4 ms·

I've explained the logic in the post you're replying to. I'll rephrase it: There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adbl

I've explained the logic in the post you're replying to. I'll rephrase it: There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. We should demand such evidence before implying that this is the intended outcome. If such is the goal, have at it with the headlines. They write themselves. "Advertising Giant Google Forcefully Breaks Ad-blockers in Chrome Update". But until the evidence is there, we should be responsible about this.

iaw 8y ago
> There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers So far there is only one rationale that could describe the motivation to make this change. Can you propose another possible motive? I am personally struggling.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  My understanding of the changes is that they make sense for most extensions, but gorhill's addons are being negatively impacted by them because of the way they were implemented. You'll note it's still possible to implement content blocking in the new system.
  - iaw 8y ago
    As others have pointed out the blacklist capabilities are severely inhibited in the new system. Could you elaborate on how the changes make sense? It feels like their messaging behind this is off if their intent truly is benign.
nopriorarrests 8y ago
>There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. Yes, but what's the point of this change, if it is only a side effect? I've read this thread and I haven't seen clear explanation what this change strives to achieve, other than breaking some popular anti-tracking/ad-blocking extensions.
abtinf 8y ago
I've reviewed the design doc and and the spec for the new API. I agree that there doesn't seem to be an intent to "[get] rid of adblockers". Nonetheless, the proposed changes will disable core functionality in uBlock and uMatrix, which is what the title states.

iaw 8y ago

> There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers So far there is only one rationale that could describe the motivation to make this change. Can you propose another possible motive? I am personally struggling.

scrollaway 8y ago
My understanding of the changes is that they make sense for most extensions, but gorhill's addons are being negatively impacted by them because of the way they were implemented. You'll note it's still possible to implement content blocking in the new system.
- iaw 8y ago
  As others have pointed out the blacklist capabilities are severely inhibited in the new system. Could you elaborate on how the changes make sense? It feels like their messaging behind this is off if their intent truly is benign.

nopriorarrests 8y ago

>There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. Yes, but what's the point of this change, if it is only a side effect? I've read this thread and I haven't seen clear explanation what this change strives to achieve, other than breaking some popular anti-tracking/ad-blocking extensions.

abtinf 8y ago

I've reviewed the design doc and and the spec for the new API. I agree that there doesn't seem to be an intent to "[get] rid of adblockers". Nonetheless, the proposed changes will disable core functionality in uBlock and uMatrix, which is what the title states.