Also setting "Enable network service" to disabled in chrome://flags appears to fix it: https://twitter.com/jviide/status/1097202611806261248
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm22FAXZMw1BaWeFszZxUKw/vid...
Elderly users wouldn't have fared as well.
This goes hand in hand with IRS phone call "you're going to jail if you don't pay your tax debt" scams. I think there needs to be serious legislation to crack down on these scams.
There's always IceCat I guess. Websites get away with loading files from a ridiculous number of third-party servers and it's pretty frightening when you look at the uMatrix tab for it.
The screenshot feature is quite handy, because it lets you capture only a certain element on the page which is more cumbersome using the OS' builting screen capture, because then you need to edit the captured image.
Sure, but firefox has knowledge about the geometry of the dom, so you just click on the element you want and it intelligently sizes the shot for you.
Also, before it was screenshots it was Page Shot, and it allowed full text search of the text in your screenshots. Management killed that before launch for some reason.
Finally,d you’ve always been able to save the shot locally instead of uploading it to the server, and you’ll be happy, because the server is going away later this year and you’ll only be able to save them locally.
You may know how to use your os screenshot tool, but we got a lot of positive feedback from non power users who don’t. Right-click->Take screenshot is a lot more discoverable than command-shift-4.
It mystifies me why people hate features they don’t use. So you don’t like it — so what? Other people do. You are the one generating the hate for no reason.
Looks like they're serious about imitating Google
One visits lots of sites while browsing and paying for each of them is simply not feasible. The solution would be some kind of universal micropayment scheme, but it's unclear how such a sytem could be adopted universally, because making the users setting up multiple micropayment providers in their browsers will not work.
Adblockers are impacting revenue from a considerable amount of users, otherwise there wouldn't be such messages.
If you want to make an analogy with app stores, visiting a website that's hooked up to an ad network is more like opening the Google Play store, entering a random search, and then clicking install on whatever the first result is. Yes, the web has better sandboxing than Android, but that's still a wild thing for any user to consent to.
When I installed the Play Store on my phone, I wasn't agreeing to give every single app it hosts access to my device. But that's what ad networks essentially force me to do.
Your app store example is a non-sequitur, because users want to download apps. Users in the general case do not specifically want ads.
True, but users want to access content for free, they don't want to pay for every site they visit. And currently it's only possible with ads.
And most users rather bear ads than pay. If everyone uses an adblocker then most sites will either close or become paid.