45 ms·

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

• lagadu 7y ago
  This was pretty inevitable, given the recent changes announced to Chrome that Google created to fight ad blockers. Why would they limit their fight to just that?
• vezycash 7y ago
  Monopoly
  • scarface74 7y ago
    For Windows there is Firefox, and IE Edge. For the Mac their are both of those plus Safari. Not to mention Chromium based browsers.
    • zaarn 7y ago
      Doesn't mean that Chrome isn't a monopoly, with their current marketshare, if Chrome introduces a new feature or changes how some feature works, all competitors have no choice but to implement that change or websites stop working.
      • scarface74 7y ago
        Right, because Apple is going to change how Safari works on iOS because of a change that Google makes.... And “monopoly” has a legal definition it isn’t defined by random HN posters every week.
        • zaarn 7y ago
          In the EU having a monopoly doesn't require you to be the only vendor in the market, it's sufficient to be large enough to exert abusive market forces on competitors. Google Chrome definitely fits that definition, so no it's not redefined by random HN posters this week.
          • scarface74 7y ago
            And having a monopoly isn’t illegal. Again, despite what all of the wannabe lawyers who post to HN think. How many times have HN users posted that Apple is a “monopoly”?
            • zaarn 7y ago
              Google is certainly not a corporation that has ever shown to have an interest in the best for their users. They have already done quite a few things that benefit them or hurt competitors (youtube's UI is slow on firefox, changing the scrolling UI for no reason, trying to kill adblockers and now blocking uBlock from their store).
              • scarface74 7y ago
                Google is no different than any other for profit corporation. Their first interest is making money by getting their customers to pay them. Their customers are advertisers. Their users are what they sell to their customers.
                • zaarn 7y ago
                  Even better reason to push for independent browser engines like Gecko (Firefox).
                  • scarface74 7y ago
                    And that’s fine. But anytime HN users start whining “monopoly” the next thing they start screaming is for government to intervene every time that Google/Apple/Amazon doesn’t something that they don’t like.
                    • zaarn 7y ago
                      Oh, don't worry, the government, or atleast the EU, should intervene and force Google to split Chrome into an independent organization.
      • cookie_monsta 7y ago
        That's not really how it worked pre-2010 when IE had the monopoly. And for all of Chrome (and Google's) faults, it does seem to be reasonably standards- compliant and even open to experimentation. If they want to spend some of their piles of cash developing new features that other browsers can then adopt and then standardise, I don't see the problem. If developers choose to use Chrome-only features and their pages break on other browsers, that's on them
        • zaarn 7y ago
          When IE had a monopoly it was bad because Microsoft made a shitty webbrowser and everyone built websites for IE. Even today I have devices which are "best viewed on IE6", thanks to modern browsers they still tend to work somewhat. Chrome will not be bad because it's a shitty browser, it'll be bad because Google can force features into standards and essentially do what they want with no recourse. It's not the developers fault directly but they inherently support an abusive vendor-user relationship. Everyone who doesn't see that is just a Google-apologist.
          • cookie_monsta 7y ago
            > it'll be bad because Google can force features into standards and essentially do what they want with no recourse. Again, not the way it worked with IE 1-8 > Everyone who doesn't see that is just a Google-apologist. Well I don't and I'm not.
            • zaarn 7y ago
              And again, that's what Google is already doing, I'm not saying they're doing the exact same things that happened with IE1-8 but a browser monopoly is still equally bad regardless of how badly a browser is maintained.
              • cookie_monsta 7y ago
                Oh, absolutely - I'm not arguing in favour of browser monopolies. I'm saying that browser standards aren't a popularity contest. You can have the most popular browser in the world but still not be able to strongarm your way into compliance. Remember attachEvent?
    • gtirloni 7y ago
      You need to think in terms of a de facto monopoly in this case: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/ https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regul... I don't know if the 69% number from StatCounter would qualify as a de facto monopoly, but it's close to the 75% number quoted in the previous article: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
      • scarface74 7y ago
        Well, “de facto” monopoly doesn’t mean anything in the eyes of the law. That’s what de jure means Despite what HN posters believe, the definition of a monopoly isn’t “a company that is big and does things I don’t like”. Also according to your own citation. Under the Sherman Act monopoly power is considered the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. Where in that act does it say anything about “banning an ad blocker”? It specifically mentions “price”. Are we going to say that the government can tell businesses what is allowed in its own store?
        • gtirloni 7y ago
          De facto means something in the eyes of the law. Where did you get it from that it doesn't? > Are we going to say that the government can tell businesses what is allowed in its own store? Yes, we definitely are. If there's a monopoly and the monopolist is blocking people from participating, of course we can get the courts involved. Just google all the antitrust cases about Microsoft, Google and Apple, among others. Re: "price", even if there's no monetary exchange, other goods are being exchanged (personal information, ads, etc).
          • scarface74 7y ago
            Is Google “blocking” anyone from using Firefox, or IE? So now are we just going to make commonly understood words like “price” mean completely random things?
    • Hamuko 7y ago
      Google Search can't be a monopoly as Bing exists. Hey guys, remember Bing?
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
• panpanna 7y ago
  HN needs a better search function :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21232438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21232438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041
  • Zarel 7y ago
    This one has a significantly less sensationalized title than the other two, though.
  • cameronbrown 7y ago
    Or not? Let's not bloat the website. Angolia HN works fine.
    • amenod 7y ago
      Or maybe HN needs an autosuggest function, something similar to what SO has? "These news were posted recently and match yours pretty closely, are you sure you want to post another one?"
• rahuldottech 7y ago
  Is anyone really surprised? Google makes all its revenue from ads. A couple months ago there was an incident where if I recall correctly, someone published a browser on the play store which allowed users to install desktop browser extensions, one of which was an adblocker for YouTube, and it was removed with vague reasons? Google has been taking steps for a long time to make it harder for adblockers to work on Chrome, and this is only the latest in the trend. uBO works just fine on Firefox, both on mobile and desktop.
  • starbugs 7y ago
    Not surprised, but a bit baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long time in the first place? It looks as if they misused the community's products and trust to build their monopoly and then kick us out once it's gotten hard enough to compete. Perhaps this is a good thing in the long run, because now people will finally have to switch and maybe contribute to improving Firefox. I am hopeful, but also I must say in my opinion Firefox is nowhere near Chrome when comparing performance, developer tooling and quality.
    • babuskov 7y ago
      > quality Yeah, that feature is a must. /s Saying "quality" doesn't actually mean anything. What exactly is "quality" in this case?
      • starbugs 7y ago
        I'll give you an example: If I place a breakpoint in a DOM mutation listener, I would like to have the same order of DOM events as if I wouldn't have placed it there.
      • tclancy 7y ago
        You are going to love Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
    • hv42 7y ago
      Firefox has better tooling for CSS (really good flexbox for e.g.) but it lacks on the JS side. One basic feature that is missing for e.g. is that one cannot open a file using the syntax filename:line:column in the source editor. You will need to navigate the line number manually after opening the file.
• radicalbyte 7y ago
  It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.
  • fishtacos 7y ago
    Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox69-chrome77-tests&num=3 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...
    • KuhlMensch 7y ago
      Agreed. Plus it doesnt have Picture-in-picture But I use FF as my main
      • starbugs 7y ago
        PIP is a good point, not supporting play/stop via Bluetooth is another for me personally.
      • phit_ 7y ago
        it does though, at least in beta
      • catalogia 7y ago
        I recommend using the "Open With" extension with mpv. This allows you to right click on any sort of video link that youtube-dl supports and launch that link in mpv. mpv has a "stay on top" feature that can be enabled by default when mpv is invoked in this way. The result is picture-in-picture that supports virtually every video site on the net.
• dooglius 7y ago
  The single-purpose excuse is the same one they used to ban AdNauseam: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
  • contravariant 7y ago
    It's not surprising they'd use that excuse as it allows them to reject extensions on entirely subjective criteria.
• ukyrgf 7y ago
  Firefox with the containers extensions powers all of my browsing. In a bewildering turn of events, Microsoft Edge Dev powers my more intricate development needs.
  • immigrantsheep 7y ago
    That's my combo as well
  • sgc 7y ago
    I am embarrassed to admit I hadn't heard of containers. Nice to see it is a Mozilla extension. I am giving it a test right now.
    • mirkules 7y ago
      Hah, this is a really cool feature. For about two years, I managed this with multiple Firefox profiles instead, but this is a nicer integration.
      • fireattack 7y ago
        Multiple-profile still has its advantage. Unfortunately it is pretty inconvenient to do so on Firefox now after the revamp (pre-57 there are plenty of extensions for that). It is much easier on Chrome, ironically.
    • Aperocky 7y ago
      It's great, a lifesaver if you will, imagine logging into two accounts simultaneously, when developing, the ability to do that is not only superficial, but essential.
      • sgc 7y ago
        I have just been using a second window in private mode, but this is much better.
  • alyandon 7y ago
• jacquesm 7y ago
  An advertising company fielding a major distribution browser always was a really bad idea.
  • gtirloni 7y ago
    It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.
    • jacquesm 7y ago
      The internet wasn't made for Google. And if you think it serves users very well too then I suggest you read TFA, it is clear that what is good for Google and what is good for users are not aligned.
      • gtirloni 7y ago
        I'm not talking from an idealist/paternalist point of view about what I think is good for users. I'm talking about letting users decide. And they seem to have decided, according to market share, that they like Chrome. Yes, users could be clueless and be trading personal privacy unwittingly but that's not what I mean about "serves users very well". I meant users look at Chrome, Firefox and others and stick to Chrome. If they didn't like Chrome, they would switch.
        • jacquesm 7y ago
          Users have not 'decided', they've had something rammed down their throats that they might not have picked if not for some pretty obvious anti-competitive behavior by Google. By your book might makes right, because Google was able to push users to convert in various ways - some of which should be or even are illegal - and it worked for them they must be delivering something that people need. But it wasn't a free choice.
      • laegooose 7y ago
        What is TFA? Brief web search didn't help
• 2ion 7y ago
  No surprise; after the manifest v3 discussion, this development was to be expected and only a matter of time.
  • rvnx 7y ago
    One of the main "advantages" (for Google) of manifest v3, is that there is, not only a blacklist, but also a whitelist of domains bundled with Google Chrome. So the logic is to restrict adblockers, to use the internal Chrome adblock so Google can decide what ads are acceptable or not. An independent study shows that YouTube ads and Search Ads are the ones that the users enjoy the most and wouldn't want to block ;)
    • rvnx 7y ago
      Link to the results: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4231068/Mobile-Web-Ad-Experiences-Ranking-02-18.jpg https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4231068/Mobile-Web-Ad-Experie... Of course, everybody loves video ads, don't we all ?
      • Ygg2 7y ago
        Yeah. I especially love 1hr 35min ad on a 5min video. /Sarcasm But search ads are ok. Since you can both ignore them easily and are often the thing you look for. Video ads are annoying interuptions I hate with passion of a burning sun. Most site ads are just sleazy shit, that serves as vector for malicious actors. I hate that with passion of an exploding supernova.
    • simias 7y ago
      >An independent study shows that YouTube ads and Search Ads are the ones that the users enjoy the most People enjoy Youtube ads the most? That's surprising to me given that they're rather intrusive and they get between you and the content you actually want to see.
    • 2ion 7y ago
      > wouldn't want to block everything that distracts or sends signals that have nothing to do with the intent of the user for visiting a site in the first place is an anti-pattern. I block all ads and even obstrusive elements using custom styles or UBO cosmetic filters... This shows especially well in older generations who are not very used to the information overflood and competition for attention on the internet. Mixing legitimate content with ads is the craziest pattern on the internet by far; and in untrained users -- most of the older ones -- this causes confusion, frustration and finally exhaustion with the medium. We who are used to this are just the internet user version of Pavlov's dogs.
• kace91 7y ago
  I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised, people being shadowbanned from dating apps that represent a majority of your chances to find a significant other, and so on. I think we need legislation to deal with these issues: people subjected to punishment should be able to know the rules they're being subjected to, the way they supposedly broke those laws, and have a non automated chance to contest the ruling. Even if these businesses aren't public property, when they represent an almost monopolistic chance to get the service they provided they should be treated as if they are.
  • michaelmrose 7y ago
    No dating app represents most of your chance to meet people. I don't believe that you have a meaningful right to use a website.
    • keyme 7y ago
      Couple that with geographic constraints and I guarantee you that's true somewhere in the world.
  • bagacrap 7y ago
    I wouldn't imagine they're impossible to challenge in cases like this. In fact I wager this post amounts to a challenge as it's nearly guaranteed a Chrome extensions developer will see it.
    • z3t4 7y ago
      Not all apps have millions of users and make front page news. Now imagine how hard it is to contact anyone inside Google if your app/extension is not that popular.
  • K0SM0S 7y ago
• 14 7y ago
  I really hope this is Chrome shooting their selves in the foot. Like a fool I am using Chrome as I type this, my excuse is Chrome has my banking numbers saved and haven't taken the 2 seconds to enter it into firefox so it is ready and convenient. But if I can't use an adblocker and if I don't have control over what runs on my hardware then kiss me goodbye. I will finish the switch today and uninstall Chrome.
  • hellcow 7y ago
    They're openly planning the end of UBlock Origin with their upcoming add-on change (Manifest v3). Start moving now.
  • mthoms 7y ago
    May I offer a suggestion? A third party password manager grants the freedom to switch browsers at will on mobile and desktop. It's a nice feeling. Of course bookmarks and extensions are another important factor but it's nice to be liberated from at least one part of the chain.
• koolba 7y ago
  >> Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy: An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users. Any speculation on what the supposed multiple purposes would be? From past experience, is that type of thing something that is automatically flagged / determined programmatically or does a human reviewer of an extension make the call?
  • alexandercrohde 7y ago
    I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. Certainly google employees and the chrome team will be aware of this within an hour if they aren't already. You can bet it's intentional if we don't see a reversal in the next 3 days."
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • zamadatix 7y ago
      > I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. The extension in question only has 9,000 users.
      • nvrspyx 7y ago
        As of January 2018, uBlock Origin has 10 million active users on Chrome. Where did you get 9,000?
        • zamadatix 7y ago
          From TFA.
          • 7y ago
• blfr 7y ago
  Chrome has always been best as a Google client. You can browse Maps in it, use Google Apps, they always work well. For regular browsing it had some nice security features but always lacked an equivalent to Tree Style Tabs. And will soon become useless without a decent ad blocker.
  • sgc 7y ago
    Unfortunately it has created an Internet Explorer effect, and weekly there is a site I need to load into Chromium because they never tested their JS on FF. Hopefully FF picks up user share and that begins to change again.
• agumonkey 7y ago
  Few monthes ago I forced myself to fully drop Chromium. Painful. But I don't have chrome on any laptops (only my smartphone). I don't regret it. Google is stringing bad news after bad news.
  • jokoon 7y ago
    what was painful?
    • Ayesh 7y ago
      Not the OP, but password management and syncing in Firefox is a bit clunky. I use and love the send to device feature and password syncing (I use FF as my main drive for desktop and mobile), but they are quite slow compared to Chrome. I get it that Chrome is syncing aggressively, which would have been nice in Firefox too, even if it eats up my mobile data. Chrome web view is also the default web view in Android.
      • throwaway8941 7y ago
        They completely reworked password manager in version 70. Try FF Developer Edition or Beta? https://i.imgur.com/o2nOB8h.png https://i.imgur.com/o2nOB8h.png
        • ripdog 7y ago
          I use and love Firefox, but password storage really shouldn't be handled by the browser. They've never done a good job at it. I use and recommend Bitwarden wholeheartedly.
      • agumonkey 7y ago
        syncing is alright, I admit I never liked it, but it works enough to do the basics stuff (automatic plugin install, shared bookmarks) without caring much more. Maybe it's amazing and I just never learned about it.
    • dev_dull 7y ago
• thefsb 7y ago
  I switched to FF after Prism was publicized. It's good. Go for it.
• Barrin92 7y ago
  time to bring out the anti-trust hammer and separate chrome and other google entities from the search and ad business. It really seems like they're asking for it.
  • eugeniub 7y ago
    Seems like wishful thinking given that there's been no significant anti-trust action taken by the U.S. government in years.
  • helpPeople 7y ago
    I don't understand. Out of every company in tech, Google has made my life fantastic. I don't understand the Google hate, I don't know where it comes from. People don't like getting relevant advertising, but they do like when Apple closes off their App store 'for safety'. I don't know why the double standard. I personally think this is a massive advertising campaign from one of the FAANG companies and we are the tools that discuss it.
    • TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > I don't understand the Google hate, I don't know where it comes from. Surveillance, advertising, bloat, ever worsening UX of their software, random product shutdowns, random bans & lack of human support to resolve false positives. I could go on. What people like is software that lets them accomplish what they need unobtrusively. People like Apple's store to the extent it doesn't let garbage and adware in. But people also dislike Apple for not allowing sideloading. Perfectly consistent position to have, IMO.
    • Barrin92 7y ago
      I like Google search as well, and I'll look at a bunch of ads on it if I have to, but I don't see the logical connection here how that implies we need to tolerate bad standards in web browsers or the android platform. Spin-off ads and search from android and chrome and search will be just as great and we don't need to infest web standards with rules that only exist to serve the ad business. I don't practise any double standard here either. Same goes for apple. If they use their app store to stop competition by for example Spotify to promote apple music, break that up as well. The same thing for amazon, if they use AWS money to price dump on eCommerce or disadvantage third-party sellers, break it up. I don't have any favourites here, whenever one of these companies engages in activity that is clearly bad for the ecosystem just for their own benefit I would like to see a very rapid and proactive response.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• hailhash 7y ago
  This is the lamest excuse to block UBO. Do you need more reasons to ditch Chrome?
• outside1234 7y ago
  Edge on Chromium is a great browser! Been using it for three months now and am never going back. Also, while I am here, you should all be using a Pi Hole instead of uBlock Origin anyway. Much less detectable by sites, covers all of your devices... Seriously, spend the 1 hour it takes to set up the Pi Hole - you won’t regret it.
  • trulyrandom 7y ago
    Pi-hole is a basically a glorified DNS filter. While it's great for blocking DNS names across all devices on your network, it is not a replacement for browser plugins like uBlock Origin.
  • armitron 7y ago
    Pi Hole is a very poor substitute for uBlock origin, it doesn't block Youtube or Twitch ads for example or do anything dynamic. Plus it's full of false positives since DNS rules can be very coarse or change continuously. Not to mention the trouble you have to go to when sites break due to that coarseness or that in many cases it degrades functionality that's not immediately obvious. uBlock origin is the king of adblocking, and suffers from none of these issues. Use anything else and you're severely compromising. I'd go as far as to say that DNS adblocking is basically a waste of resources, a gimmick, the wrong solution to a well-defined problem.
    • somebehemoth 7y ago
      You make good points but it sounds very silly to claim DNS adblocking is a waste of resources. One, to each his own. Two, no false positives in our home and 10%-15% of DNS queries blocked is definitely not the "wrong solution" for me and many, many others. Why trivialize legitimate use cases to make your point. Furthermore, you can't install ublock origin on IoT devices and smart TV's so your claim of "waste of resources" is even more questionable. Better still, why not both pihole and ublock origin?
    • treypitt 7y ago
      Yes, but ublock doesn't write software that can be deployed to every device on your home network
• armitron 7y ago
  Fuck Google. They've become the cancer of the Internet. Microsoft in its glory days wasn't even close to how despicably terrible Google is.
  • alexandercrohde 7y ago
    I think that's an interesting comparison. There is definitely some merit to it. It's kind of hard to sum all the good and bad of google or microsoft off the top of my head though.
• zaphod420 7y ago
  I use FireFox as my primary browser, but I'm also a big fan of Brave.
• ivanhoe 7y ago
  What are the options for manual installation?
  • rvnx 7y ago
    chrome://extensions Enter Developer Mode and Load from folder (also valid on Kiwi Browser for Android and Yandex Browser)
    • prashnts 7y ago
      Note that extensions installed this way will be disabled whenever the browser is restarted. (In chrome, not in Brave based on my experience)
• ignoramous 7y ago
  If you have to use Chromium, at this point it is clear that Brave is a better Chromium than Chrome [0][1] despite its BAT shenanigans. The UX is super nice, and adblocking just works without having to install any extensions. Hopefully Brave doesn't buy into the whole PrivacySandbox thing Google proposed [2]. For everything else, Firefox should be the default [3][4]. It'd be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker like uBlockOrigin [5] in its distributions and introduces First-Party Isolation [6]. DoH is a welcome addition, esp since it can be used with AdGuard DNS [7] for another layer of content blocking. Firefox Private Network [8] is yet another step in the right direction, as are the anti-fingerprinting techniques [9] it has been upstreaming from the Tor Browser. With WASM around the corner, it'd be wonderful when native apps could be run from within a privacy-friendly sandbox like Firefox. Imagine using WhatsApp/Instagram on Android within Firefox with content blockers... Next up: Strike partnerships with Android OEMs and bundle the browser as default. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052923 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263649 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17361168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17361168 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20874006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20874006 [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788410 [8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832 [9] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20054831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20054831
  • bureaucrat 7y ago
    I’d rather trust Google than Brave.
    • unityByFreedom 7y ago
      Same. Plus, even with Brave, you'd still need to install the latest uBO from github, so there's no benefit aside from "I hate Google but I'll still use a fork of their open source browser"
• tyingq 7y ago
  There should be a threshold of "number of active extension users" where Google has a human provide an actual explanation when rejecting an update.
  • Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    There should be a threshold of "number of active users" where any online platform or business other than online retailers becomes forcibly nationalized and restructured as a nonprofit instrument of the first amendment, and any employee caught attempting to implement any filters or bans after that point is hanged for treason.
  • soup10 7y ago
    "Your extension prevents billions of ads from being showed and we want that money."
    • TeMPOraL 7y ago
      They'd get +googol respect from me if they'd ever actually say that line. It sucks that companies can't just communicate honestly about their intentions.
      • soup10 7y ago
        Not exactly a secret, this is a quote from their Q1 earnings call: "Let me now turn to our segment financial results. Starting with the Google segment, revenues were $36.2 billion, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of the revenue detail, Google Sites revenues were $25.7 billion in the quarter, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of dollar growth, results were led again by mobile search with a strong contribution from YouTube, followed by Desktop Search. Network revenues were $5 billion, up 8% year-on-year, continuing to reflect the performance of the primary drivers of growth, AdMob, followed by Google Ad Manager."
        • TeMPOraL 7y ago
          Sure, but the words in the previous comment of yours were direct statement of intent. That's different from talking about what are the drivers of revenue, without mentioning what are the problems and whether they want to do something about them.
• SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
  You can still side load https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
  • zamadatix 7y ago
    You get a bunch of nagging when you sideload.
• vdfs 7y ago
  This is a development version that was blocked, the main extension was not blocked.
  • _Microft 7y ago
    They expect to be no longer able to update it. "Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0.", https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#issuecomment-539962215 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#iss...
• dethos 7y ago
  So it begins...
• diimdeep 7y ago
  Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-discard/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-zoom/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...
  • k__ 7y ago
    At the moment I only have one issue with FF. I can't use bookmarklets on pages like FB and Twitter, because of some wrong implementation of a content policiy or something like that...
    • severine 7y ago
      https://github.com/mems/bookmarklets-context-menu https://github.com/mems/bookmarklets-context-menu https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/bookmarklets-context-menu/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/bookmarklets-contex...
    • visarga 7y ago
      My issue with FF is that it doesn't batch load the favicons after importing bookmarks from Chrome. The globe icon is fugly. The items in bookmarks are too closely spaced and look bad. It just looks like amateur hour.
  • tgv 7y ago
    Why Nightly? It's not guaranteed to be rock solid.
    • the_pwner224 7y ago
      I've been using it for a few years and it has been rock solid for me.
    • bigjimmyk3 7y ago
      Right now, nightly contains updates that are specific to energy usage on MacOS (in a good way).
• finchisko 7y ago
  It's about time Mozilla to release FF with nightly macOS optimizations and I'm ready to switch on all platforms I use. I moved from Safari back to Chrome week ago, because Apple basically did same thing - killed uBlock in Safari 13. I was expecting to move to FF soon or later, but didn't expect it will be in less than a month. :)
• dessant 7y ago
  Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the face of this company is not to ask them to behave nicely, but to force them to open up their platforms, so that the future of software we enjoy today does not depend on the whims of Google. As an example of their behavior, I've shared my discussion [1] with Chrome Web Store reviewers when the time came for one of my projects to be taken down. You cannot expect them to respond properly and apply critical thinking, and showing even slight resistance may lead to further retaliation from their part. The extension review process at Firefox is not flawless either, but you get to talk to human beings who respond appropiately, offer sensible viewpoints, listen to your feedback, and adjust their position during reviews. [1] https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57 https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57
  • helpPeople 7y ago
    Switching browsers is easy. I have 3 on my desktop. This is a non issue for me. But I agree with your premise, Apple has been pulling this for a decade, consumers and developers all lose.
    • SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
      Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.
      • mgleason_3 7y ago
        Yup I really wish uBlock origin was available for Safari 13...
      • 7y ago
• finchisko 7y ago
  I hope, that Google will not put pressure on Mozilla to do same thing - remove uBlock Origin from Firefox extensions, since they still have leverage on Mozilla - hefty amounts for being first in their search list. Not sure if Mozilla is able to survive without Google (but hope they can).
• kerng 7y ago
  It's probably a good thing long term. Tech savvy folks will leave Chrome behind like we did with IE. It will encourage alternatives and the web and browsers might get exciting again!
• seanwilson 7y ago
  Wow, this scares me a lot. So if you upload an update to an existing extension that has many users, if a human reviewer arbitrarily decides to reject the update, the entire extension is removed from the store? Or just the recent update? If the entire extension is removed that makes updating an existing app a terrifying process. Do they apply the same standards to top paid extensions like LastPass and Grammarly? I run a freemium SEO Chrome extension (https://www.checkbot.io https://www.checkbot.io) with 30K active users - if the extension got taken down suddenly it would anger + confuse existing users and directly impact sales. As a backup, you could ask users to download and install the extension in developer mode but this would crush the conversion rate for the free version and you'd lose all organic traffic via the Chrome Web Store. Google already killed Chrome Apps (taking with it functionality you couldn't do in Chrome extensions) and Manifest v3 is going to introduce yet to be decided restrictions. At least these restrictions don't rely on the whims of human reviewers though. Right now, my stomach drops whenever I see a Chrome extension development announcement.
  • troydavis 7y ago
    > Wow, this scares me a lot. So if you upload an update to an existing extension that has many users, if a human reviewer arbitrarily decides to reject the update, the entire extension is removed from the store? Or just the recent update? I've had an extension in the Chrome Web Store for 5 years and it's been unilaterally un-published with no warning at least 3 times. This is an extension that has many thousands of active installs, is free with no ads, and has specific simple functionality (defines a new tab page) and no access to browsing history or other permissions. It's the absolute best case. 2 of the 3 times, no reason was given. The exact same version was later re-published, after far too many emails. The 3rd time, a debatable reason was given - though again, the same version had been up for many years and was serving thousands of users. Each time the extension gets un-published, it starts a days- or weeks-long ticket thread with Google's painfully automated review process. There's not a Google employee who simply explains what they did and why (and why no warning was given). Google just chooses from a set of email templates. If you're lucky and/or keep emailing over and over, they'll add 10 words about what was done. I've had an IRS audit and, having experienced both, the IRS audit was easier, more predictable/logical, and more enjoyable than any of the 3 attempts to get my extension re-published. (If anyone from the Chrome Web Store team wants help improving the publishing and review process, feel free to contact me. It's so broken that I can't imagine Google needs more input, but I'm willing.)
• sabujp 7y ago
  switch to brave
• alexfromapex 7y ago
  Someone needs to create a rival search engine to Google. I have tried switching but Bing and DuckDuckGo aren't anywhere near as good.
  • behringer 7y ago
    Now is the best time too since Google is getting so terrible, not returning any decent websites for the search terms entered, ignoring keywords, returning what it thinks I want or what's good for google instead of returning what I'm looking for. The market is ready for a new provider imo.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • hrudham 7y ago
    I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default search engine for the last year or so; it's certainly improved a lot. Something that can help this transition is the bang support [0], with `!g` prefixed to your query. This redirects you to google with same query if you find that the results are not satisfactory. I used to use it a lot, but I've found I've needed it a lot less lately. [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/bang https://duckduckgo.com/bang
    • nvrspyx 7y ago
      I recommend using `!s` instead, which will use Startpage instead of Google. But, since Startpage actually uses Google for search results in a private manner (similar to DDG using Bing and Oath/Yahoo), you'll get the same results as Google, but privately like DuckDuckGo. Since !bangs are just using the URL search scheme of the site you're trying to search, it's just redirecting you to Google when you use !g, which allows Google to set cookies and use trackers. By using !g, one is sort of defeating the purpose of using DDG, so that's why I always like to recommend using Startpage and !s as a fallback instead.
  • ravenstine 7y ago
    I'll take DDG's inferior results over Google's better results due to them tracking everything I do.
• SparkleBunny 7y ago
  Welcome back to Firefox all! Get NoScript while you're at it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
• quotemstr 7y ago
  Over the past few years, it's become normal for a tiny number of people at a tiny number of companies to make decisions about which software packages ordinary people can run on devices that they own. When this practice started, a few people, myself included, said it would lead to a dark place. We were ignored. Can we revisit this decision now? As a general principle, if you own a device, you should be able to override any west-coast meeting room and run any package you want on it. If necessary, we should guarantee this freedom with legislation. The alternative is an inevitable shift toward banning things that this tiny group of software supervisors finds inconvenient.
• thinkloop 7y ago
  Why this constant painful guessing game? Why don't they just tell you what they detected you did wrong? What portion of our society is broken that does not allow for this?
  • k1e 7y ago
    It can be automated response. They use automated testing for extensions and they want to make it harder to guess how it works.
• fencepost 7y ago
  I didn't see a mention of this, but a review of the changes since the last accepted version shows 2 things: a bunch of description text changes mostly for character escaping and the hiding of one bar graph. slow clap that's some dangerous stuff you're blocking there Google. Are the gsuite components distributed through the CWS?
• blacklight86 7y ago
  I switched to Brave a few months ago because I knew that Google would have done exactly a move like this. People should simply stop using Chrome because there's not a single good reason left to use it. Once upon a time it used to advertise its complete adherence to web standards, but nowadays it has now become the new IE when it comes to breaking them. And from now on it'll do everything not to harm Google's core business (i.e. ads revenue). And, unlike 10 years ago, there's plenty of comparable or better alternatives around.
  • elEAOALTBIG 7y ago
    > People should simply stop using Chrome because there's not a single good reason left to use it. The convenience of being able to access your data between devices.
    • the_pwner224 7y ago
      Firefox sync works great. It's e2e encrypted too.
  • lostmsu 7y ago
    It uses the same extension store though.
    • BrendanEich 7y ago
      That's good, for now. We'll have our own store with a better curation model, when we are a little bigger and depending on how harshly Google treats uBO and uMatrix.
• netfl0 7y ago
  I am constantly surprised that anyone is surprised by this.
• darkhorn 7y ago
  Use Firefox. It has build-in ad blocker.
• prashnts 7y ago
  I have had similar rejections because my extension was asking for “broad host permissions”, however, the “https://*.<extension https://*.<extension api domain>” was the only url we needed permission for, simply because that’s required for extension. The “single purpose” extension part makes no sense to be honest. If the extension wants to provide a complete offline experience, you can’t do that. You need to split it into n different extensions and glue them together somehow. And I won’t even start about the documentation which is basically 5 years in past. Some pages describe apis available, give you examples and then you realise it’s all deprecated! Completely understand why uBlock maintainers aren’t keen to retry the submission. I’ve switched to firefox for all the development flow, and treat Chrome as Second-Class citizen in this case by using “web-ext-polyfill” (thanks Firefox!) to get chrome extension work.
• surfsvammel 7y ago
  I love my Pi-hole. Best thing since sliced bread. Google will have a hard time outmanoeuvring that one.
  • callmeal 7y ago
    Well, that's why they're pushing so hard for DoH (DNS over HTTPS) in the name of "security". There's no easy way for pi-hole to work around that.
• caseydonahue 7y ago
  Would it be possible to create a desktop app that acted as a third party chrome extension store? Chrome let's you installed developer zip files without needing approval, could you make a desktop app that automatically downloaded the latest version and uploaded it to all devices as a zip file in chrome?
• bronlund 7y ago
  I'm using Firefox Developer Edition as my main browser, but anytime I have to work with the Google ecosystem I use Vivaldi - and I only use it for that.
• FpUser 7y ago
  Chrome free (except checking if my web stuff works) for over 3 month already
• torstenvl 7y ago
  This is truly unfortunate. So much of life today involves using the web, it's disheartening that there are so few usable web browsers anymore (and before someone chimes in, Firefox broke their PKI functionality sometime in the last two years or so, so it's a non-starter).
• avl999 7y ago
  Firefox is a superior product and has been for a few years now even discounting all these shenanigans by Google. I urge anyone who is still on Chrome to switch.
• techslave 7y ago
  no love for safari here? everything is great about it except for lack of profiles
  • wizlord 7y ago
    Wut
• fyijbcxas 7y ago
  a couple issues with firefox is password support and it just doesn’t work well with many Google services like GCP
• white-moss 7y ago
  I've donated Mozilla. I love Firefox. I love freedom of Internet. Don't be evil, Google!
  • white-moss 7y ago
    Typo : donated -> donated money to Sorry for my bad English :(
• Vaslo 7y ago
  I use Firefox and the new Chromium Edge. Haven’t use Chrome in a few years and don’t miss it.
• qwerty456127 7y ago
  I don't mind installing uBlock Origin manually from GitHub or whatever yet I'm certainly not going to use a browser without uBlock Origin.
• ktaube 7y ago
  The only thing that I really miss from the firefox is possibility to pinch to zoom. Has anyone heard about any plans for it to be implemented?
  • pkulak 7y ago
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-zoom/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...
• Jimmc414 7y ago
  I really want to use FF over Chrome and I generally do, but I find it more of a memory hog than Chrome, which is saying a lot.
• randompi 7y ago
  Does that mean the end of uBO in Chrome?
  • hannasanarion 7y ago
    No, it means that there's no update for people using the development branch. We shouldn't start worrying unless Google also rejects the next commit.
• jasonvorhe 7y ago
  I'm willing to bet this is just completely blown out of proportion and that the next release will come through again. It's not like UBO was completely blocked from the Chrome Store.
• taurath 7y ago
  Employees at Google - fix this now. I’m rather disturbed that on HN of all places not a single comment is talking about anything other than going to another browser. Google should fix this, and there should be plenty of people here who can voice it internally.
  • on_and_off 7y ago
    already fixed by googlers : 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_...
    • taurath 7y ago
      That is great news. Thank you.
• rvnx 7y ago
  "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."
• joshka 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.
  • neonate 7y ago
    Seven minutes between that comment there and this one here. Arbitrage.
    • rvnx 7y ago
      even less, I posted it earlier if you extend in More :)
  • dependenttypes 7y ago
    The only reason that this was resolved was because ublock is a popular project. The other projects linked there did not have as much luck. Just the fact that they reply in this way on issues is disgusting: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#issuecomment-539962215 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#iss... https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57#issuecomment-511465393 https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57#issueco...
    • dessant 7y ago
      Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social media. So yes, Google will eventually be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. Google will not get to decide what software the majority of humans can install in their browsers, the same way Microsoft is not allowed to block you for arbitrary reasons from installing software on your Windows devices.
• anoplus 7y ago
  Switched to FF and DDG a while ago. I am happy and very rarely use Chrome or Google search.
• brolacc 7y ago
  Too bad. I use Brave browser at the moment as an alternative.
• devwastaken 7y ago
  If that's the hill chrome wants to die on then they can watch everyone install Firefox. The internet is unusable without an adblocker. It's very simple to just use Firefox, I've had no negative differences or learning curves from it, and previously would just swap between the two.
• megous 7y ago
  Compare this with GNU/Linux distribution model, from the developer PoV. It's so nice, compared to this arbitrary arrogant gatekeeper non-sense that happens with Google/Apple/... You write a useful app, publish it on your own web page, and distributors will actually come to your website, check the app, review it, build it for you, even for multiple archs sometimes, and distribute it via worldwide network of mirrors. There are even many competing distributions, so no single one has power to exclude you, users can download your app from your website and use it too, etc. Nobody will be able to stop them. For projects where there's no money in distribution, like those mentioned here, it's like a developer heaven. And next time someone will talk to me about how fragmentation in the Linux distribution ecosystem is bad, and that there are too many distributions, etc... I'm really glad there are, because if alternative is this amount of power accumullated in single hands, and this kind of behavior, then that is not desirable.
• zelly 7y ago
  Mozilla has a lot of employees focused on making a libre browser. Instead of wasting time on the Gecko sinking ship, they should really be maintaining a fork of Chromium without the cancer. The world isn't any better off because you can't get over a massive sunk cost. What the world needs is a free Chromium fork (with all the Mozilla integrations like sync and the addons) that is professionally maintained for widespread use.
• RedComet 7y ago
  Google is a villainous monstrosity. Maybe these sort of events will finally wake the tech crowd up to this since it personally affects them. Dear US/EU gov: BREAK UP GOOGLE.
• shsuejehdun 7y ago
  How about applying such regulatory process to discussion/news boards like Hacker News and Reddit? I posted a critical inquiry to a thread where China was being rightfully accused of human rights violations about our own (America’s own) human rights violations from our border detention camps, child separation, and denying medicine to detainees, among various other atrocities like destabilizing countries around the world and most recently leaving allies to be slaughtered. In other words, we have no right to shame China given our worse-than-China moral failings. I was flagged and then my reply to the flagging which rightfully accused HN of being a dictatorship was deleted (or at least it has a - symbol that does not allow it to be expanded) Why do we keep pretending that this place (HN) is some sort of open discussion space where critical questioning is allowed? It’s Bullshit.
  • dang 7y ago
    Why don't you supply a link so the community can make up its own mind, rather than having you frame the story for them? To judge by what you just posted, it sounds like your earlier posts have been breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), which would explain why users flagged them and/or mods moderated them. HN's standard is clear: this is a site for intellectual curiosity. Everything else follows. It isn't for flamewars, and while some political overlap is inevitable, comments must be thoughtful and substantive. Using the site primarily for political battle is not allowed, nor is flamebait (nationalistic flamebait in particular), and you can't take a thread off on inflammatory tangents, as you just did with this comment here. (I detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233229 and marked it off-topic.) Does that mean HN is or isn't "some sort of open discussion space where critical questioning is allowed"? That depends on how you define that. If by "open" you mean open to arbitrary flamewar, HN is not. Such discussion spaces destroy themselves pretty quickly, so it's not clear how "open" they remain in the long run anyhow. HN's goal, from the beginning, has been not to destroy itself in this way.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• daniel_iversen 7y ago
  If you’re into having a more privacy-by-default Conscious browsing experience I strongly suggest you try Brave. It’s awesome and for 6+ months all my work and home stuff and chrome plugins have worked flawlessly in it (all I had to google was how to enable chromecast). It’s fast, delightful, private, low battery consumption!
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• unnouinceput 7y ago
  Quote: "Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0. Those who still want to use uBO will have to find another browser for which uBO will still be available." Hell yeah, Brave or Firefox. I dumped Chrome half a year ago, switched to Firefox and DuckDuckGo. I love my uBO + NoScript + PrivacyBadger extensions on Firefox.
• sodosopa 7y ago
  Hopefully despite Google's fuckups about uBO, there will still be a way to load this on Brave even after it stops being available for Chrome. Chrome's speed on my 2012 mac is still faster than any build of Firefox and Safari is just not as good.
  • BrendanEich 7y ago
    Yes, we said we will keep webRequest extensions working even when Google kills them (except for paying enterprise customers who group-admin some into a whitelist).
• truth_seeker 7y ago
  Sad news. I am happy with Brave though.
• prirun 7y ago
  Here's what freaks me out: "Important Note Repeated or egregious violations of the policies may result in your developer account being banned from the store. This may also result in the suspension of related Google services associated with your Google account." Google is into all these different services and wants them all managed from one Google ID. But if you have a problem with one of their services, it can screw you on all of their services.
• JVIDEL 7y ago
  IT BEGINS