> 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.

> 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. I don’t know that I buy this. Chrome has a bunch of restrictions that Safari doesn’t, which make ad-blocking in particular impractical. Safari has, iirc, a hard 100,000 rule limit per blocker rule list. 1Blocker splits itself into 7 such lists to have enough room for all of the rules needed to be effective. Chrome has a hard global limit of 150,000 across all extensions. Multiple adblock authors have indicated that’s probably too tight. Safari also lets content blockers reconfigure rules on the fly, so I can add a rule or make an exception for a site as I browse as a user. Chrome requires the lists to be totally static and pre-approved by reviewers. Change a rule requires resubmitting the extension for reapproval. All-in-all it looks to me like Chrome’s changes are designed to look like what Safari does on the surface, while actually adding onerous new conditions that effectively cripple the effectiveness and usefulness of adblockers.