23 ms·

Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

315 points by jiaweihli 8y ago

mosselman 8y ago
Things like this is why it is so important for the web to have multiple browsers available to choose from.
- takeda 8y ago
  And that's why this announcement should make people switch to alternatives with different engine like FF. Saying we need multiple browsers, then using chrome or its clone actually makes the situation worse. Also chrome is no longer snappy as it was initially.
  - chr1 8y ago
    Playing devils advocate here, why a different engine is needed? Chrome clone can add webrequest feature too, and it would be much easier to maintain.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      The problem with forks is having to chase upstream. The dominant browser can keep making changes with reckless abandon. And the fork has to keep up with those, even if it breaks their own features, lest they become incompatible with the "standard" version.
      - rat9988 8y ago
        Unless you make the fork the dominant browser.
        feanaro 8y ago
        At which point you begin to question what benefit you gained from initially siding with a single engine in the first place.
      - chr1 8y ago
        chasing upstream is a lot easier than chasing web standards and chromes performance, especially if you are only interested in providing more powerful extension api and better ui
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Chrome may or may not be the best browser. But Google properties tying into Chrome as a platform (think sync, extensions, auth, captchas) and making it really difficult to switch away creates a situation where it's not all about choosing the best browser any more. This harkens back to the same anti-competitive monopolistic behavior that Microsoft got sued for in the late 90's.
    - randcraw 8y ago
      The best browser isn't the fastest. It's the one you can trust to serve you and not some corporation or government that wants to control what you see and where you go.
- bobajeff 8y ago
  That's all fine in principle but in practice Web Browsers just like Search Engines is zero sum. Sooner or later it'll just be one.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Then it shouldn't be one controlled by a corporation that is a monopolist in several other markets already.
devrand 8y ago
Why does this title significantly differ from the article? The article presents no evidence nor claims that anyone lied.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  There was enough evidence. But every single one of your comments defends Google and is spreading doubt. Even causing people to flag legitimate articles like this one.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks, which this crosses into, are not acceptable on HN. If you feel that another commenter is abusing HN, please let us know at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it. Casting aspersions on another user simply for disagreeing is not ok, so please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html p.s. What you said about "every single one" of devrand's comments is far from accurate. It's not ok to haul in someone's comment history as ammunition in an argument, and even worse when what you say is not true.
- jiaweihli 8y ago
  It's in the subtitle.
- judge2020 8y ago
  I think it was this > Following the publication of this study, Google engineers made it official on a Google Groups posting hours later, announcing a relaxation of the Manifest V3 changes that would have impacted ad blockers. There is no backtracking or lying here. The thread states: > there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). This was the plan in the earlier thread as well. The API wasn't going away, they were just removing blocking and modifying. The article also goes hard on how they clarified that "they never intended to prevent or break content blocking". Again, they never said they wanted to limit this, they were just "moving fast and breaking things" by requiring the content blocker extensions to move to a new API. The original thread mentioned uBO because it was going to be the main source of discussion due to it having 50k+ rules already.
grzm 8y ago
Actual title: "Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers"
- RodericDay 8y ago
  Actual sub-title: "Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit."
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  The sub-title immediately below the title is: "Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit."
  - grzm 8y ago
    I provided the actual title as it's not the same as the submitted title. The guidelines on HN are to use the actual title: > "... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - waffleguy 8y ago
      I’m guessing you’re the type of person who raised their hand and reminded the teacher about assigning or collecting homework
      - dang 8y ago
        Can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        ModFightsCron 8y ago
kkm 8y ago
HN thread about the Adblockers performance study mentioned in the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19175003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19175003
dang 8y ago
Editorializing titles like this is against the site guidelines and will cause an account to lose submission privileges. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.
- jiaweihli 8y ago
  Sorry, I didn't realize this. Can a mod change the title to match the article and unflag this?
  - dang 8y ago
    Ok, we've done that. (Submitted title was "Google caught lying about reason behind ad blocker change".)
techntoke 8y ago
Duh, everyone knew that this was a non-issue. Now prepare for every other comment to be about how you should still be using Firefox.
- chaosite 8y ago
  I don't know about should, but Firefox is a fine browser that is worth trying out.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit.....Hours after the Ghostery team published its study and benchmark results, the Chrome team backtracked on their planned modifications. Adios Google that once was. Ad blocking does cause performance issues, but revenue ones.
- techntoke 8y ago
  I wouldn't really trust the Ghostery team either. They don't exactly have the best track record.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Google should point out the study faults then...it's not like they don't have the manpower and know-how
comex 8y ago
They've done nothing of the sort. The ZDNet article quotes: > "Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3," said Chrome engineer Devlin Cronin [emphasis his]. But the full quote shows what he's talking about: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API. The only commitment is to not modify the read-only "observational capabilities".
- ccnafr 8y ago
  Actually that's the API feature that current ad blockers were using.
  - roca 8y ago
    How can that be? You can't block loads using only observational capabilities.
  - xkapastel 8y ago
    No, what they're doing is nerfing webRequest so that the ad blockers cannot use it to block ads anymore.
vxNsr 8y ago
As people said in the thread about the actual study, this isn't a real backtrack, they're still locking down the rules, just being a bit more accommodating to the current gen of adblock, but the second ads adapt around current tech, adblockers will be stuck in the mud.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Well, maybe. Google could add features to the api.
  - the8472 8y ago
    Then google will be the only one who can innovate in the area in adblocking abilities.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      There is innovation above the api level. And if new api features are being requested by adblockers, who is really innovating? The way I would put it is that Google becomes the gatekeeper for some low-level adblocker features.
      - gentoo 8y ago
        No, they become the gatekeeper for all adblock features. "low-level" is a meaningless qualifier here. > And if new api features are being requested by adblockers, who is really innovating? Right now, adblock developers are speaking out, in droves, requesting that they don't remove the API features Chrome already has, and Google is saying "nah." They are wiping out the current diversity of ad-blocking techniques and saying "This is the way you can build an ad-blocker now." There is also the obvious conflict of interest that many of the ads in question are served by Google in the first place.
unnouinceput 8y ago
Ahhh, I'm lazy and wanted my final reason to switch to FF. Oh well, I'll let google track me through browser for now, if they leave my uOrigin+NoScript alone. The second those won't work I'll make the switch.
happybuy 8y ago
Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides). From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme. Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages that users browse; a potentially huge privacy hole. At least with the proposed scheme, adblocker extensions wouldn't have had access to a user's browsing history. This is the same approach that Safari uses with its content blocker API. Yes, the Safari approach has more limitations, but it is also significantly better from a privacy perspective.
- sametmax 8y ago
  At some point, new ads the system can't block will surface. The adblocker will become less and less useful, and Google will have no incentive to improve it. There is already a big difference between even existing adblockers. E.G: some show youtube ads. And I'm much more worry about the privacy concern from many random ads poping unexpectedly, than from one extension that the entire community get to vet.
  - fpoling 8y ago
    At some point adblockers will run a browser in a headless mode and use ML algorithms to show ad-filteret result to the user.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Good news, you can uninstall an extension.
- ubercow13 8y ago
  As per the quotes in other comments on this article, it sounds like the 'observational' functionality of the API is staying, so this doesn't seem like a win from a privacy perspective at all.
- jackewiehose 8y ago
rajeshmr 8y ago
I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
  - the8472 8y ago
    That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.
    - rajeshmr 8y ago
      > It does not explain removing the old capabilities Very true! Especially if the network impact is of the order of sub-milliseconds.
      - tyingq 8y ago
        It's also likely that the net gain in performance by blocking resources with heuristics (that wouldn't be blocked by a simple pattern) outweighs any loss. At least for many websites.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      I'm fine with that.
      - rajeshmr 8y ago
x15 8y ago
This is a win-win situation for Google. I doubt they haven't done the maths. If they lose a percentage of the userbase, but get increased revenue, it's only logical to do that. If their userbase decreases, their monopoly status also decreases, making regulation harder. The percentage of users who install firefox is low because of the inertia of the default. Having Google as the default search engine in firefox certainly didn't help. Imagine downloading firefox to replace IE or Edge on a fresh Windows install and then immediately witness Chrome ads in your search results. Mozilla should had disrupted the third party tracking/ads business, when it had the chance, by providing a default ad blocker and severing ties with no-privacy-respecting search engines (before Google disrupted the browsers market that is). Google's Android browser is doing well by not supporting extensions, why would they miss the chance of additional revenue by not crippling their desktop browser the same way?
- r00fus 8y ago
  Mozilla has for numerous years been supported by Google cash. I’m not sure if Google is still supporting Mozilla. How do you expect Mozilla to undercut a major funder?
pgt 8y ago
Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. This means my web products work a little better on Firefox, intentional or not. When enough people make that choice, a tipping point forms in the future. Paul Graham wrote about this in "The Return of the Mac" [^1]. Don't underestimate the power of your choice at the frontier, even if it takes a while to reverberate through time. [^1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html
- Vogtinator 8y ago
  > With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. Those are unrelated.
  - rat9988 8y ago
    I wonder why people make such bold wrong claims.
    - plg 8y ago
      I think in this case it’s probably because the person in question is simply mistaken. The other possibility is that they are some kind of Rust evangelist and they are actively trying to deceive people. I doubt it. Could we please approach each other with the benefit of the doubt? Could we please gently, constructively correct errors? I see no need to be so aggressive, especially in our current social/political climate.
      - rat9988 8y ago
        What current social/political climate? Moreover, the problem is that he claimed without research. And this is what bothers me. How can people be certain of something they have never seen confirmed anywhere.
XorNot 8y ago
Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox.
- chillydawg 8y ago
  That was the original reason, yes. Now Chrome is installed by default on tons of new laptops etc because Google makes so much money by tracking users via Chrome that they can pay serious $$ to manufacturers to tweak their base build.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    >> Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox. > That was the original reason, yes. Now Chrome is installed by default on tons of new laptops etc So Chrome is the new IE now, and the GP comment stands.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Some of them may also have got that way because of the billions Google spent advertising Chrome. I doubt Mozilla could afford to put Firefox ads all over the web to anything like the same extent.
- kerng 8y ago
  Chrome is the new IE. I work at a well known tech company where majority of internal sites don't work with anything but Chrome. Its so frustrating.
- kirion25 8y ago
  You seem to have forgotten the extremely agressive marketing from Google. At some point, practically all major free software was bundled with Chrome, which installed by default. It was almost similar to malware in its persistence, and adopted many dark patterns just for the opportunity to get on your PC.
zamakan 8y ago
Who cares? I use safari on my phone and have been slowly switching away from google creepiness to Firefox.
xkapastel 8y ago
Google did NOT backtrack on ANYTHING. From the new thread: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API. "We are still narrowing down proposed changes" means they still plan on removing the part of webRequest that everyone cares about, the feature that lets it block requests. There was an initial thread about these changes: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00 https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom.... Lots of people made great comments about why the proposed change was a bad idea. What did Google do? Ignore the thread and post another about how they are "iterating" on Manifest V3. Google's strategy is clear: wait for the outrage to subside, keep making new threads to divert discussion if you have to, then go ahead and make the changes you were planning on anyway. Keep in mind that their story about performance has been shown to be a complete lie. There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this. This is about removing sophisticated ad blockers in order to defend Google's revenue stream, plain and simple.
- justanother- 8y ago
  Well quite frankly, I dont care what google does. I am doing if old school since forever, squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers, but is completly out of control of browser and ad blockers or OS vendor. Anyway there is firefox too, while for chrome, as everything from google, I can only say - I told you so (10 years back). Btw, it is quite interesting, that over all those "we were right" years, people are still trying to confort themself about how great their favorite brand is, we have a saying that even donkey walks on ice only once.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers I use Pi-Hole, but I also use uBlock Origin since Pi-Hole cannot block ads that require more advanced heuristics to block, like YT ads for example.
SquareWheel 8y ago
Here is the actual response. I don't know why this wasn't posted two days ago. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/WcZ42Iqon_M https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...
jointhefuture 8y ago
Well here's the next issue to freakout about https://github.com/domenic/proposal-function-prototype-tostring-censorship https://github.com/domenic/proposal-function-prototype-tostr...
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
such deceit
ikisusi 8y ago
Coincidentally Chrome 72 upgrade seems to break adblockers so that they can't block google analytics, and maybe other ads/tracking as well, if web page uses a service worker: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19185637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19185637
jzl 8y ago
Not seeing any comments here about the most interesting part of the OP: how Ghostery ran tests disproving Google's claim about the length of ad blocking lists causing noticeable performance degradation. Yet in the mailing list announcement from Google that instigated this article they doubled down on that claim: Increased Ruleset Size: We will raise the rule limit from the draft 30K value. However, an upper limit is still necessary to ensure performance for users. Block lists have tended to be “push-only”, where new rules are added but obsolete rules are rarely, if ever, removed (external research has shown that 90% of EasyList blocking rules provided no benefit in common blocking scenarios). Having this list continue to grow unbounded is problematic. Yet, if there's a limit it will also be problematic. The lists only grow in size because of the cat-and-mouse game caused by ad blockers existing in the first place. If there's a size limit, that immediately gives a win to the ad servers because they will find a way to subvert the known limit.
osrec 8y ago
Dear Google, you have a chance to do so much good! Don't fritter that opportunity away for easy dollars! We know ads are your cash cow currently, but you seriously have enough cash and talent to generate cash flows from less annoying (and perhaps, useful) things. Have some faith in your people. And above all, please don't be evil, and don't fib. Dear DuckDuckGo, please can you focus a little less on search, and more on a producing a high quality browser? Seriously, I feel if you want to rid the world of Google's stranglehold, you don't need to make a better search engine, but a better browser. Google has bloated Chrome enough that any alternative that is lightweight, cross platform, with a solid password manager and dev tools would make me jump ship in a flash. Be sure to support PWAs too. And shorten your name - duckduckgo as a name is a bit weird - your new domain, duck.com might be worth doubling down on. Thanks!
kuwalu123 8y ago
Maybe now people will start to use Tor Browser for daily browsing. If you are inside EEA you don't even have to actually connect to Tor network just use Tor browser.
luord 8y ago
Is there anything preventing the community from just forking chromium and ignore these changes? Then again, by that point it might be better to just switch to Firefox.

315 points by jiaweihli 8y ago

mosselman 8y ago

Things like this is why it is so important for the web to have multiple browsers available to choose from.

takeda 8y ago
And that's why this announcement should make people switch to alternatives with different engine like FF. Saying we need multiple browsers, then using chrome or its clone actually makes the situation worse. Also chrome is no longer snappy as it was initially.
- chr1 8y ago
  Playing devils advocate here, why a different engine is needed? Chrome clone can add webrequest feature too, and it would be much easier to maintain.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The problem with forks is having to chase upstream. The dominant browser can keep making changes with reckless abandon. And the fork has to keep up with those, even if it breaks their own features, lest they become incompatible with the "standard" version.
    - rat9988 8y ago
      Unless you make the fork the dominant browser.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        At which point you begin to question what benefit you gained from initially siding with a single engine in the first place.
    - chr1 8y ago
      chasing upstream is a lot easier than chasing web standards and chromes performance, especially if you are only interested in providing more powerful extension api and better ui
- pishpash 8y ago
  Chrome may or may not be the best browser. But Google properties tying into Chrome as a platform (think sync, extensions, auth, captchas) and making it really difficult to switch away creates a situation where it's not all about choosing the best browser any more. This harkens back to the same anti-competitive monopolistic behavior that Microsoft got sued for in the late 90's.
  - randcraw 8y ago
    The best browser isn't the fastest. It's the one you can trust to serve you and not some corporation or government that wants to control what you see and where you go.
bobajeff 8y ago
That's all fine in principle but in practice Web Browsers just like Search Engines is zero sum. Sooner or later it'll just be one.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Then it shouldn't be one controlled by a corporation that is a monopolist in several other markets already.

devrand 8y ago

Why does this title significantly differ from the article? The article presents no evidence nor claims that anyone lied.

zzzcpan 8y ago
There was enough evidence. But every single one of your comments defends Google and is spreading doubt. Even causing people to flag legitimate articles like this one.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks, which this crosses into, are not acceptable on HN. If you feel that another commenter is abusing HN, please let us know at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it. Casting aspersions on another user simply for disagreeing is not ok, so please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html p.s. What you said about "every single one" of devrand's comments is far from accurate. It's not ok to haul in someone's comment history as ammunition in an argument, and even worse when what you say is not true.
jiaweihli 8y ago
It's in the subtitle.
judge2020 8y ago
I think it was this > Following the publication of this study, Google engineers made it official on a Google Groups posting hours later, announcing a relaxation of the Manifest V3 changes that would have impacted ad blockers. There is no backtracking or lying here. The thread states: > there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). This was the plan in the earlier thread as well. The API wasn't going away, they were just removing blocking and modifying. The article also goes hard on how they clarified that "they never intended to prevent or break content blocking". Again, they never said they wanted to limit this, they were just "moving fast and breaking things" by requiring the content blocker extensions to move to a new API. The original thread mentioned uBO because it was going to be the main source of discussion due to it having 50k+ rules already.

grzm 8y ago

Actual title: "Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers"

RodericDay 8y ago
Actual sub-title: "Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit."
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
The sub-title immediately below the title is: "Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit."
- grzm 8y ago
  I provided the actual title as it's not the same as the submitted title. The guidelines on HN are to use the actual title: > "... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - waffleguy 8y ago
    I’m guessing you’re the type of person who raised their hand and reminded the teacher about assigning or collecting homework
    - dang 8y ago
      Can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ModFightsCron 8y ago

kkm 8y ago

HN thread about the Adblockers performance study mentioned in the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19175003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19175003

dang 8y ago

Editorializing titles like this is against the site guidelines and will cause an account to lose submission privileges. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.

jiaweihli 8y ago
Sorry, I didn't realize this. Can a mod change the title to match the article and unflag this?
- dang 8y ago
  Ok, we've done that. (Submitted title was "Google caught lying about reason behind ad blocker change".)

techntoke 8y ago

Duh, everyone knew that this was a non-issue. Now prepare for every other comment to be about how you should still be using Firefox.

chaosite 8y ago
I don't know about should, but Firefox is a fine browser that is worth trying out.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>Google changes stance on upcoming Chrome Manifest V3 changes as benchmark shows they lied about performance hit.....Hours after the Ghostery team published its study and benchmark results, the Chrome team backtracked on their planned modifications. Adios Google that once was. Ad blocking does cause performance issues, but revenue ones.

techntoke 8y ago
I wouldn't really trust the Ghostery team either. They don't exactly have the best track record.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Google should point out the study faults then...it's not like they don't have the manpower and know-how

comex 8y ago

They've done nothing of the sort. The ZDNet article quotes: > "Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3," said Chrome engineer Devlin Cronin [emphasis his]. But the full quote shows what he's talking about: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API. The only commitment is to not modify the read-only "observational capabilities".

ccnafr 8y ago
Actually that's the API feature that current ad blockers were using.
- roca 8y ago
  How can that be? You can't block loads using only observational capabilities.
- xkapastel 8y ago
  No, what they're doing is nerfing webRequest so that the ad blockers cannot use it to block ads anymore.

vxNsr 8y ago

As people said in the thread about the actual study, this isn't a real backtrack, they're still locking down the rules, just being a bit more accommodating to the current gen of adblock, but the second ads adapt around current tech, adblockers will be stuck in the mud.

skybrian 8y ago
Well, maybe. Google could add features to the api.
- the8472 8y ago
  Then google will be the only one who can innovate in the area in adblocking abilities.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    There is innovation above the api level. And if new api features are being requested by adblockers, who is really innovating? The way I would put it is that Google becomes the gatekeeper for some low-level adblocker features.
    - gentoo 8y ago
      No, they become the gatekeeper for all adblock features. "low-level" is a meaningless qualifier here. > And if new api features are being requested by adblockers, who is really innovating? Right now, adblock developers are speaking out, in droves, requesting that they don't remove the API features Chrome already has, and Google is saying "nah." They are wiping out the current diversity of ad-blocking techniques and saying "This is the way you can build an ad-blocker now." There is also the obvious conflict of interest that many of the ads in question are served by Google in the first place.

unnouinceput 8y ago

Ahhh, I'm lazy and wanted my final reason to switch to FF. Oh well, I'll let google track me through browser for now, if they leave my uOrigin+NoScript alone. The second those won't work I'll make the switch.

happybuy 8y ago

Sounds like Google will still move towards what they were planning but will likely just take a bit more time and more versions to get there (as the outrage subsides). From my perspective, the biggest improvement in their proposal would have been the increased privacy and security users would receive with adblockers that use the proposed scheme. Under the current scheme, any Chrome adblocker can see all of the pages that users browse; a potentially huge privacy hole. At least with the proposed scheme, adblocker extensions wouldn't have had access to a user's browsing history. This is the same approach that Safari uses with its content blocker API. Yes, the Safari approach has more limitations, but it is also significantly better from a privacy perspective.

sametmax 8y ago
At some point, new ads the system can't block will surface. The adblocker will become less and less useful, and Google will have no incentive to improve it. There is already a big difference between even existing adblockers. E.G: some show youtube ads. And I'm much more worry about the privacy concern from many random ads poping unexpectedly, than from one extension that the entire community get to vet.
- fpoling 8y ago
  At some point adblockers will run a browser in a headless mode and use ML algorithms to show ad-filteret result to the user.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Good news, you can uninstall an extension.
ubercow13 8y ago
As per the quotes in other comments on this article, it sounds like the 'observational' functionality of the API is staying, so this doesn't seem like a win from a privacy perspective at all.
jackewiehose 8y ago

rajeshmr 8y ago

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

saagarjha 8y ago
> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
- the8472 8y ago
  That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.
  - rajeshmr 8y ago
    > It does not explain removing the old capabilities Very true! Especially if the network impact is of the order of sub-milliseconds.
    - tyingq 8y ago
      It's also likely that the net gain in performance by blocking resources with heuristics (that wouldn't be blocked by a simple pattern) outweighs any loss. At least for many websites.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I'm fine with that.
    - rajeshmr 8y ago

x15 8y ago

This is a win-win situation for Google. I doubt they haven't done the maths. If they lose a percentage of the userbase, but get increased revenue, it's only logical to do that. If their userbase decreases, their monopoly status also decreases, making regulation harder. The percentage of users who install firefox is low because of the inertia of the default. Having Google as the default search engine in firefox certainly didn't help. Imagine downloading firefox to replace IE or Edge on a fresh Windows install and then immediately witness Chrome ads in your search results. Mozilla should had disrupted the third party tracking/ads business, when it had the chance, by providing a default ad blocker and severing ties with no-privacy-respecting search engines (before Google disrupted the browsers market that is). Google's Android browser is doing well by not supporting extensions, why would they miss the chance of additional revenue by not crippling their desktop browser the same way?

r00fus 8y ago
Mozilla has for numerous years been supported by Google cash. I’m not sure if Google is still supporting Mozilla. How do you expect Mozilla to undercut a major funder?

pgt 8y ago

Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. This means my web products work a little better on Firefox, intentional or not. When enough people make that choice, a tipping point forms in the future. Paul Graham wrote about this in "The Return of the Mac" [^1]. Don't underestimate the power of your choice at the frontier, even if it takes a while to reverberate through time. [^1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html

Vogtinator 8y ago
> With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. Those are unrelated.
- rat9988 8y ago
  I wonder why people make such bold wrong claims.
  - plg 8y ago
    I think in this case it’s probably because the person in question is simply mistaken. The other possibility is that they are some kind of Rust evangelist and they are actively trying to deceive people. I doubt it. Could we please approach each other with the benefit of the doubt? Could we please gently, constructively correct errors? I see no need to be so aggressive, especially in our current social/political climate.
    - rat9988 8y ago
      What current social/political climate? Moreover, the problem is that he claimed without research. And this is what bothers me. How can people be certain of something they have never seen confirmed anywhere.

XorNot 8y ago

Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox.

chillydawg 8y ago
That was the original reason, yes. Now Chrome is installed by default on tons of new laptops etc because Google makes so much money by tracking users via Chrome that they can pay serious $$ to manufacturers to tweak their base build.
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> Someone pointed out that every Chrome user got that way because a techie got them off Internet Explorer... and those same people can just as easily get them onto Firefox. > That was the original reason, yes. Now Chrome is installed by default on tons of new laptops etc So Chrome is the new IE now, and the GP comment stands.
jfk13 8y ago
Some of them may also have got that way because of the billions Google spent advertising Chrome. I doubt Mozilla could afford to put Firefox ads all over the web to anything like the same extent.
kerng 8y ago
Chrome is the new IE. I work at a well known tech company where majority of internal sites don't work with anything but Chrome. Its so frustrating.
kirion25 8y ago
You seem to have forgotten the extremely agressive marketing from Google. At some point, practically all major free software was bundled with Chrome, which installed by default. It was almost similar to malware in its persistence, and adopted many dark patterns just for the opportunity to get on your PC.

zamakan 8y ago

Who cares? I use safari on my phone and have been slowly switching away from google creepiness to Firefox.

xkapastel 8y ago

Google did NOT backtrack on ANYTHING. From the new thread: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no planned changes to the observational capabilities of webRequest (i.e., anything that does not modify the request). We are also continually listening to and evaluating the feedback we’re receiving, and we are still narrowing down proposed changes to the webRequest API. "We are still narrowing down proposed changes" means they still plan on removing the part of webRequest that everyone cares about, the feature that lets it block requests. There was an initial thread about these changes: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00 https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom.... Lots of people made great comments about why the proposed change was a bad idea. What did Google do? Ignore the thread and post another about how they are "iterating" on Manifest V3. Google's strategy is clear: wait for the outrage to subside, keep making new threads to divert discussion if you have to, then go ahead and make the changes you were planning on anyway. Keep in mind that their story about performance has been shown to be a complete lie. There is no performance hit from using webRequest like this. This is about removing sophisticated ad blockers in order to defend Google's revenue stream, plain and simple.

justanother- 8y ago
Well quite frankly, I dont care what google does. I am doing if old school since forever, squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers, but is completly out of control of browser and ad blockers or OS vendor. Anyway there is firefox too, while for chrome, as everything from google, I can only say - I told you so (10 years back). Btw, it is quite interesting, that over all those "we were right" years, people are still trying to confort themself about how great their favorite brand is, we have a saying that even donkey walks on ice only once.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > squid proxy doint mitm. And it works for all my OSes from android to linux laptop. It is not as easy to set up as in browser ads blockers I use Pi-Hole, but I also use uBlock Origin since Pi-Hole cannot block ads that require more advanced heuristics to block, like YT ads for example.

SquareWheel 8y ago

Here is the actual response. I don't know why this wasn't posted two days ago. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/WcZ42Iqon_M https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...

jointhefuture 8y ago

Well here's the next issue to freakout about https://github.com/domenic/proposal-function-prototype-tostring-censorship https://github.com/domenic/proposal-function-prototype-tostr...

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

such deceit

ikisusi 8y ago

Coincidentally Chrome 72 upgrade seems to break adblockers so that they can't block google analytics, and maybe other ads/tracking as well, if web page uses a service worker: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19185637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19185637

jzl 8y ago

Not seeing any comments here about the most interesting part of the OP: how Ghostery ran tests disproving Google's claim about the length of ad blocking lists causing noticeable performance degradation. Yet in the mailing list announcement from Google that instigated this article they doubled down on that claim: Increased Ruleset Size: We will raise the rule limit from the draft 30K value. However, an upper limit is still necessary to ensure performance for users. Block lists have tended to be “push-only”, where new rules are added but obsolete rules are rarely, if ever, removed (external research has shown that 90% of EasyList blocking rules provided no benefit in common blocking scenarios). Having this list continue to grow unbounded is problematic. Yet, if there's a limit it will also be problematic. The lists only grow in size because of the cat-and-mouse game caused by ad blockers existing in the first place. If there's a size limit, that immediately gives a win to the ad servers because they will find a way to subvert the known limit.

osrec 8y ago

Dear Google, you have a chance to do so much good! Don't fritter that opportunity away for easy dollars! We know ads are your cash cow currently, but you seriously have enough cash and talent to generate cash flows from less annoying (and perhaps, useful) things. Have some faith in your people. And above all, please don't be evil, and don't fib. Dear DuckDuckGo, please can you focus a little less on search, and more on a producing a high quality browser? Seriously, I feel if you want to rid the world of Google's stranglehold, you don't need to make a better search engine, but a better browser. Google has bloated Chrome enough that any alternative that is lightweight, cross platform, with a solid password manager and dev tools would make me jump ship in a flash. Be sure to support PWAs too. And shorten your name - duckduckgo as a name is a bit weird - your new domain, duck.com might be worth doubling down on. Thanks!

kuwalu123 8y ago

Maybe now people will start to use Tor Browser for daily browsing. If you are inside EEA you don't even have to actually connect to Tor network just use Tor browser.

luord 8y ago

Is there anything preventing the community from just forking chromium and ignore these changes? Then again, by that point it might be better to just switch to Firefox.