23 ms·

Google relents slightly on blocking ad-blockers for enterprise Chrome users

224 points by amaccuish 7y ago

lousken 7y ago
I'd like to see gorhills response to this before I make any judgements.
- jerheinze 7y ago
  https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Yep, the second that I can't install ublock origin on Chrome will be the second I stop using it. Currently I mostly use FF for the web and Chrome for Dev and testing but if I have a tab open I'll use it. If I can't use ublock origin I'll lock down Chrome so that I can only visit a whitelist of things I need to Dev/test and switch entirely to Firefox.
    - tedivm 7y ago
      We require adblockers at work for security reasons, so we'll be migrating everyone to Firefox or Brave once this happens.
  - twistiti 7y ago
    Thank you, lots of detail provided. Excerpt: "What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to "sell" the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business." Thank you gorhill for what you did to the web community.
cpcallen 7y ago
The title of this post was edited. The original title—and the interesting part of the linked article—is "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking." I think it's rather telling that Simeon Vincent has buried this news in an off-handed one line comment buried in the middle of a rather long post, and I think it's unfortunate that HN's title policy has also buried the lede.
- sjwright 7y ago
  It is remarkable that the title on HN could be changed to something that borders on strategically dull. I don't think you could create a less communicative title if you tried. This is an important story which affects a large portion of the HN audience, yet I doubt even 1% of the affected users would know what "Manifest V3" refers to. "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is so outrageously devoid of information that it is difficult to come up with an innocent explanation for it.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    And now this article has now dropped off the front page in rapid time. I don't get what the aim is here. Why bury a story that everyone is going to know about soon enough? Edit: to the numerous people who are voting my comments down, could you please provide actual feedback?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dictum 7y ago
      It's not being intentionally buried, but the rapid drop in interest is a testament to the utter dullness of "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" "Manifest V3" is jargon, which is a big problem in HN. See Show HNs that don't really explain what is the thing being introduced. The Response -> feedback -> proposed changes chain is verbose. The three concepts are almost a single concept (changes) wrought as present -> past -> future. "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is a characteristically Google-internal-y [0] way to say "Update on coming changes to Chrome extension APIs". [0]: My unscientific feeling is that a lot of engineers at Google write about projects as if the audience is other Google engineers. It's not out of malice, but it's convenient when you don't have to explain the full rationale for a change.
JorgeGT 7y ago
Just for the record, the original title of this submission was "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking"
tomp 7y ago
(Edit: Re original title: "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking") Seems to be referring to this part of the text: > Observation > Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments). Extensions with appropriate permissions can still observe network requests using the webRequest API. The webRequest API's ability to observe requests is foundational for extensions that modify their behavior based on the patterns they observe at runtime. No idea if that's the API that adblockers use (or just a part of it)...
- shawnz 7y ago
  I was under the impression that the ability to observe all requests was the whole problem that made the webrequest api dangerous. Now they're keeping that but eliminating the blocking features only? What?
  - skymt 7y ago
    The stated reason for removing blocking from WebRequest is to improve performance, not privacy. If an extension can block a request, Chrome needs to wait for the extension before performing the request. See the WebRequest section in the design document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#heading=h.t5tc5efl7rfz https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz...
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      So, why not just not install the extension then? This just seems like taking the user's choice away.
      - skymt 7y ago
        In fairness to Google, it's not absurd in principle. Mozilla has dealt with this problem for years: when an extension slows the browser down, the user is more likely to blame the browser than the extension. But in this specific case of ad-blocking extensions, I have a hard time taking Google's justification seriously. Ad blockers speed up the browsing experience far more than whatever negligible processing time the filter process takes.
wguaa 7y ago
So to keep using uBlock Origin at its full functionality I'll have to flip a configuration bit on Chrome first?
- dannyw 7y ago
  Or use Firefox.
  - wguaa 7y ago
    No thanks.
    - nhumrich 7y ago
      Why not?
  - newaccoutnas 7y ago
    Happy Firefox user here with uBlock Origin, CSS Exfil protection, ClearURLS, HTTPS Everywhere all installed and working nicely (bar the addons hickup which meant it was off for a day, but that was no issue)
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Not sure if Entreprise installs will let you modify anything of Chrome "advanced" settings though.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  What makes you think uBlock Origin would continue to be developed for Chrome when it is not compatible?
  - leiroigh 7y ago
    Lot's of people using chromium or enterprise chrome. As long as ublock origin (then incompatible with mainline chrome) is not pulled from the webstore, and as long as there is a simple #ifdef that most linux distros can toggle, I am not really affected by the change. I assume that the same holds for most developers, crucially including the people behing ublock.
meddlepal 7y ago
Firefox says Hello.
- tomxor 7y ago
  There was a time i couldn't imagine moving away from chromium... all the FF people shout about features, I care not, I want a browser that is good at the fundamentals, has a non intrusive UI and allows me to block ads, that wasn't FF, i should know I've submitted my fair pile of FF bugs, and stumbled across a decent amount of decade old ones. However these days I find myself using FF more and more for those very reasons, where chromium/chrome is failing more and more. The other side of this is of course that FF has been improving massively in recent years. There is no best, browsers are ridiculously complicated and hard, but i suppose there are phases, if chromium team loose sight of how non-obscure the requirement to block ads easily is to all users today, this may be the start of a different phase.
  - chepaslaaa 7y ago
    >if chromium team loose sight of how non-obscure the requirement to block ads easily is to all users today, this may be the start of a different phase. I don't think you realize how many tech illiterate people don't block ads.
    - tomxor 7y ago
      You could be right, but i'd be more convinced by some stats. On the occasions that i use a browser without an ad blocked, it's so intrusive and unplesant these days that I imagine plenty "non-technical" users seeking out a solution purely from the perspective of basic usability.
- was_boring 7y ago
  I love firefox, but it's still leagues behind chrome -- even with the new engine. Especially when used with "enterprise" tools, like Jira. I keep hoping for the day I can switch and not lose productivity.
sexy_seedbox 7y ago
Related: for Android users who want to use Chrome on mobile with adblock (or any extensions), Kiwi Browser introduced extensions support recently: https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-extensions-android/ https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-ex...
- AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
  Doesn't Samsung's browser already have an option to install adblockers? I assume it's chromium-based.
- twistiti 7y ago
  Brave [1] has an interesting native ad/script blocker too. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.browser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow...
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Which is slower than extension-based blockers. https://dev.to/remusao/adblockers-performance-study-5b47 https://dev.to/remusao/adblockers-performance-study-5b47
- tedivm 7y ago
  There's also AdGuard, which acts as a VPN and blocks traffic on that IP, DNS, and (optionally, if you enable their certificate) HTTP/S domains. Because it works on the VPN level it blocks ads for all apps, not just the browser. https://adguard.com/ https://adguard.com/ Google won't allow the full version in the Google Play Store (probably for the same reason they're breaking adblockers on the desktop), but you can download the full APK here- https://adguard.com/apk https://adguard.com/apk
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Also trivially accomplished with PiHole or adblock on OpenWRT, and with a bit more work, Privoxy, SquidGuard, and related tools. Running your own DNS server (DNSMasq, Knot Resover (kresd), Bind) pretty much gives you carte blanche to do anything you want. https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/ https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock (see: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/files/README.md https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/...) https://www.privoxy.org https://www.privoxy.org http://www.squidguard.org http://www.squidguard.org http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/ https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/
village-idiot 7y ago
At a certain point it’s impossible to take this as a coincidence.
Simon_says 7y ago
Headline is wrong. Firefox has ad blocking.
- Simon_says 7y ago
  To everyone downvoting, the headline was edited. Previously it said that only Chrome Enterprise edition has ad blocking.
josteink 7y ago
We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after all. Obviously sarcasm on my part, but I see this terrible (and false) argument every time someone complains about the Chrome market share near-monopoly. You’d think people would know better by now. Edit: sarcasm made clearer.
- a_imho 7y ago
  I thought only Chromium was open source?
- tomxor 7y ago
  > We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after all. Chromium doesn't really have many of the benefits of other open source projects, it's a behemoth (have you ever tried a shallow clone and build from scratch?). Forking chrome is pointless unless you have an army behind you to maintain it. In that sense, chrome is chrome, and nothing more, it's proprietary by sheer volume. Anything based on it is usually little more than a chrome skin, or at best an out of date tracking branch that's been pulled apart and put back together again, e.g QtWebEngine which takes 6 months between releases just to pull apart the code to strip all offensive code and put back together again.
  - Kudos 7y ago
    I agree it's not typical in terms of the scope of the project, but Microsoft literally just released a browser based on it, joining Opera, Brave, etc.
    - em-bee 7y ago
      they also have an army to maintain it
      - tomxor 7y ago
        and they don't even stray particularly far from chromium.
nullwasamistake 7y ago
This title is terrible, it's meaningless to 99.9% of users. It doesn't even mention Chrome!? How is anyone supposed to know what this post is about?
- sjwright 7y ago
  Don't worry, if the issue is as described it's going to spawn a lot of headlines of Hacker News, not just this one. Though in changing the title to something that could only be described as strategically dull, at least we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators lie.
  - Shish2k 7y ago
    > we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators lie Loyal to consistently implementing the rule of "HN submission title should match the original page title"?
    - sjwright 7y ago
      That's not a viable explanation, as "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is not the page title. At best it's a modified version of the first sentence. Furthermore it's a rule which is rarely followed. Look at most of the title edits: more edits are deviating the submission titles away from the original page title. https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/ https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/ Of course it's a moot point now. This article's new title has caused it to drop off the home page and it's now effectively dead.
amaccuish 7y ago
As the OP can the title please be changed back to my original one? It was far clearer what this is actually about.
- amaccuish 7y ago
  Thanks. I actually got this from the reg article but followed HN rules and posted the original google groups link. The register article is much clearer.
gorhill 7y ago
I was asked to comment by Thomas Claburn from The Register[1]: The most concise summary I can come up with is in the article: > Google's primary business is incompatible with unimpeded content blocking. * * * [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_api/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_a...
- djanogo 7y ago
  Do you collect any stats for overall ads blocked?, I wonder how much $$ damage you did to Google finances since you launched your extensions on Chrome and Firefox.
  - aw3c2 7y ago
    There is no damage being done by ad blocking, please don't use such language.
    - guuhv 7y ago
      That depends on whether you consider "lost income" to be damage. If I had a webpage or an ad business, for me it would be damage.
      - lousken 7y ago
        Then you could start calculating things like - if a malicious ad spread ransomware and it hit some company and its network... etc.
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        Nobody is giving me money, I consider this to be lost income, therefore everyone is doing me damage. /s
        justinjlynn 7y ago
        In all seriousness though, this line of thinking is, at best, going to feel like constant victimisation if one engages in it far too often. Don't be surprised if people don't go out of their way to give you money they don't have to give you in order to get what they want in the way they want it. Lost revenue refers to revenue you could've captured if you had done things differently, so do them differently. If there's any damage done, it's damage you did to yourself.
vorpalhex 7y ago
The author spends a lot of time saying the changes aren't immutable, then goes on to say "Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3". That seems both very final, and as if they have entirely failed to read any of the feedback the community has given them.
sctb 7y ago
Thanks! We've updated the link from https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00/9iKaX5giAQAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte... which was less clear.
- dang 7y ago
  We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630 and marked it off-topic.
lostmsu 7y ago
If they remove the API, can they be sued for non-competitive behavior? Obviously, Chrome has a monopoly in web browsing, especially on desktop. And this can be seen as a leverage for a different business they have, namely ads.
- gtCameron 7y ago
  In what world does Chrome have a monopoly on web browsing? They have ~66% market share, and there are at least two high quality, free, alternatives on Mac and Windows that are only a click away
  - mpcjanssen 7y ago
    "they have a 66% market share", in that world. A 100% market share is not needed to have monopoly power.
JulianMorrison 7y ago
Force ads through blockers, I move to Firefox.
outside1234 7y ago
Just use Microsoft Edge!
kryptiskt 7y ago
So how many billions should the EU fine them this time to make them take notice? Using their dominant position in the browser market to bolster their dominant ad business, hmmm, maybe a fine isn't enough.
- Proven 7y ago
  They shouldn't be fined anything. If you don't like it, get another browser. There is nothing that entitles you or the EU to coerce other people or organizations to practice certain behavior or make changes to their property (source code).
- anfilt 7y ago
  Maybe that Google should have no say in the browser standards.
Proven 7y ago
I can't say I'm concerned - I've already replaced it with a Microsoft version of Chromium and all ad blockers seem to work just fine... I have to say, though, I am shocked that enterprises actually pay for Chrome. What the heck!
ouid 7y ago
this will kill chrome.
Chirael 7y ago
In environments where use of Chrome is forced on us (e.g., a workplace), with this change will we still at least be able to use NoScript to protect from drive-by malware downloads? If uBlock Origin is going to go away from Chrome, my first choice would be Firefox but if I can't use that then I think I'd rather use Chrome with NoScript (if possible) and images turned off.
anonymousab 7y ago
I think it would be telling if eyeo GmbH is also in favor of these changes. The way ABP works will probably be 'good enough' for the average user, for at least as long as it takes to sway or marginalize competing browsers and to come up with an ad content delivery strategy that requires (by then) long unsupported extension features to counter. They're building the pot with which they'll slow boil the content blocking crab.
dceddia 7y ago
Did anyone else notice the double meaning of the term "blocking"? This bit tipped me off to the confusion: > And he argues that if the blocking nature of the webRequest API really represents a performance concern, Google could just adopt Firefox's approach which uses a technique called Promises to return a non-blocking/asynchronous response. They do explicitly say "content blocking" in a few places, but in most instances they say "blocking webRequest API" which might actually refer to blocking-as-opposed-to-non-blocking and not ad-blocking.
mrtweetyhack 7y ago
I dare them to block ad blockers.
JohnFen 7y ago
Sounds like yet another solid reason to continue to avoid using Chrome.
tracker1 7y ago
Hopefully Brave, Edge, Opera and other derivatives continue to support the more advanced API.

224 points by amaccuish 7y ago

lousken 7y ago

I'd like to see gorhills response to this before I make any judgements.

jerheinze 7y ago
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Yep, the second that I can't install ublock origin on Chrome will be the second I stop using it. Currently I mostly use FF for the web and Chrome for Dev and testing but if I have a tab open I'll use it. If I can't use ublock origin I'll lock down Chrome so that I can only visit a whitelist of things I need to Dev/test and switch entirely to Firefox.
  - tedivm 7y ago
    We require adblockers at work for security reasons, so we'll be migrating everyone to Firefox or Brave once this happens.
- twistiti 7y ago
  Thank you, lots of detail provided. Excerpt: "What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to "sell" the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business." Thank you gorhill for what you did to the web community.

cpcallen 7y ago

The title of this post was edited. The original title—and the interesting part of the linked article—is "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking." I think it's rather telling that Simeon Vincent has buried this news in an off-handed one line comment buried in the middle of a rather long post, and I think it's unfortunate that HN's title policy has also buried the lede.

sjwright 7y ago
It is remarkable that the title on HN could be changed to something that borders on strategically dull. I don't think you could create a less communicative title if you tried. This is an important story which affects a large portion of the HN audience, yet I doubt even 1% of the affected users would know what "Manifest V3" refers to. "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is so outrageously devoid of information that it is difficult to come up with an innocent explanation for it.
- sjwright 7y ago
  And now this article has now dropped off the front page in rapid time. I don't get what the aim is here. Why bury a story that everyone is going to know about soon enough? Edit: to the numerous people who are voting my comments down, could you please provide actual feedback?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dictum 7y ago
    It's not being intentionally buried, but the rapid drop in interest is a testament to the utter dullness of "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" "Manifest V3" is jargon, which is a big problem in HN. See Show HNs that don't really explain what is the thing being introduced. The Response -> feedback -> proposed changes chain is verbose. The three concepts are almost a single concept (changes) wrought as present -> past -> future. "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is a characteristically Google-internal-y [0] way to say "Update on coming changes to Chrome extension APIs". [0]: My unscientific feeling is that a lot of engineers at Google write about projects as if the audience is other Google engineers. It's not out of malice, but it's convenient when you don't have to explain the full rationale for a change.

JorgeGT 7y ago

Just for the record, the original title of this submission was "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking"

tomp 7y ago

(Edit: Re original title: "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking") Seems to be referring to this part of the text: > Observation > Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments). Extensions with appropriate permissions can still observe network requests using the webRequest API. The webRequest API's ability to observe requests is foundational for extensions that modify their behavior based on the patterns they observe at runtime. No idea if that's the API that adblockers use (or just a part of it)...

shawnz 7y ago
I was under the impression that the ability to observe all requests was the whole problem that made the webrequest api dangerous. Now they're keeping that but eliminating the blocking features only? What?
- skymt 7y ago
  The stated reason for removing blocking from WebRequest is to improve performance, not privacy. If an extension can block a request, Chrome needs to wait for the extension before performing the request. See the WebRequest section in the design document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#heading=h.t5tc5efl7rfz https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz...
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    So, why not just not install the extension then? This just seems like taking the user's choice away.
    - skymt 7y ago
      In fairness to Google, it's not absurd in principle. Mozilla has dealt with this problem for years: when an extension slows the browser down, the user is more likely to blame the browser than the extension. But in this specific case of ad-blocking extensions, I have a hard time taking Google's justification seriously. Ad blockers speed up the browsing experience far more than whatever negligible processing time the filter process takes.

wguaa 7y ago

So to keep using uBlock Origin at its full functionality I'll have to flip a configuration bit on Chrome first?

dannyw 7y ago
Or use Firefox.
- wguaa 7y ago
  No thanks.
  - nhumrich 7y ago
    Why not?
- newaccoutnas 7y ago
  Happy Firefox user here with uBlock Origin, CSS Exfil protection, ClearURLS, HTTPS Everywhere all installed and working nicely (bar the addons hickup which meant it was off for a day, but that was no issue)
ekianjo 7y ago
Not sure if Entreprise installs will let you modify anything of Chrome "advanced" settings though.
ubercow13 7y ago
What makes you think uBlock Origin would continue to be developed for Chrome when it is not compatible?
- leiroigh 7y ago
  Lot's of people using chromium or enterprise chrome. As long as ublock origin (then incompatible with mainline chrome) is not pulled from the webstore, and as long as there is a simple #ifdef that most linux distros can toggle, I am not really affected by the change. I assume that the same holds for most developers, crucially including the people behing ublock.

meddlepal 7y ago

Firefox says Hello.

tomxor 7y ago
There was a time i couldn't imagine moving away from chromium... all the FF people shout about features, I care not, I want a browser that is good at the fundamentals, has a non intrusive UI and allows me to block ads, that wasn't FF, i should know I've submitted my fair pile of FF bugs, and stumbled across a decent amount of decade old ones. However these days I find myself using FF more and more for those very reasons, where chromium/chrome is failing more and more. The other side of this is of course that FF has been improving massively in recent years. There is no best, browsers are ridiculously complicated and hard, but i suppose there are phases, if chromium team loose sight of how non-obscure the requirement to block ads easily is to all users today, this may be the start of a different phase.
- chepaslaaa 7y ago
  >if chromium team loose sight of how non-obscure the requirement to block ads easily is to all users today, this may be the start of a different phase. I don't think you realize how many tech illiterate people don't block ads.
  - tomxor 7y ago
    You could be right, but i'd be more convinced by some stats. On the occasions that i use a browser without an ad blocked, it's so intrusive and unplesant these days that I imagine plenty "non-technical" users seeking out a solution purely from the perspective of basic usability.
was_boring 7y ago
I love firefox, but it's still leagues behind chrome -- even with the new engine. Especially when used with "enterprise" tools, like Jira. I keep hoping for the day I can switch and not lose productivity.

sexy_seedbox 7y ago

Related: for Android users who want to use Chrome on mobile with adblock (or any extensions), Kiwi Browser introduced extensions support recently: https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-extensions-android/ https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-ex...

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
Doesn't Samsung's browser already have an option to install adblockers? I assume it's chromium-based.
twistiti 7y ago
Brave [1] has an interesting native ad/script blocker too. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.browser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Which is slower than extension-based blockers. https://dev.to/remusao/adblockers-performance-study-5b47 https://dev.to/remusao/adblockers-performance-study-5b47
tedivm 7y ago
There's also AdGuard, which acts as a VPN and blocks traffic on that IP, DNS, and (optionally, if you enable their certificate) HTTP/S domains. Because it works on the VPN level it blocks ads for all apps, not just the browser. https://adguard.com/ https://adguard.com/ Google won't allow the full version in the Google Play Store (probably for the same reason they're breaking adblockers on the desktop), but you can download the full APK here- https://adguard.com/apk https://adguard.com/apk
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Also trivially accomplished with PiHole or adblock on OpenWRT, and with a bit more work, Privoxy, SquidGuard, and related tools. Running your own DNS server (DNSMasq, Knot Resover (kresd), Bind) pretty much gives you carte blanche to do anything you want. https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/ https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock (see: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/files/README.md https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/...) https://www.privoxy.org https://www.privoxy.org http://www.squidguard.org http://www.squidguard.org http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/ https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/

village-idiot 7y ago

At a certain point it’s impossible to take this as a coincidence.

Simon_says 7y ago

Headline is wrong. Firefox has ad blocking.

Simon_says 7y ago
To everyone downvoting, the headline was edited. Previously it said that only Chrome Enterprise edition has ad blocking.

josteink 7y ago

We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after all. Obviously sarcasm on my part, but I see this terrible (and false) argument every time someone complains about the Chrome market share near-monopoly. You’d think people would know better by now. Edit: sarcasm made clearer.

a_imho 7y ago
I thought only Chromium was open source?
tomxor 7y ago
> We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after all. Chromium doesn't really have many of the benefits of other open source projects, it's a behemoth (have you ever tried a shallow clone and build from scratch?). Forking chrome is pointless unless you have an army behind you to maintain it. In that sense, chrome is chrome, and nothing more, it's proprietary by sheer volume. Anything based on it is usually little more than a chrome skin, or at best an out of date tracking branch that's been pulled apart and put back together again, e.g QtWebEngine which takes 6 months between releases just to pull apart the code to strip all offensive code and put back together again.
- Kudos 7y ago
  I agree it's not typical in terms of the scope of the project, but Microsoft literally just released a browser based on it, joining Opera, Brave, etc.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    they also have an army to maintain it
    - tomxor 7y ago
      and they don't even stray particularly far from chromium.

nullwasamistake 7y ago

This title is terrible, it's meaningless to 99.9% of users. It doesn't even mention Chrome!? How is anyone supposed to know what this post is about?

sjwright 7y ago
Don't worry, if the issue is as described it's going to spawn a lot of headlines of Hacker News, not just this one. Though in changing the title to something that could only be described as strategically dull, at least we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators lie.
- Shish2k 7y ago
  > we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators lie Loyal to consistently implementing the rule of "HN submission title should match the original page title"?
  - sjwright 7y ago
    That's not a viable explanation, as "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is not the page title. At best it's a modified version of the first sentence. Furthermore it's a rule which is rarely followed. Look at most of the title edits: more edits are deviating the submission titles away from the original page title. https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/ https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/ Of course it's a moot point now. This article's new title has caused it to drop off the home page and it's now effectively dead.

amaccuish 7y ago

As the OP can the title please be changed back to my original one? It was far clearer what this is actually about.

amaccuish 7y ago
Thanks. I actually got this from the reg article but followed HN rules and posted the original google groups link. The register article is much clearer.

gorhill 7y ago

I was asked to comment by Thomas Claburn from The Register[1]: The most concise summary I can come up with is in the article: > Google's primary business is incompatible with unimpeded content blocking. * * * [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_api/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_a...

djanogo 7y ago
Do you collect any stats for overall ads blocked?, I wonder how much $$ damage you did to Google finances since you launched your extensions on Chrome and Firefox.
- aw3c2 7y ago
  There is no damage being done by ad blocking, please don't use such language.
  - guuhv 7y ago
    That depends on whether you consider "lost income" to be damage. If I had a webpage or an ad business, for me it would be damage.
    - lousken 7y ago
      Then you could start calculating things like - if a malicious ad spread ransomware and it hit some company and its network... etc.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      Nobody is giving me money, I consider this to be lost income, therefore everyone is doing me damage. /s
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        In all seriousness though, this line of thinking is, at best, going to feel like constant victimisation if one engages in it far too often. Don't be surprised if people don't go out of their way to give you money they don't have to give you in order to get what they want in the way they want it. Lost revenue refers to revenue you could've captured if you had done things differently, so do them differently. If there's any damage done, it's damage you did to yourself.

vorpalhex 7y ago

The author spends a lot of time saying the changes aren't immutable, then goes on to say "Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3". That seems both very final, and as if they have entirely failed to read any of the feedback the community has given them.

sctb 7y ago

Thanks! We've updated the link from https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00/9iKaX5giAQAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte... which was less clear.

dang 7y ago
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630 and marked it off-topic.

lostmsu 7y ago

If they remove the API, can they be sued for non-competitive behavior? Obviously, Chrome has a monopoly in web browsing, especially on desktop. And this can be seen as a leverage for a different business they have, namely ads.

gtCameron 7y ago
In what world does Chrome have a monopoly on web browsing? They have ~66% market share, and there are at least two high quality, free, alternatives on Mac and Windows that are only a click away
- mpcjanssen 7y ago
  "they have a 66% market share", in that world. A 100% market share is not needed to have monopoly power.

JulianMorrison 7y ago

Force ads through blockers, I move to Firefox.

outside1234 7y ago

Just use Microsoft Edge!

kryptiskt 7y ago

So how many billions should the EU fine them this time to make them take notice? Using their dominant position in the browser market to bolster their dominant ad business, hmmm, maybe a fine isn't enough.

Proven 7y ago
They shouldn't be fined anything. If you don't like it, get another browser. There is nothing that entitles you or the EU to coerce other people or organizations to practice certain behavior or make changes to their property (source code).
anfilt 7y ago
Maybe that Google should have no say in the browser standards.

Proven 7y ago

I can't say I'm concerned - I've already replaced it with a Microsoft version of Chromium and all ad blockers seem to work just fine... I have to say, though, I am shocked that enterprises actually pay for Chrome. What the heck!

ouid 7y ago

this will kill chrome.

Chirael 7y ago

In environments where use of Chrome is forced on us (e.g., a workplace), with this change will we still at least be able to use NoScript to protect from drive-by malware downloads? If uBlock Origin is going to go away from Chrome, my first choice would be Firefox but if I can't use that then I think I'd rather use Chrome with NoScript (if possible) and images turned off.

anonymousab 7y ago

I think it would be telling if eyeo GmbH is also in favor of these changes. The way ABP works will probably be 'good enough' for the average user, for at least as long as it takes to sway or marginalize competing browsers and to come up with an ad content delivery strategy that requires (by then) long unsupported extension features to counter. They're building the pot with which they'll slow boil the content blocking crab.

dceddia 7y ago

Did anyone else notice the double meaning of the term "blocking"? This bit tipped me off to the confusion: > And he argues that if the blocking nature of the webRequest API really represents a performance concern, Google could just adopt Firefox's approach which uses a technique called Promises to return a non-blocking/asynchronous response. They do explicitly say "content blocking" in a few places, but in most instances they say "blocking webRequest API" which might actually refer to blocking-as-opposed-to-non-blocking and not ad-blocking.

mrtweetyhack 7y ago

I dare them to block ad blockers.

JohnFen 7y ago

Sounds like yet another solid reason to continue to avoid using Chrome.

tracker1 7y ago

Hopefully Brave, Edge, Opera and other derivatives continue to support the more advanced API.