major anti-ddos services like CF. Anyone using that service is both putting their users at risk (all traffic can be snooped despite being "encrypted") and always at risk of being yanked down at the whims of the Government. There is a reason they offer that "service" for free to anyone that asks: They're the same people ddosing everything!

Anyway, there shouldn't be many websites that don't at least function in Firefox that are worth your time to visit. I highly suggest installing a script blocker along with Ublock Origin.

>>2126
For MEGA in particular there's a special-purpose command line tool to download and upload stuff:
https://megatools.megous.com/

Heads up everyone. Google has been doing some major changes to youtube in the last couple of weeks in preparation for adblocking becoming gimped for good in Chrome. These changes are aimed directly at firefox users using Ublock origin.

A couple of weeks ago youtube started being really laggy in Firefox. A day or two ago it started to do some kind of forced page reload upon opening the homepage (even when not logged in and when it's displaying nothing). Late today they've done something that by-passes Ublock all together and can load video ads. As of now the ads don't play and you'll still block them. But the page will reload multiple times (once for each ad) before finally giving you the actual video.

I suspect once they've closed the firefox loophole for watching ad-free they'll move on to finally blocking off yt-dlp+mpv users. Which is going to suck a lot because the RSS feeds and that set-up is the only way left to follow content without being logged into an account.

They're getting ballsy.

>>2128
By the way this might not be happening for you yet since they roll out these updates to visitors at different times in different regions as of the last few years. I'm probably getting aggressively tested on because I'm using Librewolf on this machine and a heavily customized Firefox on the other. Both of which do all they can to resist fingerprinting (the exact type of set-up they want to test against).

I can tell you for the last week or two youtube web interface has become near unusable. On my machine with 16GB of RAM. As they've done something to cause ublock to eat 200-500MB of RAM per ad blocked. It's so bad I've had to resort to regularly restarting the browser at least once a day like the good old days when I had 512MB total RAM and firefox memory leaking ways would eat it in short order.

I don't think it needs to be said but what they're doing is fucking illegal. At least it was 20 years ago. But I guess now it doesn't matter since Google and these other big platforms are part of the Government (well the intelligence community).

I really really wish people weren't so damn lazy and would move on from using these platforms. We've had plenty of warning this was going to happen for the last several years and there are viable alts out there which would love the attention. Even if most of them have been rather faggy lately themselves in an attempt to survive.

I've been noticing a worrying trend since late 2019. All the alt services are attacked daily both by the Government and by "hackers" (the Government). Many have been taken down. Herding users back into the mainstream platforms. Which have become more and more locked down these last few years. It's so bad now the web is nearly unusable without a cell phone. I only manage to keep access because of my 20+ old e-mail accounts on "trusted" servers like gmail and hotmail. Which pre-date the requirement for phone verification. But I'm sure I'll be losing access to those sometime soon since they keep nagging me for a phone number I can't provide (they will not accept landlines).

All that to say: If you care about anything on youtube I hope you've been backing it up while you still can.

>>2129
>Even if most of them have been rather faggy lately themselves in an attempt to survive.

I'm not trying to shit in anyone's cornflakes by the way. I too was beaten into submission. The reason a lot of these admins are giving up is because they're getting knocks on the door and are being harassed by weaponized law enforcement. I'll spare you the long story. No one ever believes me anyway.

I guess I should be thankful I got to live through about 30 years of mostly-open information sharing. It was fun while it lasted.

>>2128
>>2129
Turns out I wasn't far off what's happening. For the first time in 6 or 7 years youtube is able to build a homepage full of recommendations for users that aren't logged in or have their watch history disabled. It seems like they rolled back on the ads loading for the moment though. Whatever happened between a few hours ago and the new UI rollout "fixed" that. But I'm still sure they're testing it out and it won't be long before you want block them on PCs just like set-top devices have been for awhile now.

I came back to my computer after a run and thought that Firefox had removed my Ublock.
It's still there, but somehow all my extensions are set to disabled...

>>2132
Oh yeah, that happened to me recently too. I assume it was some update that caused it, but I don't really know.

What's going to happen with this now that Google's being forced to sell off Chrome, I wonder.

>>2134
The tech market is already in a slump and their AI Gemini isn't doing so hot and they're already known for their ads making them money so losing Chrome is a gruesome blow so I expect see them doing some rather extreme survival tactics from here on out.

>>2129
My YouTube browsing habits are basically "if I watched it, I download it".
I need a bigger hard drive...

I set up my Raspberry Pi to play 4 random vids I've downloaded at once since I know local media discoverability sucks without some kind of random sort, there is shit I know I will never be able to find in the big pile of videos otherwise, and going through one by one is lame.

I suspect yt-dlp will keep working, but watch 720p and up become only for logged in users to limit its usefulness.

I have noticed YouTube on Firefox becoming slower and laggier (like, after a long session, it'll take 2 seconds to pause a video after you hit space). My immediate thought was that this was an FF problem, but it really could be Google's fault, the cunts.

>>2136
Time for Google to use their data to enter the weapons industry to make up for the loss.

>>2141
>immediate thought was that this was an FF problem, but it really could be Google's fault, the cunts.

If something is working correctly in FF it is _always_ "google's fault". With the chrome engine being a "living standard" they can push updated HTML to their websites and engine first and force everyone else to play catch up with them. This gives them an advantage because they can not only introduce new features they can break old ones. For example, they could push something to break the loading of media in a new version of chrome then suddenly all third party websites outside of youtube and the major social networks that got the heads up is broken in chrome. Making them out of reach of "normal" users that don't fuck around with Firefox, Linux and the small minority of users that go beyond the Apple/Google walled garden and the Microsoft botnet.

It wasn't like this in the 80s-2010s. Back then we had a standard body that updated HTML every now and again after years of public discourse which involved a bunch of different parties that included independent tech people from all over the world. This kept out things like DRM and other ways to lock content behind a wall. It also kept out things that datamined the end user.

Now Google owns the W3C and the biggest "rival" browser engine. Which just gets the same updates only on a slight delay. We also have browser engines now that refuse to display pages that aren't "trusted". So everything with a self signed certification or on plain old http looks like a spooky virus to normalfags.

>>2148
>something not working correctly in FF
>they could break media in firefox
I don't know why my fingers decided to go full retard in that post. Sorry