chrome is now /our browser/

>>61864454
>what is streamlining ads
how stupid are you

Every browser with ublock origin is /our browser/ to bh.

If webdevs wouldn't be incompetent it would be no problem preventing ad blocking.

File: Capture.jpg (66KB, 622x447px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 622x447px

>>61864477

>>61864454
It's a proprietary, spyware poc.

>>61864520
>ghostery
fake news.

>>61864454
>article about chrome
>post firefox screenshot
sasuga nyp

>>61864454
That is because they want to force sites to use their Google ad services.

>>61864510
Yes, but they'll have to give up tracking, making pay per click impossible.

>>61864477
>>61864454
>>61864535
Gorhill warned Chrome users that Ad Companies are more aggressive toward Chrome users than Firefox users.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra

https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO-Extra-is-useful

Google has been silent about Instart Logic.

Gorhill personally stated that Firefox users have less security and privacy issues to deal with than Chrome users due to concerning issues like Instart Logic that have malware like behavior.

I find it disgusting how Google as a monopolist dictates how others should build their websites.

That's just what they want you to think.

>>61864454
B O T N E T
O
T
N
E
T

>Colaition for Better Ads
sounds like a cartell trying to regulate competition out of the market

>>61864454
It's a bit late for Goigle to be seeking good will.

>>61864575
> Gorhill warned Chrome users that Ad Companies are more aggressive toward Chrome users than Firefox users.
Makes sense to aim for circumvention of 70% of adblock users vs. 10%.

File: 8301792100525683887da3252.png (249KB, 487x255px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 487x255px

>be google
>have pajeet ceo
>ceo wants to buy a gold plated designated shitting street
>its the only way to compliment his platinum sprinkled poo and silver infused curry
>literally the only reason why he took the job
>needs money for such a street
>have 70% search share
>have 60% browser share
>decide to implement AMP for more (((better))) ads
>autists cry out but doesn't matter because search monopoly
>still need more money
>create coalition for better ads
>decide to create built in adblocker <<<WE ARE HERE
>implement built-in adblocker
>autists cry out
>don't care
>autists begin migrating to firefox
>ohshitohshitohshit.jpg
>create anti-adblock
>works so well all adblockers are literally BTFO'd
>trained by years of Captcha solves
>give anti-adblock to sites freely
>adblock scripters can't do anything because anti adblock is closed source
>people not on chrome are forced to watch 1minute long malware ridden porn ads
>only chrome's adblocker can work
>people forced to migrate back to chrome
>mozilla literally dies and chrome wins the browser wars forever
>only google ads exist
>100% of profit goes to rajeesh
>finally have gold plated designated shitting street

tfw when 1billion indians will one day outnumber the werstern world...

>Blocks non-Google paid ads
FTFY

>>61864454
B O T N E T
O O T N E T
T T T N E T
N N N N E T
E E E E E T
T T T T T T

Antitrust lawsuits in three... two... one...

>>61864454
I hope google will block *doubleclick.net and *google-analytics.com

>>61864527
>It's a proprietary, spyware poc.

In other words a botnet.
Iridium remains the only real alternative.

lol Google about to get BTFO by the EU if they don't block their own ads too

>>61864454
>blocking every ad-agency out there except google adsense
Its genius they will make shit ton of money.

>>61864454
Hey, OP.
CAN YOU FUCKING LINK TO THE ARTICLE NEXT TIME, DO I HAVE TO SEARCH FOR IT EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!?

>>61865961

it only covers what they consider malicious ads

It's useless if it overlooks Jewgle's own ads.

>>61866136
http://archive.is/36LIc

>>61864454
Reminder that Adblocking suck on chromium browsers compared to Firefox

>>61864454
>google will only show their own ads

And this is why monopolies are a bad thing

>>61864556
Shit, I've never thought of it that way. Now it all makes sense.

>>61864520
Ghostery is botnet and anything other than uBlock Origin or shit based on it won't perform as well.

>>61864510
I'm a webdev and I handle the ads on my site and no one has ever complained because they're not just random ads, they're explicitly related to site content and fit in with the design.
Users can always use ad blockers and select the ads manually, but honestly the referral kickback is still amazing so seems they don't mind.

>>61864454
Just wait until Google gets slapped with a DMCA for DRM circumvention. It's going to be great, goy.

>>61864454
>chrome blocks all ads except google ads

It begins!

>>61864454
Chrome will never be my browser. If I was to use any chromium brower, it would be brave, but there are still a lot of problems with it, too.

>>61864661
10/10

>>61864661
It'll be really neat to see how those ads get around NoScript.

>>61867267
Offer content through Javascript?

>>61867292
Which NoScript would block.

>>61867299
So you wouldn't get content. The actual content you came for. Which is how anti-adblock works, denying you content until you disable adblock.

>>61867314
NoScript allows you to select which Javascript you activate on a per-site basis.

Antitrust in 3...2...

>>61864477
Do I still need that if I'm using noscripts/scriptsafe? I don't have issues with ads it seems, unless they are hosted on the site I'm visiting, which they usually aren't

>>61867355
So it all gets combined into one javascript file. Now what?

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-12 09-58-33.png (163KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1366x768px

>>61867314
I don't see how that could be feasible.

>>61864454
no, Google want to sell their ads

>>61866461
all commercial ads are malicious

>>61864454
>blocking the competition
>still won't block their own ads

>>61866956
Get a real job.

>>61867367
That would require all pages with ads to be given to Google, which is a huge security concern, as well as an enormous undertaking on Google's part. Sites would sooner just block the Chrome browser.

>>61867377
So all javascript from various providers is merged into one file on server, both JS responsible for displaying content and JS responsible for bringing you ads. Don't see this as possible either? Get glasses.

>>61864454
I've tried to warn you, /g/. I've told you over and over that Google Chrome was only here to kill Firefox and to give Google a monopoly on IETF privacy features and on ads.

>>61867407
Or the site just fetches ad providing javascript from whoever the ad provider is and serves it to you without any need for trusting anyone.

>>61867415
I don't see it as feasible, if that's what you're asking. You'd have to essentially give control of your website over to google in order to pull that off.

>>61867435
If it's fetching it from off-site, then you would need a script to do it, which you could block (this is what happens now).

>>61867367
Close the tab and never visit that page again.

>>61864610
That """""" coalition""""" is literally Facebook + Goolag

>>61867448
>If it's fetching it from off-site, then you would need a script to do it, which you could block (this is what happens now).
It's happening on their server, not on your browser. I feel insulted I have to explain something as simple as this to you.

>>61867361
Because that worked well against micro$oft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
> It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states
>The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft

In the old days if you wanted to have a website, you paid for it yourself.

>>61867314
Then you realize you really didn't need to read that content and move on.

>>61867461
Then the anti-adblock has done its job.

>>61867361
Can't start an antitrust case against Google when they own the judicial system through extensive lobbying.

Now in Europe however, they just got a record penalty for almost this exact thing.

>>61867483
Congrats, your website still has no ad revenue, only now it's because nobody visits it rather than visitors blocking ads.

>>61867481
Great. I'm glad you could finally understand how anti-adblock is possible even when you have NoScript.

>>61867470
Which would still take a script to do. Which you could block. The only way to get google ads without needing an additional script would be to host your shit on google. Feel as insulted as you like, it won't make a difference in the reality of things.

>>61867495
I don't see your point.

>>61867516
I suppose I was assuming you were running a website in order to make money.

If that's not the case, then it would be simpler for everyone if you simply didn't put ads on it.

>>61867367
The JavaScript has to do something to let the site know you watched the ad. You can run scripts in ublock (only scripts added to their repo so no security concerns here) so you can move that logic into ublock and make the site believe our watched the ad.

Look for script inject documentation in ublock.

File: 74ADF4DD-A33C-4D26-A592-BCF46F6936BC.jpg (64KB, 510x735px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 510x735px

>>61864610
I have no doubt that it has ulterior motives, but its suggestions are just things like no-popups, audio, flashing etc., nothing crazy

>>61867511
No, whether they use script, a program or anything else server-side to create a big single javascript file to send to you, you won't get access to whatever they're using, and you won't be able to block any parts of that - only the whole single Javascript file that's responsible for both content that you desire and ads.

i hope google does this and they get sued for anti-trust.

>>61867531
I'm not arguing about monetization in the fist place, I'm arguing about whether anti-adblock is technically possible on a browser that runs NoScript.

>>61867532
You can add anything you want, we're talking about removing, not adding. Removing the functionality that shows you ads while preserving the functionality that serves youcontent you want.

>>61867585
>Removing the functionality that shows you ads while preserving the functionality that serves youcontent you want.
Until you discover that the content you want is really just ads in disguise

>>61864661
Indians already do outnumber is idiot

File: 1486651939016.jpg (46KB, 347x346px)

46KB, 347x346px

>>61864454
>chrome is now /our browser/
keep reading, retard. Google will remove ads of other companies but not their own ads.
they want them to use Google's ads.

>>61867544
I suggest you to and research how Javascript works. You have 2 options to get ads delivered in the same script as the page. Either: 1) Google individually crafts the scripts needed to do so for each site (which would be a massive undertaking, especially considering the timeframe they would need to do it in, or 2) the site would needed to be hosted under the same script as the ads themselves, essentially making every single webpage fall under the google adsense script, essentially forcing all webpages to be hosted on google's servers. Neither would be acceptable to the host.

>>61864575
wtf so I need another ublock extension? i already got ublock protector as an addon to ublock origin

>>61867470
They wouldn't get real view count if they have to trust sites to serve their ads directly.

>>61867544
You can block their JavaScript and use your own. You can fetch their script, replace parts with no-ops and run that.

Who the fuck actually clicks on adverts except by mistake?

>>61867630
Google already offers a service to speed up sites where they proxy/cache your site so all content goes through their servers to your clients. Merging the ads into those pages would be the easiest thing to do.

>>61867652
Normies. Last time I visited my mother, she wanted to go to the JCPenney website. So she goes to google.com, searches jcpenney and clicks the first link which is the sponsored link.

>>61867642
They can poll those sites periodically to make sure they are running the actual javascript they are supposed to run.

>You can block their JavaScript and use your own. You can fetch their script, replace parts with no-ops and run that.
For every site, and every time they change their javascript. Good luck and have fun.

>>61867630
I'll take 3). Google automatically crafts the JS for the server that's offering content, the server automatically bundles it into its own javascript necessary for showing you the content.

>>61867652
If you can't see them, you can't click them

>>61867695
Normies ruin everything again?

>>61867696
Not him, but at that point, I would just block the hosting script. I don't need it in order to read text.

>>61867730
The text for you to read is served through that javascript. You won't get the text.

>>61867730
>encrypted text is fetched by a script
>decrypted using unique key released after solving captcha related to the advert that the website tells your browser to display

>>61867652
I do all the time. But I also run ad blocking, so I actually only get internal ads or search ads, both of which are pretty useful.
And majority of people who own smartphones now also click on ads, they have ads on their screen 24/7 with huge brand icons. Operating systems aren't free from this either.
But the last two examples are ones people try to pretend aren't ads for whatever fucking reason even though they do the same exact thing an ad does - infiltrate your mind so you're constantly aware of [x] product/service.

>>61867771
And the best part is people will generally lap it up because of brand engagement

You could even give every 1/N visitors who solve the captcha a token branded prize in order to further incentivize them

>>61864454
>ad company offers adblocking in their browser
This is not a good thing, it's just anti-competitive bullshit from Google.

>>61867749
Show me a site that does that right now, as a proof of concept.

>>61867771
Pretty sure if they pulled that shit, there would be some anti-monopoly lawsuit in response, especially with Chrome blocking all non-google ads.

>>61867696
>For every site, and every time
This is already happening. Only for high profile sites like news sites, fuck clickbait blogs. It's in a git repo so people who care can make a pull request and everybody benefits.

We are already creating lists of urls to block and css selectors to remove. For every site.

>>61864454
looking forward to google getting slapped by another antitrust measure from the EU
Don't get me wrong. I hate ads and I'll do what I can to get the ad industry, and all industries incapable of having a businessmodel without ads to die a quick but painful death, but Google is using this to strengthen their position in the ad market, not to weaken ads.

File: ralph.jpg (41KB, 960x902px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 960x902px

>>61864661
no need for that shit, they could just made youtube chrome compatible only, I guranteed 99.9% of other browsers including myself would install chrome for it, and knowing how shitty google is they haven't done it because they haven't found a way to do it yet

>>61867815
>Show me a site that does that right now, as a proof of concept.
http://jbcs.info/poc/

>>61867828
Selecting urls to block is trivial, actually working with javascript code to figure out which parts are needed and which are not requires way m,ore technical proficiency.

>>61864661
>edit hosts file
>avoid all this
ez pz

>>61864454
>step 1: add own adblocker
>step 2: ban 3rd party adblocker plugins.

just sit and wait.

>>61867894
Now explain why websites don't do this already, and how google could shut them down if they did this themselves.

>>61867909
I hope they do that and ban adblockers from YouTube

>>61864510
Never attribute to incompetence what can be satisfactorily attributed to malice, and vice-verse, creating an infinite loop

>>61867936
Get a real job.

>>61867935
Websites do this already. Look at places like Forbes. With everything blocked in umatrix, you will get the quote for their "turn off your adblocker" graphic. Content is loaded through javascript

>>61867935
It's much more convenient for a site to work with ad provider, and it's much more convenient for ad provider to serve ads from their own servers. So, there, the answer is convenience. The concern with trusting content provider's reports about who visited ads when is real, but it can be overcome.

Now, and this has mentioned by service providers before, and has been ignored, but if you use service like cloudflare to proxy your site, they can actually embed any ads you want for you, and for the browser it will be impossible to distinguish what originated from proxied site, and what was added by the proxy, and trust issues are gone because cloudflare directly gets the response from the client first.

>>61867936
stop trying to get peoples money without their explicit consent
set up a patreon or something
if you make worthwile videos and not scummy clickbait, people will give you money for what you make
if people will not give you money for what you make then you shouldn't be getting money for tricking them into watching your videos anyway

>>61868014
>Now, and this has mentioned by service providers before
I mean, this has mentioned by anons above

Fuck.

>>61864454
Brave already did this.

>>61866649

>>61867936
Not like that's going to be a platform worth visiting for much longer. They are the only viable game in town for now, but if you think that's never going to change, you're in for a surprise.

ublock with individual settings for turning javascript & flash off works well in chrme for me

>>61868014
So we're going to get a whole lot more embedded ads.

Fine.

See how having no users works out for your website and ad income.

>>61867986
>block the "turn off your adblocker" message on Forbes with uBlock
>disable all scripts with noscript
>site works fine
Shitty anti-adblock system they have

>>61868078
brave is a pandering chromium botnet
stop trying to astroturf your scummy browser brendan

>>61868105
>Fine.
>See how having no users works out for your website and ad income.
There you go again, I never argued in favor of those practices, I'm arguing about their technological feasibility.

>>61868078
In case you're an actual shill, switch your adblocker to ublock origin, and include disconnect, decentraleyes, a self-destructing cookies equicalent, and some fidelity over script allowance, and I would use your browser today.

>>61868136
It was a general, impersonal you.

>>61868175
You're an asswipe and I fucked your mother yesterday.

General, impersonal you. Cunt.

>>61868213
You seem upset anon

>>61868227
Also general impersonal?

>>61868243
obvs

>>61868166
>oh shit he got me

I wish.

>>61868276
I don't begrudge shills coming here to try and inform us of a good product.

The problem with Brave is that it needs a LOT of improvements, at least on the desktop version. I actually use the mobile version.

>>61868354
What even is the point of Brave?

"come look at our ads instead of other people's ads"?

>>61868378
It actually blocks all ads by default. Then, you can allow their "safe" ads, which will give the site money, Brave money, and either you, or some website of your choice the last 3rd of the revenue. Those ads are also curated, so that they won't take you to a malware-infested shithole if you actually click on them. It's kind of like if you wanted to use Ublock's whitelist, I guess.

I just block all ads, though. But Brave still has a long way to go.

>>61868458
>the last 3rd of the revenue
And how large a fraction of a cent is that?

>>61864556
This anon gets it.

>>61864556
Thanks moot for inside info

>>61868475
Who fucking knows? I don't allow the ads, so I don't particularly care. Hell, I don't even main Brave, though I'm interested in ditching FF before 57.

I disconnect my computer from the internet when using Chrome so it can't send (((usage statistics)))

>>61864661
>adblock scripters can't do anything because anti adblock is closed source
a meme so supreme i let out a scream

>>61864520
Probably written by a shill

>>61868542
Haha same

>>61864454
>make a million adds on a billion sites
>release an update to block them
>keeps pushing ads on youtube
WEW

also great move towards becoming a monopoly.

>>61867495

>thinking there wont always be suckers

NYT and WSJ other shitty fake news do this shit already you either can only read x-number of articles or as you scroll it says "to continue reading pay"

also in reguards to content, a site like netflix or hulu which DO have semi-monopolies over content detect ads and will make you sit thru the time no matter what, if the ad doesnt load you just get a black screen for 1 minut at a time

unless you pay for no commercials

>>61864454
This is just Jewgle's long con paying off. Their entire motivation for getting into the browser game was eventually controlling content. Chrome's userbase is now sufficiently large that they feel secure enough to execute on it.

The internet is dead, long live Google Internet™!

File: seriously_guys.jpg (78KB, 469x700px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 469x700px

>The googlebotnet browser is /our browser/

Neck yourself.

>>61867405
Don't be so envious.

File: 1398135965756.png (28KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 150x150px

>>61864456
fpbp

>>61868841
I'm not. My livelihood isn't threatened by ad blockers.

>>61868857
Neither is mine, where did you get that impression? Just because I personally curate my own ads, doesn't mean I don't have alternative sources of income from the same platform.
So, let's turn things around, why do you feel so threatened by my career? Are you afraid other platforms will do the same? idgi

>>61868777
I was just thinking we need a new world wide web.

>>61868894
Not him, but I wouldn't say I feel threatened. Just apathetic. I don't care that you don't make money off of ads.

>>61868894
>why do you feel so threatened by my career
I don't, anon. I simply feel disgusted, you're like a horse buggy manufacturer complaining about automobiles.

>>61864456
>what is streamlining ads thru google ads services
Could they pull it off?

>>61869042
Sure, if governments will allow effective monopolies.

desu I would rather have news sites use stuff like “limited articles” or paywalls rather than ads or clickbait/fake news. Quality journalism is expensive, but too many people these days feel entitled to have everything for free.

File: 1499844786325.jpg (333KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 600x600px

>>61864575
>Instart Logic
>The purpose of Instart Logic technology is to disguise 3rd-party requests as 1st-party requests, thus bypassing content blockers
I thought that ads were never going to be implemented that way due to the chance of the 1st-party tampering with them to generate extra revenue. Looks like the rumors of Cloudflare offering something similar through their Cloudflare "apps" could be true as well then. I'm not seeing how Firefox wouldn't be vulnerable to this though.

Complainting is not always the solution.

We whites should've have been better than pajeeths and take thier position.

I dont need to worry about such stupidity because im my own boss.

Freelancer.

File: 1491366276702.jpg (611KB, 1920x1080px)

611KB, 1920x1080px

>>61864454
Are you stupid? They are blocking rivals.
>more money for google
>free market & monopoly

>>61869808
>tfw lenin was right
we wouldn’t have this issue under communism

>>61869839
That right. We wouldn't have it it in the first place :^)

>>61869808
>discouraging the use of shitty malware ridden intrusive ads by standardising web ads under google ads
>a bad thing
This is a good thing for both people who don't block ads (google ads don't carry malware and are generally unintrusive unless the webmaster goes full retard) and people who do block ads (it's much easier to block ads if all ads come from one source). I don't care about a monopoly if the monopoly is beneficial for me.

File: leninwave01.png (2MB, 1920x1080px)

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>61869862
>tfw millenials are shilling socialism
Good luck for top 1%

>>61869888
trips confirm imminent revolution

File: 1492826856787.jpg (159KB, 480x533px)

159KB, 480x533px

>>61869894
>tfw comrade Sanders 2020

>>61867876
>they haven't found a way to do it yet

if(UA != chrome) {
    blockThatShit();
}

>>61864595
They are dictating how others build their websites for chrome users.

If you don't care about that market share then don't do anything.

>>61869925
if he can live long enough, if not hopefully Warren is a good enough alternative

>>61867939
Shit nigger you only have 1 int.

File: 1491956272750s.jpg (7KB, 250x205px)

7KB, 250x205px

>>61869998
That's our hope comrade. The future is our and I hope so it will be the power.

>>61869180
Would it still be a monopoly if it only worked on their browser?

>>61864454
Funny enough... That obvious action of an advertising company blocking out competition in its own advertising vessel, would qualify google as a monopoly as opposed to them not doing anything.

And no they're not /our/ anything because literal botnet, replacing ads from company A with their own.

File: k3jn58vnpi9z.jpg (191KB, 752x748px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 752x748px

>>61870245
This is the capitalism comrade

No, this is bad.
I'm really worried about adblocking becoming even more mainstream.
I want to go back to 10 years ago when only at least somewhat tech-savvy people used them. Now that a double-digit percentage of people do, more ads slip through, I get denied content until I disable adblock, etc. Yes I know there are other tools to prevent this, I use them, they don't always work. At this rate in a few years I'll have to manually adjust every single site to properly filter the ads.
Imagine if Youtube started to specifically encode videos with ads just for you before they serve it to you, so you can never remove them because they're in the fucking video stream. That's the future you chose.

File: 1473600104288.jpg (12KB, 192x245px)

12KB, 192x245px

>>61864575
>>61869685
Anyone else here know more about this? This sounds like even addons like uMatrix/noscript would stop working.

ITT people who think google is blocking ads for their sake.

>>61870185
Depends on whether the court considers them to have a dominant market position. Chrome does have nearly 60% share at the moment apparently, so they might.

>google ships its own adblocking in chrome
>declares all other adblockers obsolete
>removes them from playstore
>google then starts whitelisting "non malicious ads"
>normies forget there ever was such a thing as dedicated adblockers

Don't fall for it, nothing google does good.

>>61870284
Some people ITT have been talking about using paid services instead, but it will eventually get to the point where even smaller websites you don’t regularly use will force you to pay up if you don’t want ads, so unless you literally dedicate a sizable part of your budget to paying for no ads there’s no way to avoid it. This is the future.

>>61870396
I guess since 95% of ads will be served by Google then, they will offer to remove all of them for the low price of 19.99 a month (I'm surprised this doesn't already exist, apart from Youtube Red).

>>61870396
Honestly I wish there was such a thing as paid adblock DNS. But even if we were to pay for it, they'd turn around and sell your info to someone else. Maybe we need to start going back to self hosting communities, like BBS and chans but on a lower level, coupled with maybe IRC.

>>61870381
>normies forget there ever was such a thing as dedicated adblockers
>websites' circumvention methods only target Chrome's blocker
>Ublock Origin works better than ever

ad networks need to file a class action antitrust lawsuit against google for this immediately. hopefully for billions of dollars.

>>61864454
Why is Google blocking their own source of income?

>>61870575
they're not, they're blocking every other ad except theirs and the premise of non malicious ads

>>61870575
because adblockers are inevitable and one thats under the control of google is better than under control of a bunch of neckbeard NEETs

File: IMG_2583.png (111KB, 1440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1440px

>>61868826
>Google is too evil
>Mozilla is too cucked

I guess you have only one option.

>>61870619
>>>/pol/

EU will rape Google's ass with its huge German cock. I am getting some popcorn.

>>61864454
this is the digital equivalent or racketeering

>>61866761
Noob question - how is uBlock Origin different to uBlock?

>>61869942
Quick add-on that spoofs ua when on YouTube or playing embeds
Or just spoof it in general

>>61864556
It's actually good for us because in this case blocking ads will be easier - google ads are easy to block, in my experience.

>>61867448
Whenever a page is loaded, all the javascript files are merged by the server into one file and sent to the user.

>>61870827
how you gonna block them on google chrome if there wont be any ad blocking extension for you to use?

>>61870846
Install ublock origin from another source if Google removes it from the play store. Or not use Chrome.

>>61870846
why the fuck would I use Chrome

File: 1471549613364.jpg (216KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1680x1050px

>>61867939
t. a faggot with a thesaurus

>>61870753
ublock is an old version that is no longer being updated and has been replaced by the newer ublock origin

Remember when Google's motto was "Do no evil." and they were not a publicly-traded company?