10 ms·

The end of uBlock origin for Google Chrome?

239 points by coleifer 7y ago

mounram 7y ago
Chrome is still one of the best browser for the time being, but if uBlock will ne be available anymore, it’s time to change, Firefox most likely.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Chrome might be "one of" the best. If so, Firefox is definitely another.
tastroder 7y ago
dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 - this one just links to the comments section
kyriakos 7y ago
Will it still work in Edge chromium?
- zamalek 7y ago
  The credge people on Twitter have been engaging in adblocking discussions, but credge currently uses the chrome store.
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    It currently uses the Microsoft Store, but it -can- use the Chrome store. https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons?hl=en-US https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons?hl=en-US
Yetanfou 7y ago
More "The end of Chromium for not being able to run uBlock Origin". Running a browser without a functional ad blocker is like running around without vaccinations - you're bound to catch something nasty. I used to use Chromium and Firefox side by side but stopped doing so when they started acting up in this way. When I need to test with Blink I use Vivaldi (which still supports uBlock Origin), Firefox otherwise.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
There's a question mark in the title of the article, which is kind of very relevant here. The last sentence of the article starts with words "While it is certainly possible that the stable extension update would be allowed by Google".
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  Google has already expressed their intention to stop supporting ad blocking extensions with Version 3 of their add-on manifest. So the writing has been on the wall for awhile, they're just turning the screws now.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    Manifest v3 supports adblocking.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      In the same way the Soviet Union supported freedom of expression.
      - SquareWheel 7y ago
        Can you name anything specific that v2 can do that v3 can't? And how important is that to actually blocking ads?
hprotagonist 7y ago
“how do i sideload my own extensions onto my web browser” is a really weird sentence to say out loud.
- ymolodtsov 7y ago
  Very easily in Chrome.
- rasz 7y ago
  With v3 implemented there will be nothing to sideload.
SquareWheel 7y ago
It's an older rule[1]. It does technically apply here, but it's not a great look that they're only enforcing it now. If Gorhill needed to, some of that extra functionality could be moved out into a separate extension. uBlock has done this before with uBlock Origin Extra[2]. Most of the extra features (eg. remote font blocking) aren't a huge deal, in my opinion. [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-simple.html https://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-... [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-extra/pgdnlhfefecpicbbihgmbmffkjpaplco?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-extr...
- MR4D 7y ago
  Why doesn’t “blocking” just mean blocking? I shouldn’t need separate extensions to each block css, JavaScript, fonts, cookies, pixels, etc. Remote fonts can be used for tracking and fingerprinting (hence why private browsing modes aren’t private). Am I missing something here?
  - dictum 7y ago
    > Remote fonts can be used for tracking and fingerprinting Isn't it the reverse, local fonts can be used for fingerprinting? (There are some snags with remote fonts — rendering bugs/exploits — but they're not exactly low hanging fruit anymore) EDIT: I see what you mean by tracking. If the fonts are loaded with a third party script, this is indeed a problem. If the font files are served by a third party directly (without some intermediate script), this could be remedied with an extension that strips headers. It would obviously run afoul of this only do one thing rule from Google, the company that once attached Google+ to its search results.
    - vanadium 7y ago
      Actually, my Creative Director and I have noticed some Google Fonts have changed over time, producing significant enough (read: negative) changes to the UI of clients’ experiences we have out there that we decided to start downloading and storing them locally to lock in state (and for perf, but that’s another topic). The average user who comes to the site once will never notice it, but we have. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a hidden vector of some sort, but I haven’t put effort into digging into it.
dwheeler 7y ago
Solution: Firefox.
Geee 7y ago
I recently switched to Safari on Mac. Safari has a native content blocking mechanism (on Mac and iPhone) which works quite well without giving the extension open access to the page content. It works simply by a JSON file that describes the blocking rules, and doesn't require running any third-party code on the web page. So far, I've not missed any features of Chrome except opening accidentally closed tab again. You might want to change few settings though: "show full urls" and "show favicons". Apple Pay also works remarkably well, just click "Pay with Apple", and the authentication request pops up on your iPhone, requesting Touch ID / Face ID. I've not seen anyone implement the new "Sign in with Apple", which automatically generates burner email addresses, but that's another reason to switch to Safari. Also, one feature which I like is the automatic generation of strong passwords.
- ymolodtsov 7y ago
  What do you mean about the closed tab? Just click cmd-shift-t.
  - Geee 7y ago
    It seems I just didn't look for it in the right place. Thanks.
  - girvo 7y ago
    It used to be Cmd-Z, interestingly. I kind of liked that. Haven’t tried in a while, has it changed to be in line with other browsers now?
    - pcr910303 7y ago
      Both works. I personally prefer Cmd-Z, as it feels like a natural choice, but Cmd-Shift-T also works when I'm editing a text field like when I'm writing a comment now.
- Zarel 7y ago
  For the record, Chrome is switching to the same content blocking mechanism (declarative blocking) as Safari is currently using. I do personally think this lends some plausibility to Google's assertions that they're doing it for performance reasons rather than to make adblockers worse. It's not like Apple's doing it for the ad revenue.
haolez 7y ago
Damn! I've recently switched to a Chromebook as my daily driver, so Chrome is my only choice of browser available. I hope this is a mistake, since I can't imagine browsing the web without uBlock Origin.
- ymolodtsov 7y ago
  You can always install any extension outside of the store by enabling the developer mode in Chrome.
  - girvo 7y ago
    With the new manifest V3, it’s sounding like this won’t be enough sometime in the future
- dustinmr 7y ago
  You can also install Crostini and install Firefox inside the container.
baybal2 7y ago
I worked in a few AdShops for few short projects when I had to leave electronics for some time after my last employer in Canada was unable to secure a new work visa. All and every were very very aware how adblocks can block double digits of their revenue with each new release, and it was considered an issue of existential importance. C-levels had weekly conference calls on dealing with adblocks. In one of those companies, a senior was calling Google, and was pretty much receiving directions like "you can get around this block if you randomise this part of URL," "next months we will change this and that API, this will give you some breathing room." Google is well aware of UBO, and for years tried to covertly subvert it.
- Slikey 7y ago
  AdBlockers are the modern Anti-Virus. It's the same cat'n'mouse game. The next step will be isolating "sponsored content" in news articles and educational content.
Santosh83 7y ago
Chrome has the user share and momentum to do whatever they want at this point, and since the majority of end users are unaware of developmental & software details and will continue using Chrome, their overwhelming user share will mean developers will continue to develop for Chrome whether or not they like the direction the browser is going. While ad blocking is the most widely used extension functionality remember that there are other adequate replacements in the Chrome store. Most users are probably already using the more popular (numerically) ones and even if every Chrome's uBlock Origin user migrated to another browser it will probably not make a significant blip on the radar. Only a corporate rival can challenge Chrome at this point and practically the only one who can do so is Microsoft's Edge team, and they will most likely establish a duopoly with Chrome instead of holding out for the sake of user freedom.
faissaloo 7y ago
If this keeps up I might just give up and stick to Links2 or something for my daily browsing. There's Firefox for now but I'm really increasingly pessimistic about the state of the web.
xfitm3 7y ago
Ad blocking is the only thing that makes the web bearable. I hope the extension rejection was a mistake or over something unrelated to blocking functionality.
- alpaca128 7y ago
  Nowadays ad blocking isn't even enough anymore. It feels like every website with news articles of any kind has some scrolling, autoplaying video embedded into the site, sometimes even with audio enabled. Unfortunately I haven't seen a blocker for that because it's not considered an ad. It is definitely more annoying than most ads, though.
  - asymptotically2 7y ago
    If you dig through the options, you can prevent videos from auto-playing.
  - Santosh83 7y ago
    You can block both video and audio from autoplaying in Firefox by going into about:config. It works. But in Chrome AFAIK you can only mute the audio and not the video from autoplaying.
    - Klathmon 7y ago
      You can stop video from playing as well in Chrome settings. Either globally, or on a site-per-site basis.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  On the other hand, the GDPR has made tracking diminish a lot. It’s just time the web became bearable, and that could have a synchronous effect on Google’s decisions.
  - dastx 7y ago
    Well no, instead you get a giant banner saying "will you please accept these 10 billion trackers we've installed?" With some websites you can't even say no (which mind you is against GDPR) but who's gonna sue them?
jonny383 7y ago
Great time to switch to Firefox if you haven't already. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ And before you even begin to complain about it being "too slow", "slower than Chrome", <other statement of the month>, tell us that after you're running Chrome without an ad-blocker. And even if it really is still slower by some miracle - this is a community containing world-class software engineers. Donate some of your time to bring it up to speed. Pun intended.
- htfy96 7y ago
  > a community containing world-class software engineers Sadly they don't seem to have world-class managers
  - taneq 7y ago
    Doesn't matter how good you are at doing the thing right if you're not doing the right thing.
    - lostmsu 7y ago
      Funny how that applies to Chrome.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  > And before you even begin to complain about it being "too slow", "slower than Chrome", <other statement of the month>, tell us that after you're running Chrome without an ad-blocker. I run Brave without an adblocker and have found it to be much faster than Firefox (with adblocker and pi-hole). Also, as someone whose startup has both Chrome and Firefox extensions, I have to say the Firefox reviewers (who review releases and hold up the process — not end user reviewers) can be hugely annoying, and we deploy there as infrequently as possible. As a result, our Firefox customers don’t get all the latest bells and whistles. Wish it weren’t that way, but the process takes months! Edit: clarified the annoying reviewers are not end users reviewers, but the people who suck up months of time for every minor update, making confused complaints about our code, and even UI implementation.
mantap 7y ago
This is probably a good thing. Google is declaring war on adblockers, uBO is their first target but not their last. Tech savvy people are going to end up dumping Chrome en mass. Chrome has dominated the browser market by being so good, but development of non-Google browsers is about to become exciting again, and everybody benefits from that.
- switch007 7y ago
  Firefox development has hardly been boring: Quantum (Rust) & container tabs (and some big improvements to Dev Tools, I understand). Not a new development but addons on mobile is pretty damn cool.
EastSmith 7y ago
Given the situation Chrome should not be called Web Browser anymore. User Tracker seems better category.
stebann 7y ago
Mozilla is the real hero here. GO with the good guys!
jchw 7y ago
A lot of people are probably only reading the headline and assuming uBlock Origin was removed from Chrome Webstore, but what actually happened was a version update to the dev extension entry was rejected. We have yet to see if this is just a flake, but reading the issue it seems gorhill intends to just see what happens next dev version.
- SergeAx 7y ago
  Talks about ad blockers prohibition in Chrome are here for a good half of the year. So there is a rather large possibility it's beginning.
  - jchw 7y ago
    I work for Google so I am biased. However, I think most of that debate surrounds Manifest v3 is misleading. I’m not a huge fan of Manifest v3s limitations, but it’s basically the same limitations as Safari as far as I understand, and the justification does make some sense. So I am hoping that things will work out. I don’t know about any other things that would impact adblocking on Chrome. Personally, I am happy with Firefox on desktop, and Safari on iPhone, and I don’t think there are any threats, perceived or actual, towards adblocking on those platforms.
SergeAx 7y ago
Switched to Firefox on Android just to have a luxury of ad absence, will do the same on a desktop the moment uBO turned off by Chrome. There was a day or two when all extensions stopped to work because of some certificate expiration - it was a horrible experience, never again.
g8oz 7y ago
Personally I'm more attached to uBlock origin than I am to Chrome.
protomikron 7y ago
So the endgame is probably that we have to switch from "adblockers" to "contentallowers": Filter everything and whitelist content?
DoctorOetker 7y ago
The double standards are getting way out of proportion here: The functionality of the advertising browser is a bundling of functionality as well: one one hand the browser functionality to let the user browse and view what he wants, and on the other hand the functionality that lets advertisements and trackers function on the user's browser willy nilly. So we have a functionality bundler (Chrome) demanding a lower level unbundler plug-in (uBO) stop bundling it's unbundling features together, while the only reason the latter exists is because of the organised bundling at a higher level...
emilengler 7y ago
Google Chrome only allows to install extensions from there web store, his would be the end of uBlock Origin for Chrome Even if I am a Firefox user I don't see a sense in using Chrome. The 'features' that Chrome can but Chromium cannot are these that we everyone love: * DRM * Centralized extension managment
kretor 7y ago
Fixed: https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/dgoymg/warning_ubo_ublock_origin_will_possibly_be/f3fwlto/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/dgoymg/warning_ubo_... > Hey all, I'm Simeon, the developer advocate for Chrome extensions. This morning I heard from the review team; they've approved the current draft so next publish should go through. Unfortunately it's the weekend, so most folks are out, but I'm planning to follow up with u/gorhill4 with more details once I have them.
karlh 7y ago
Never stopped using Firefox. Chrome came from Google, the conflicts of interest were obvious.

239 points by coleifer 7y ago

Chrome is still one of the best browser for the time being, but if uBlock will ne be available anymore, it’s time to change, Firefox most likely.

rahuldottech 7y ago
Chrome might be "one of" the best. If so, Firefox is definitely another.

tastroder 7y ago

dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 - this one just links to the comments section

kyriakos 7y ago

Will it still work in Edge chromium?

zamalek 7y ago
The credge people on Twitter have been engaging in adblocking discussions, but credge currently uses the chrome store.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  It currently uses the Microsoft Store, but it -can- use the Chrome store. https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons?hl=en-US https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons?hl=en-US

Yetanfou 7y ago

More "The end of Chromium for not being able to run uBlock Origin". Running a browser without a functional ad blocker is like running around without vaccinations - you're bound to catch something nasty. I used to use Chromium and Firefox side by side but stopped doing so when they started acting up in this way. When I need to test with Blink I use Vivaldi (which still supports uBlock Origin), Firefox otherwise.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

There's a question mark in the title of the article, which is kind of very relevant here. The last sentence of the article starts with words "While it is certainly possible that the stable extension update would be allowed by Google".

rubbingalcohol 7y ago
Google has already expressed their intention to stop supporting ad blocking extensions with Version 3 of their add-on manifest. So the writing has been on the wall for awhile, they're just turning the screws now.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  Manifest v3 supports adblocking.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    In the same way the Soviet Union supported freedom of expression.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      Can you name anything specific that v2 can do that v3 can't? And how important is that to actually blocking ads?

hprotagonist 7y ago

“how do i sideload my own extensions onto my web browser” is a really weird sentence to say out loud.

ymolodtsov 7y ago
Very easily in Chrome.
rasz 7y ago
With v3 implemented there will be nothing to sideload.

SquareWheel 7y ago

It's an older rule[1]. It does technically apply here, but it's not a great look that they're only enforcing it now. If Gorhill needed to, some of that extra functionality could be moved out into a separate extension. uBlock has done this before with uBlock Origin Extra[2]. Most of the extra features (eg. remote font blocking) aren't a huge deal, in my opinion. [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-simple.html https://blog.chromium.org/2013/12/keeping-chrome-extensions-... [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-extra/pgdnlhfefecpicbbihgmbmffkjpaplco?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-extr...

MR4D 7y ago
Why doesn’t “blocking” just mean blocking? I shouldn’t need separate extensions to each block css, JavaScript, fonts, cookies, pixels, etc. Remote fonts can be used for tracking and fingerprinting (hence why private browsing modes aren’t private). Am I missing something here?
- dictum 7y ago
  > Remote fonts can be used for tracking and fingerprinting Isn't it the reverse, local fonts can be used for fingerprinting? (There are some snags with remote fonts — rendering bugs/exploits — but they're not exactly low hanging fruit anymore) EDIT: I see what you mean by tracking. If the fonts are loaded with a third party script, this is indeed a problem. If the font files are served by a third party directly (without some intermediate script), this could be remedied with an extension that strips headers. It would obviously run afoul of this only do one thing rule from Google, the company that once attached Google+ to its search results.
  - vanadium 7y ago
    Actually, my Creative Director and I have noticed some Google Fonts have changed over time, producing significant enough (read: negative) changes to the UI of clients’ experiences we have out there that we decided to start downloading and storing them locally to lock in state (and for perf, but that’s another topic). The average user who comes to the site once will never notice it, but we have. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a hidden vector of some sort, but I haven’t put effort into digging into it.

dwheeler 7y ago

Solution: Firefox.

Geee 7y ago

I recently switched to Safari on Mac. Safari has a native content blocking mechanism (on Mac and iPhone) which works quite well without giving the extension open access to the page content. It works simply by a JSON file that describes the blocking rules, and doesn't require running any third-party code on the web page. So far, I've not missed any features of Chrome except opening accidentally closed tab again. You might want to change few settings though: "show full urls" and "show favicons". Apple Pay also works remarkably well, just click "Pay with Apple", and the authentication request pops up on your iPhone, requesting Touch ID / Face ID. I've not seen anyone implement the new "Sign in with Apple", which automatically generates burner email addresses, but that's another reason to switch to Safari. Also, one feature which I like is the automatic generation of strong passwords.

ymolodtsov 7y ago
What do you mean about the closed tab? Just click cmd-shift-t.
- Geee 7y ago
  It seems I just didn't look for it in the right place. Thanks.
- girvo 7y ago
  It used to be Cmd-Z, interestingly. I kind of liked that. Haven’t tried in a while, has it changed to be in line with other browsers now?
  - pcr910303 7y ago
    Both works. I personally prefer Cmd-Z, as it feels like a natural choice, but Cmd-Shift-T also works when I'm editing a text field like when I'm writing a comment now.
Zarel 7y ago
For the record, Chrome is switching to the same content blocking mechanism (declarative blocking) as Safari is currently using. I do personally think this lends some plausibility to Google's assertions that they're doing it for performance reasons rather than to make adblockers worse. It's not like Apple's doing it for the ad revenue.

haolez 7y ago

Damn! I've recently switched to a Chromebook as my daily driver, so Chrome is my only choice of browser available. I hope this is a mistake, since I can't imagine browsing the web without uBlock Origin.

ymolodtsov 7y ago
You can always install any extension outside of the store by enabling the developer mode in Chrome.
- girvo 7y ago
  With the new manifest V3, it’s sounding like this won’t be enough sometime in the future
dustinmr 7y ago
You can also install Crostini and install Firefox inside the container.

baybal2 7y ago

I worked in a few AdShops for few short projects when I had to leave electronics for some time after my last employer in Canada was unable to secure a new work visa. All and every were very very aware how adblocks can block double digits of their revenue with each new release, and it was considered an issue of existential importance. C-levels had weekly conference calls on dealing with adblocks. In one of those companies, a senior was calling Google, and was pretty much receiving directions like "you can get around this block if you randomise this part of URL," "next months we will change this and that API, this will give you some breathing room." Google is well aware of UBO, and for years tried to covertly subvert it.

Slikey 7y ago
AdBlockers are the modern Anti-Virus. It's the same cat'n'mouse game. The next step will be isolating "sponsored content" in news articles and educational content.

Santosh83 7y ago

Chrome has the user share and momentum to do whatever they want at this point, and since the majority of end users are unaware of developmental & software details and will continue using Chrome, their overwhelming user share will mean developers will continue to develop for Chrome whether or not they like the direction the browser is going. While ad blocking is the most widely used extension functionality remember that there are other adequate replacements in the Chrome store. Most users are probably already using the more popular (numerically) ones and even if every Chrome's uBlock Origin user migrated to another browser it will probably not make a significant blip on the radar. Only a corporate rival can challenge Chrome at this point and practically the only one who can do so is Microsoft's Edge team, and they will most likely establish a duopoly with Chrome instead of holding out for the sake of user freedom.

faissaloo 7y ago

If this keeps up I might just give up and stick to Links2 or something for my daily browsing. There's Firefox for now but I'm really increasingly pessimistic about the state of the web.

xfitm3 7y ago

Ad blocking is the only thing that makes the web bearable. I hope the extension rejection was a mistake or over something unrelated to blocking functionality.

alpaca128 7y ago
Nowadays ad blocking isn't even enough anymore. It feels like every website with news articles of any kind has some scrolling, autoplaying video embedded into the site, sometimes even with audio enabled. Unfortunately I haven't seen a blocker for that because it's not considered an ad. It is definitely more annoying than most ads, though.
- asymptotically2 7y ago
  If you dig through the options, you can prevent videos from auto-playing.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  You can block both video and audio from autoplaying in Firefox by going into about:config. It works. But in Chrome AFAIK you can only mute the audio and not the video from autoplaying.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    You can stop video from playing as well in Chrome settings. Either globally, or on a site-per-site basis.
alexis_fr 7y ago
On the other hand, the GDPR has made tracking diminish a lot. It’s just time the web became bearable, and that could have a synchronous effect on Google’s decisions.
- dastx 7y ago
  Well no, instead you get a giant banner saying "will you please accept these 10 billion trackers we've installed?" With some websites you can't even say no (which mind you is against GDPR) but who's gonna sue them?

jonny383 7y ago

Great time to switch to Firefox if you haven't already. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ And before you even begin to complain about it being "too slow", "slower than Chrome", <other statement of the month>, tell us that after you're running Chrome without an ad-blocker. And even if it really is still slower by some miracle - this is a community containing world-class software engineers. Donate some of your time to bring it up to speed. Pun intended.

htfy96 7y ago
> a community containing world-class software engineers Sadly they don't seem to have world-class managers
- taneq 7y ago
  Doesn't matter how good you are at doing the thing right if you're not doing the right thing.
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    Funny how that applies to Chrome.
gnicholas 7y ago
> And before you even begin to complain about it being "too slow", "slower than Chrome", <other statement of the month>, tell us that after you're running Chrome without an ad-blocker. I run Brave without an adblocker and have found it to be much faster than Firefox (with adblocker and pi-hole). Also, as someone whose startup has both Chrome and Firefox extensions, I have to say the Firefox reviewers (who review releases and hold up the process — not end user reviewers) can be hugely annoying, and we deploy there as infrequently as possible. As a result, our Firefox customers don’t get all the latest bells and whistles. Wish it weren’t that way, but the process takes months! Edit: clarified the annoying reviewers are not end users reviewers, but the people who suck up months of time for every minor update, making confused complaints about our code, and even UI implementation.

mantap 7y ago

This is probably a good thing. Google is declaring war on adblockers, uBO is their first target but not their last. Tech savvy people are going to end up dumping Chrome en mass. Chrome has dominated the browser market by being so good, but development of non-Google browsers is about to become exciting again, and everybody benefits from that.

switch007 7y ago
Firefox development has hardly been boring: Quantum (Rust) & container tabs (and some big improvements to Dev Tools, I understand). Not a new development but addons on mobile is pretty damn cool.

EastSmith 7y ago

Given the situation Chrome should not be called Web Browser anymore. User Tracker seems better category.

stebann 7y ago

Mozilla is the real hero here. GO with the good guys!

jchw 7y ago

A lot of people are probably only reading the headline and assuming uBlock Origin was removed from Chrome Webstore, but what actually happened was a version update to the dev extension entry was rejected. We have yet to see if this is just a flake, but reading the issue it seems gorhill intends to just see what happens next dev version.

SergeAx 7y ago
Talks about ad blockers prohibition in Chrome are here for a good half of the year. So there is a rather large possibility it's beginning.
- jchw 7y ago
  I work for Google so I am biased. However, I think most of that debate surrounds Manifest v3 is misleading. I’m not a huge fan of Manifest v3s limitations, but it’s basically the same limitations as Safari as far as I understand, and the justification does make some sense. So I am hoping that things will work out. I don’t know about any other things that would impact adblocking on Chrome. Personally, I am happy with Firefox on desktop, and Safari on iPhone, and I don’t think there are any threats, perceived or actual, towards adblocking on those platforms.

SergeAx 7y ago

Switched to Firefox on Android just to have a luxury of ad absence, will do the same on a desktop the moment uBO turned off by Chrome. There was a day or two when all extensions stopped to work because of some certificate expiration - it was a horrible experience, never again.

g8oz 7y ago

Personally I'm more attached to uBlock origin than I am to Chrome.

protomikron 7y ago

So the endgame is probably that we have to switch from "adblockers" to "contentallowers": Filter everything and whitelist content?

DoctorOetker 7y ago

The double standards are getting way out of proportion here: The functionality of the advertising browser is a bundling of functionality as well: one one hand the browser functionality to let the user browse and view what he wants, and on the other hand the functionality that lets advertisements and trackers function on the user's browser willy nilly. So we have a functionality bundler (Chrome) demanding a lower level unbundler plug-in (uBO) stop bundling it's unbundling features together, while the only reason the latter exists is because of the organised bundling at a higher level...

emilengler 7y ago

Google Chrome only allows to install extensions from there web store, his would be the end of uBlock Origin for Chrome Even if I am a Firefox user I don't see a sense in using Chrome. The 'features' that Chrome can but Chromium cannot are these that we everyone love: * DRM * Centralized extension managment

kretor 7y ago

Fixed: https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/dgoymg/warning_ubo_ublock_origin_will_possibly_be/f3fwlto/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/dgoymg/warning_ubo_... > Hey all, I'm Simeon, the developer advocate for Chrome extensions. This morning I heard from the review team; they've approved the current draft so next publish should go through. Unfortunately it's the weekend, so most folks are out, but I'm planning to follow up with u/gorhill4 with more details once I have them.

karlh 7y ago

Never stopped using Firefox. Chrome came from Google, the conflicts of interest were obvious.