5 ms·

(Edit: Re original title: "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking") Seems to be referring to this part of the text: > Observation > Chrom

by 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.
    - tedivm 7y ago
      That's exactly what it is- taking the choice away from the user. There were other options they could have taken- such as warning a user when installing an extension that uses these APIs, or building out a new asynchronous API (like Firefox did). Instead they choose to go with the option that screws over users but might make them more money.
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  Yes. That's what the google employees said, but I recall ghostery or some other group publishing actual numbers showcasing it took microseconds to do the check This showcased the google employees declaration it was performance to be smoke.
  - Twirrim 7y ago
    So far as the original message seemed to be saying, it isn't about the uBlock Origins of the world, well behaved, highly performant code. They don't hurt end users. It's the badly written add-ons that they're trying to eliminate. Given what they're breaking by their chosen mechanism, I would have thought educating end users would be the better approach. The running Chrome instance would be able to tell that an add-on is a large source of blocking, and could easily pop up a warning to indicate such, complete with a one-click option to disable the add-on.
Koffiepoeder 7y ago
> If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist. It is; https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897#c23 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897....
- Filligree 7y ago
  There's a Firefox version of it, isn't there? You can rest assured that if I can't have adblocking in chrome, then I'll stop using chrome.
  - signal11 7y ago
    I'm also quite interested in what the Chromium-powered Edge will do.
  - tedivm 7y ago
    Yeah, this will kill my use of chrome as well. I wonder how Brave (which is based on Chromium) will end up handling this.
    - novok 7y ago
      They will turn it back on, make their own privacy extension store? I imagine it's some sort of compilation or configuration flag?
    - onyva 7y ago
      Why guess? We know brave’s business model is equally bad. There’s a company which its main objective is user privacy and safety, and that’s Mozilla. Current versions are exceptionally polished and speedy and you know what you’re getting.
  - ooboe 7y ago
    Yes there are: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=...
sctb 7y ago
Does someone have a source we can use that spells this out? It does not follow from the quoted text that “Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking”. One reason for the title policy on Hacker News is that original titles have actual articles attached to them. Editorialized claims do not pass muster for quality of information here (this isn't a “what can you say in 80-characters” website). If the original title is misleading or clickbait, then we still have a chance of using representative language directly from the source. We could also do that here if someone can suggest it.
- tomp 7y ago
  Sure, I agree; if the original title isn't true, then this isn't much of a story... which is why I posted my comment in the first place; the closest relevant answer is quoted by sister comment by Koffiepoeder.

by tomp 7y ago

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.
  - tedivm 7y ago
    That's exactly what it is- taking the choice away from the user. There were other options they could have taken- such as warning a user when installing an extension that uses these APIs, or building out a new asynchronous API (like Firefox did). Instead they choose to go with the option that screws over users but might make them more money.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
Yes. That's what the google employees said, but I recall ghostery or some other group publishing actual numbers showcasing it took microseconds to do the check This showcased the google employees declaration it was performance to be smoke.
- Twirrim 7y ago
  So far as the original message seemed to be saying, it isn't about the uBlock Origins of the world, well behaved, highly performant code. They don't hurt end users. It's the badly written add-ons that they're trying to eliminate. Given what they're breaking by their chosen mechanism, I would have thought educating end users would be the better approach. The running Chrome instance would be able to tell that an add-on is a large source of blocking, and could easily pop up a warning to indicate such, complete with a one-click option to disable the add-on.

Koffiepoeder 7y ago

> If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist. It is; https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897#c23 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897....

Filligree 7y ago
There's a Firefox version of it, isn't there? You can rest assured that if I can't have adblocking in chrome, then I'll stop using chrome.
- signal11 7y ago
  I'm also quite interested in what the Chromium-powered Edge will do.
- tedivm 7y ago
  Yeah, this will kill my use of chrome as well. I wonder how Brave (which is based on Chromium) will end up handling this.
  - novok 7y ago
    They will turn it back on, make their own privacy extension store? I imagine it's some sort of compilation or configuration flag?
  - onyva 7y ago
    Why guess? We know brave’s business model is equally bad. There’s a company which its main objective is user privacy and safety, and that’s Mozilla. Current versions are exceptionally polished and speedy and you know what you’re getting.
- ooboe 7y ago
  Yes there are: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=...

sctb 7y ago

Does someone have a source we can use that spells this out? It does not follow from the quoted text that “Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking”. One reason for the title policy on Hacker News is that original titles have actual articles attached to them. Editorialized claims do not pass muster for quality of information here (this isn't a “what can you say in 80-characters” website). If the original title is misleading or clickbait, then we still have a chance of using representative language directly from the source. We could also do that here if someone can suggest it.

tomp 7y ago
Sure, I agree; if the original title isn't true, then this isn't much of a story... which is why I posted my comment in the first place; the closest relevant answer is quoted by sister comment by Koffiepoeder.