22 ms·

PSA: uBlock/AdBlocks on Chrome to lose function thanks to Manifestv3

571 points by diplodocusaur 5y ago

Flankk 5y ago
Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.
- everdrive 5y ago
  We have more than too much content right now, and in my mind the tracking and ads means that the “free” content is not worth the price. I’d rather there be less content if it meant no tracking.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  Ads consistently overwhelm main content, hijack navigation, and rely on mass collection of user data to sustain the adtech industry. They’re one of the worst products of the tech industry.
- justbaker 5y ago
  Are you serious?
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  By themselves, ads aren't the real problem --- personalized ads are the problem. The idea that they have to profile and track your every move all over the internet in order to try and sell you stuff you don't really want or need. Example: If I go to a pet supply web site, an ad for dog food is perfectly understandable --- maybe even welcomed. But just because I was profiled visiting and maybe even buying, I shouldn't be bombarded with ads for cat food all over the internet. Even worse is the fact that over time, your profile becomes incredibly detailed. They sell this info to their "affiliates" -- which is basically any data broker willing to pay for it. Next thing you know, your insurance rates are being increased based on something they found in your profile. For the individual consumer, there is nothing good about privacy invasion and personalized ads.
  - ehutch79 5y ago
    No, ads are a problem. when a sprint ad walks across your browser and starts talking while in front of content, that was it for me.
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      That is annoying ... but it could be much more detrimental than annoying if it is also reporting back to a global tracking network that sells your profile to be used against you by a multitude of other actors. The difference here is between you watching ads versus ads watching you.
      - ehutch79 5y ago
        Or both? It can do both.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    I don't care if they have my data. My data is useless to me. Have it. I don't even think it's worth that much in the first place. I care that they make the web a crappy, unusable, annoying place. They make the browsing experience less secure. They slow down the webpages and eat bandwidth. They look ugly. It' my goddamn pc, i very well can choose what to run on it.
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      I don't care if they have my data. You should. They're inventing new ways to use this data against you all the time. For example, there has been some effort to profile you based on the price you pay for goods on the internet. They assign you a "sucker score". Once you're classified as a sucker, the price you get offered is higher than what a "non-sucker" might receive. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-online-shopping-makes-suckers-of-us-all/521448/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-onl...
      - RealityVoid 5y ago
- notforsale 5y ago
  Previously, ad companies made ads that were watched by people. Now they feel entitled to push ads that are watching people. That's a deal breaker.
- howdydoo 5y ago
  I'll reply to this comment in a minute, but before I do, have you played Raid Shadow Legends?
- vimy 5y ago
  I wouldn’t mind simple banner ads without tracking. The digital equivalent of magazine ads.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    This is the model that DuckDuckGo uses. They simply show ads related to your search terms. No global tracking required.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  Any semi-serious security posture must involve blocking ads. The incentives in the adtech industry mean that the security issues with ads can never be fixed.
  - macNchz 5y ago
    This was really what made the decision easy for me back however many years ago when I started using an adblocker. Internet ads can be irritating and the pervasive cross site tracking and profiling bothers me, but I don’t have fundamental issues with advertising generally. What is totally unacceptable is being served ads with malicious payloads on major websites. If a website wants me to take their “please disable your adblocker” popup seriously they need to make 100% sure they don’t serve ads that instantly redirect the browser to a fake facebook phishing website that breaks the back button. Until then it’s adblock everywhere and the same for all of my friends and family to whom I give computer help.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  To put it as politely as I possibly can: advertisers can suck my ass. They could have been good citizens, but they've proven time and time again they'd rather be the scum of the goddamned earth and use every annoying and malicious trick in the book to fool you into paying attention to their bullshit for the second or two it takes to make their shit go away instead. Not to mention all the overhead of their shit making everything fucking slow as hell.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Hehe well put, we are way past the point of wanting to put up with ads as users. The question is how far Google wants to take Manifest V3. The current path will mean a huge boost for browsers with Manifest V2 capability, e.g. Brave, Firefox and to some extent Safari.
- smokey_circles 5y ago
  there's nothing mild about many online ads. pages load faster and I don't use as much bandwidth. YouTube et al are ok, not so much other pages
- butz 5y ago
  uBlock Origin can do much more than block ads: you can block annoying live chat scripts, cookie banners, disable JavaScript for specific domains, and even limit maximum size of assets downloaded from website (e.g. huge gif files, images or videos). It's amazing how much faster browsing becomes with correctly customized uBlock Origin.
- feanaro 5y ago
  I personally don't care about "content creators". I create a lot of content for free because it's useful for me in other ways and interesting on its own. Modern ads are surveillance tech and I want to see that die at any cost. Ads would then either have to adapt to stop being surveillance-based or the most interesting "content creators" would adapt to monetize in other ways. I really don't see a future in which interesting "content" just stops existing just because tracking ads don't exist. If people want things, they will appear and eventually will be able to be monetized in some way.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > If people want things, they will appear Yeah, which explains why journalism has pretty much collapsed in the past few decades.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  I'm going to back up the GP on this! HN users tend to get annoyed by (1) ads, (2) paywalls, and (3) articles without enough research (aka time aka money). I'm cognizant of the fact that HN isn't a hive mind, and so these complaints aren't necessarily coming from the same people—but some certainly are. Well, which is it? Or do we expect content creators to work for free? If we have to pick a poison—and, well, I think we do—the ad model has one major advantage: accessibility. If we want to make information available to as many people as possible, an ad-supported model is the way to do it. Paywalls lock out everyone at the lower end of the income bracket, and force everyone consume content from only a smaller number of sources (since subscribing to every website is impractical). This isn't to ignore all of the negative social consequences of advertising. The question isn't whether ads are bad, because they absolutely are—the question is whether they're worth the cost of accessible journalism.
  - corobo 5y ago
    > Well, which is it? Or do we expect content creators to work for free? "we" don't care either way. Their business model is their business In any case there's plenty of people not blocking ads. It looks like everyone uses adblock if you look at a tech audience because they are a tech audience, not because everyone is using adblock
  - simion314 5y ago
    > If we want to make information available to as many people as possible, an ad-supported model is the way to do it There are alternatives, a good one I see used in Ptreon, the supporters get early access to content, the rest will get it a month later. Let me try find the pros and cons Cons: - you need first to find supporters, so for a while you need to work hard to get them - some supporters might feel entitled to stuff, you need to make sure to be clear about what being a supporter means - you need to be very clear and transparent , some supporters will not tolerate delays or low quality/quantity updates Pro: - you have a predictable revenue model, you don't depend on an algorithm - you mostly don't have to censor your content (there are exceptions true, but there are alternatives) - you don't have to promote scams like VPNs, shit games with loot boxes, crypto scams - you are not forced by an algorithms to release on a certain text/video length , a certain schedule , use certain shitty thumbnails or click-bait titles - if you make public your content after a month or week etc, your fans that don't have money still get it and will promote it, also influencers will promote it because they know it will be free after a time interval. This patreon model does not solve everything, just wanted to mention that there are alternatives to shity ads that track and manipulate you. Other alternative would be honest contextual ads, like if you search for printer ink from city A then Google/Bing could show you an ad from a local shop that refils ink cartridges.
- Bayart 5y ago
  To me, browsing without ad-blocking is absolutely impossible. I've got a very low threshold of tolerance for those things. And I frankly couldn't care less whether people can earn money off advertising or not. I don't consider it making an honest living. If their businesses failed because of it, so be it. I feel the same about data collection and tracking. As far as I'm concerned, we'd all be better off if that entire industry was nuked off the face of the Internet.
  - bambax 5y ago
    Absolutely agree.
- sieabahlpark 5y ago
  You're going to be hard pressed to find many people who are going to agree with your premise that ads are only a "mild" annoyance. Nobody wants to hear the stupid jingles on YouTube every 5 minutes (yes, I've had them every 5 minutes). I'm sick of lazy loading ads shifting content and then when I interact with the main content spring to life with that interaction and start playing audio. I don't want ads at all, period. Their abusive history is enough reason for that. I do not care if the website owner goes broke, if they want to live off of it charge for it. If people don't want to pay then a lot of people need to realize their content isn't all that valuable in the first place. It is great that small businesses can use ads, but unfortunately the market has ruined it for everyone by being so lax with the experience as a whole. Ads lie and sell you shit, so everything that shows up is probably shit.
- sennight 5y ago
  Is it my responsibility to help "content creator" small business growth regardless of how ridiculous their revenue model is? Here is a tip: put some thought into the sustainability of tossing that responsibility over the wall to Google - if you want money, do the work. There was a time, not very long ago, when you could pretty easily control the amount of marketing you exposed yourself to.
- arthur6667 5y ago
  Firstly 'very mild annoyance' for you maybe, I'd rather eat bricks then watch the endless ads and popups. Now a good old advertisement, like you'd get in magazines, target based on context are fine. Even some TV commercials are fine, I'd rather not have 20 minute on the hour of them, but meh. It's all the low effort, spammy targeted crap that is the problem imo. And 'ads also help small businesses to grow' is bs if you ask me. - online ads are largely for the big business as small business gets crowded out & out-spend on search terms etc. - targeted ads do not contribute meaningfully to conversion if you look close enough. Conversion metrics are crap as they do not account for the huge selection bias involved. - marketing in general contributes nothing to society, it is all busy-work that changes nothing but maybe moving some people around between brands. It is a zero-sum game where the everybody keeps spending more and more and more for less impact & the market as whole is not impacted. - 70 to 90% of all clicks & impressions are by bots. - Content creators get jack shit for advertisements, if you pay like 1$ a month for someone's patreon or whatever you are generating more revenue then watching a thousand ads. And then there is all the nefarious uses of targeted advertising that follow from it...
- Mezzie 5y ago
  My job requires me to spend hours online, including on a lot of news sites. I block all ads for my own mental health: The last thing I want is ads that are calculated to work me up and make me angry/upset following me around everywhere because of my job. Likewise, just because I work doesn't mean I should be forced to be a captive audience for companies/groups trying to work me up. On a larger scale, I believe the mental health harms to the general populace of incessant and emotionally manipulative advertising is far worse in consequence than some artists not earning money (and I've supported myself writing fiction, I'm not dismissing creators here). If artists earned money but it required 80% of the population to become hooked on bath salts, I'd consider that a problem. Also, I have MS and that includes some twitches/spasms + I'm slightly visually impaired so I have some accessibility stuff set up and jumping/moving ads etc. are a common issue for me, as is engaging on accident through a finger/hand spasm. Now consider how many people are elderly or have vision issues; I feel like ads are uniquely predatory to certain populations.
- gpvos 5y ago
  In principle I don't mind ads, but I do mind the cross-domain tracking. If sites served ads from their own domains, I'd keep them. I consider it up to web site owners to figure out how to make money from their site if that's what they want to do. Until they and the ad providers come up with an acceptable and practical way of doing that, I am willing to look at their content as long as they're willing to serve it to me. Then there are also the ads that are annoying: those with moving parts or sound. I will always block those.
- jimbobimbo 5y ago
  I used to not block ads, but today it's almost impossible to use any site that depends on ad revenue without an ad blocker. The amount of garbage on the page - notifications, badges, banners, popups, whatever else crap marketing people invent - is staggering. Sites are mangled to the point of being unusable. I want to support creators, but it's a two-way street.
- jnwatson 5y ago
  I had the same opinion, until they started delivering malware. Then, realizing how much better web pages load without ads, I was hooked.
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  Besides the issue of tracking and such, there's the fact that limiting arbitrary unchecked third-party executable code to run on your computer is a good thing. I use uBlock primarily as a line of defense, not just to avoid annoying ads. As an example, a few years ago the ad network of a newspaper here in Norway was hacked. Anyone visiting their site (or affiliates) would silently and without any user interaction get infected with a banking malware. The malware that time would cause bank transfers made through the online banking site of the most popular bank here to go to a different account than the one specified. It could have done something else.
- syshum 5y ago
  Ok, I will address what you have asked for. Tracking based Ads generated by Google Ad-words and other networks should cease being viewed by content creators as the "primary source" of revenue, creators need to get creative and come up with better, most lasting revenue sources. Many already have, from direct memberships, merch, first party ads, but I am sure there are other more creative ways to make money The lazy days of "just toss an adwords tracking cookie everywhere for the fast cash" is over, and I for one will celebrate the death of Ad words and all the other tracking ad networks
- jccalhoun 5y ago
  Let me give an example. I teach public speaking and I often use online-stopwatch.com as a timer for quick practice speech stuff in class. I had not installed an adblock on the computer in the classroom because I was trying to be good and give that very useful site the ad views. Then one day in the middle of class I start hearing sound coming out of the speakers which disrupted the class. The site had put an ad on it with an autoplay video. I put ublock origin on it right away.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. > I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads. I'd say explaining to you why they don't like ads should help you understand why they think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators, if that primary source is ads. Here's the worlds smallest fiddle. If your primary source of revenue is automated advertising, I don't care if you lose money. Sorry not sorry. Get some sponsorships, exclusive content, whatever. But if you want to sell my information to companies to build a profile on me and then invade my life with all manner of annoying distractions using that data, you want me to feel bad when I put a stop to it because you didn't get your penny from me? Cry about it if you want. Seriously, fuck ads. We have offered a truce to the ad companies before. Put a banner at the top. Slap a commercial in a video. But that's not good enough for them, they autoplay videos and popups and tracking pixels and 10 ads in a video. And then when we tell them where they can go stick it they act like we are stealing. So fuck them, they can go hungry, and if you intend to monetize me by funneling my attention to them, you can go hungry too. Yes, people are that adamant about blocking ads. I block all ads. I don't need my mind polluted with noise and my life to be about stepping over dogshit every step I take and I don't need spyware running in my browser.
- akomtu 5y ago
  I'd put it this way. Ads networks position themselves as an efficient money delivery pipeline between you and content creators. In reality, they are like a delivery company that employs junkies and is run by heroin addicts. When they take your money, they promise to not steal. But junkies are junkies, they can't not steal, so on the way to those content creators, they steal most of your money.
beervirus 5y ago
Color me shocked. Why does anyone use Chrome anymore? Firefox is better in every way, and it isn’t tied to the biggest data harvester the world has ever known.
- jlarocco 5y ago
  Firefox is better in every way for you. I personally find the Firefox UI very annoying and slow. Every time I try it, I end up back at Chromium within a week. That said, I'll take an annoying UI over broken ad-blocking...
- mcny 5y ago
  I think people just don't know what they don't know. Firefox containers is awesome. I can type amazon.com and it will automatically open in my shopping container (after some configuration). I can type messenger.com and it opens in Facebook container out of the box. We even have container sync now so you can sync these settings across browsers. Mozilla isn't perfect though. I don't understand the decision to get rid of lockwise, my default password manager on iPhone and Android. » https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29321796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29321796 I don't get why they removed FTP browsing either » https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896541 Oh and is the source code for Pocket's server infrastructure available publicly as was promised when pocket was integrated into Firefox? Don't get me wrong. I love Firefox. I just think we have a lot of room for improvement.
  - blackearl 5y ago
    My understanding is their password manager is now fully part of the browser and you can enable it to act as a password manager for other apps as well. I just tested adding an email account and got the option to "unlock firefox" and input credentials
- illTellu 5y ago
  Because Firefox on PC has significantly worse performance. It's slower and it's buggier. "But it's not slower and buggier for me" That's nice ancedote. I also have an ancedote, Firefox is buggy/slow on 2 of my computers. 1 of my computers is fine. I already reinstalled and reformated. At some point I can't be blamed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dawnerd 5y ago
How about posting what we’re losing for those out of the loop. That Reddit link is pretty useless.
- sva_ 5y ago
  From what I gather, this "Manifestv3" will change the permission system of browser extensions. Extensions won't be able to inject themselves into any website anymore, hence adblockers, which do this, won't function anymore. This may not be completely accurate, but I think is the gist of it. Maybe someone can correct me. The Chrome devs claim that this is to enhance user security, but I have my doubts about that.
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    > The Chrome devs claim that this is to enhance user security, but I have my doubts about that. Well, then it means they don't need to monitor their extension store for extensions doing bad things, I suppose it's part of the story.
    - dessant 5y ago
      An extension can steal personal data and manipulate pages with Manifest V3 APIs just like before, it does not become any harder for extensions to compromise browsers. There may be an argument that it becomes a bit less performant to execute the JS required to thoroughly compromise a browser, but I don't think such malware cares about microsecond performance losses.
      - johnchristopher 5y ago
        Then what is preventing adblockers from working ? What's that fuss all about ?
        dessant 5y ago
        Ad blockers will no longer be able to have granular and complete control over requests. Extensions will still be able to observe requests, but not edit them on the fly based on advanced and dynamic criteria. Extensions will no longer be able to neutralize all current and future evasion techniques the advertising and tracking industry implements. Ad blocking and tracking protection extensions will be forced to degrade technologically by about 5 years, and then stagnate.
johnsutor 5y ago
People still use Chrome? I get that experimental web APIs are cool and all, but why not switch over to Brave or Firefox?
- dntrkv 5y ago
  Are you being serious? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
  - johnsutor 5y ago
    It was a snub at Chrome. I understand that the vast majority of the world uses Chrome, I just think it's foolish if you want to preserve your privacy.
  - sebow 5y ago
    Chrome has been anti-user, anti-usability for some years now.I don't even want to recall the disgusting changes they did that made it unusable for me,among: website-wide audio mute, disabled click-to-mute audio. Frankly do you consider market share a legitimate argument?It's not,and the fact that some 'tech-literate' people still use chrome baffles me.Same goes for Firefox, but my problems with them are not so much about their browser/tech but other which are not pertinent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sva_ 5y ago
  Do Chromium-based browsers also adopt this Manifestv3? If so, isn't Brave Chromium-based?
  - vmception 5y ago
    No they don’t, they manually merge code from upstream if they like it. Since Brave doesnt like it they wont merge it.
chinathrow 5y ago
I come from the Mozilla Suite then Phoenix era of times and I am still glad I never switched to Chrome as my main browser.
- kome 5y ago
  same, i was using Mozilla, then Opera till version 12, and then Firefox. I never even installed Chrome, willingly at least. For one period google was using those very shady tactics of packaging chrome with unrelated software, literally like a malware. Do you remember?
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    Yes, I remember, it was bundled and you had to uncheck a checkbox everytime you wanted to download something...
qqj 5y ago
Brave shilling is out of control in this thread. As if I needed any more reasons not to use that cryptomining trash.
lima 5y ago
[citation needed] Last time I checked, the author was going to attempt a port of uBlock to Manifest v3: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/ntlgkv/comment/h0snbbn/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/ntlgkv/commen...
- tyingq 5y ago
  Chrome is removing the ability to examine an in-flight request and act on it with live code before it happens. So there is no way to port anything. You can perhaps remove all the live heuristics and just use the limited "static list of bad urls" functionality Google is leaving you with. But I wouldn't call that a port of the code.
snth 5y ago
Does this affect Brave?
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29521618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29521618
- ronnier 5y ago
  I switched to brave and love it.
jsnell 5y ago
Discussed most recently 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439
imbnwa 5y ago
FYI Brave Browser doesn't intend on deprecating Manifest v2 and the blocking version of the webRequest API[0]. A discussion has even started on whether to stand up their own extension marketplace[1] [0]https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-... [1]https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Ugh, guess it's time to switch back to Brave.
  - hyferg 5y ago
    I take it that you prefer FF over Brave?
dessant 5y ago
Granular control over requests is completely lost in Manifest V3. For example, with Manifest V2 we can initiate a request from a content script after we begin listening for it from the background script, pass a single-use token in the Accept header, identify the request from the background script based on the token, remove the token from the Accept header and edit other headers before the request is sent to the server, then manipulate the response for that single request and stop listening from the background script. I use this workflow in Search by Image to grab an image from the page context when no CSP headers are present for the asset, and the image is only served if a certain cookie and referrer is sent. This will no longer be possible to achieve with the current API of Manifest V3. Extensions used for page archival will also be impacted. Manifest V3 removes a robust toolset that content blockers can use the react to all evasion techniques ad companies implement, and the rest of the extension ecosystem will be part of the fallout.
- bloopernova 5y ago
  Regarding the static list that Google is so graciously allowing us: When is it read by Chrome? Can we submit new lists whenever we want? Are there new API calls for manipulating the block-list? Ugh this change really pisses me off, truly Google has fallen so far. Kind of like the promise of the web. :(
  - dessant 5y ago
    Dynamic session-scoped rules are also available, but the whole declarativeNetRequest API is way too primitive to efficiently defend against advanced techniques the advertising and marketing industry currently implements. The allowed length of the rule list is also irrelevant, the API is designed to pose no real threat to state of the art ad serving and user tracking technology. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#dynamic-and-session-scoped-rules https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
- salawat 5y ago
  >Extensions used for page archival will also be impacted. That has me more concerned than anything else. Christ... Now I've actually got to read the horror that is browser code? I was looking forward to a nice dip into systems for a bit... Archival takes priority though. The signal must be preserved.
miralize 5y ago
Time and time again I try to switch to Firefox. But it always seems to fall short (for me at least). I rely too much on separate profiles to disconnect work-related browsing from personal browsing. Separate bookmarks, sessions, browser plugins, sync preferences etc... A UI that's as powerful is literally all that is needed for me anyway. Its such a shame they've neglected the Profile Manager.
- freediver 5y ago
  Firefox has containers that achieve the same purpose. Have you tried using them?
- detaro 5y ago
  What exactly are you missing from the profile feature in Firefox? It's barebones to setup, but I used it for similar purpose a while back and thought it was ok enough.
- yuvadam 5y ago
  You can still manage profiles in FF via about:profiles, but I 100% agree it's not accessible enough.
  - y4mi 5y ago
    the portable version is also an option if the user passes a location as the profile path. This can be made more convenient by adding shortcuts for each profile. The UX could definitely be improved, but it's manageable in my opinion
    - bugmen0t 5y ago
      The "portable version" is not maintained pr built by Mozilla and breaks/disables the sandbox. Don’t use it.
  - abyssin 5y ago
    You can add a bookmark shortcut button with the address about:profile and that makes it more accessible. I added a key shortcut to the bookmark itself. Then I can use cmd + L to focus the address bar, type the letter p, and hit Enter. That opens the profiles page and it’s reasonably fast. I also created a similar bookmark with a JavaScript snippet that removes fixed elements from the page, typically top bars. I now have it in my muscle memory.
vegai_ 5y ago
Fuck. Just when I got used to Chromium due its nice profiles feature. Sigh. Back to Firefox then. Or perhaps I should just stop using the web for anything except the necessities. Now that I think about it, that would probably make my life better in more than one way.
- Dudemeister_ 5y ago
  You can run the profile manager from the terminal with `firefox --profilemanager` and manage the profiles from there Then you can create separate 'shortcuts' for each profile with this `firefox --profile [path to the profile]` This is a workaround for the lack of proper UI, maybe mozilla will make a better UI if users start asking for it
  - nuccy 5y ago
    As pointed in the answer above on a similar question there is 'about:profiles' internal page in Firefox, so one can manage all the profiles (add/remove/rename/etc) and then during normal start of Firefox select which one is needed to be started.
  - mmis1000 5y ago
    If all you want to do is separation of data on same site. I think the container is the better way to go. Although the profile still serves different purpose from container (like you can have different Firefox account linked/ different extension installed)
    - vegai_ 5y ago
      I actually want the kind of UI chromium provides, where I can see from the background color directly in which "mode" I'm in. This makes it easier to separate work from non-work.
      - rocho 5y ago
        That's exactly what Firefox containers do. I have a different color for each one.
dandare 5y ago
Is Privacy Badger affected as well? (how is Privacy Badger different from uBlock?)
- timbit42 5y ago
  uBlock Origin is better.
  - clairity 5y ago
    ubo is more featureful, while privacy badger is simpler. ‘better’ depends on needs. i’ve used both, even at the same time for some redundancy (at the expense of memory/cpu time). privacy badger (if i’m remembering correctly) is based on ubo but specifically curated for privacy (not ad or other blocking), and as such, does most of the customization for you, whereas with ubo, you need to do much more of the customization manually. so to answer the original question, i think privacy badger, like ubo, does use some dynamic rules, and those would be relegated useless with manifest v3.
StreamBright 5y ago
This link is useless for people who do not know what manifest v3 is. Here is a actual source: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ Much better article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
freediver 5y ago
If you are on a Mac, I suggest that you try Orion browser (currently in beta) [1]. It is based on WebKit, with a custom port of web extensions API [2]. Not only that it runs Chrome and Firefox web extensions like uBlock Origin but we will be keeping support for Manifest v2. [1] https://browser.kagi.com https://browser.kagi.com [2] https://browser.kagi.com/WebExtensions-API-Support.html https://browser.kagi.com/WebExtensions-API-Support.html
- malshe 5y ago
  I want to and put my email address on the website twice since this was posted on HN a few weeks ago. I never received even a confirmation that I was added to the waitlist let alone the actual invite for beta. Also what’s with sending out invites every 3 weeks? Without knowing the point from which you count 3 weeks, it’s pretty much useless information.
  - celsoazevedo 5y ago
    The email with the download link says I can forward the invitation to anyone I think may be interested in Orion, so... Download: https://browser.kagi.com/downloads/Orion.dmg https://browser.kagi.com/downloads/Orion.dmg Report bugs: https://orionfeedback.org/ https://orionfeedback.org/ And I guess you can also give them your email if you want to feel better.
    - malshe 5y ago
      That's awesome. Thanks! They already have my email address.
- politician 5y ago
  It looked cool, but then it’s not open source. Too much risk for a bait and switch.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
k__ 5y ago
I'm pretty happy with my switch to Brave half a year ago. Was a bit rough around the edges at the beginning, but it got quite good.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> We introduced a zero- tolerance harassment policy and waived required arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims. We have made significant commitments to increase gender diversity and are dedicating $250 million to accelerate opportunities for diverse talent across the industry. “We made it easier to destroy someone’s career with false sexual harassment charges, and also we discriminate against the main gamedev demographic”.
sergiomattei 5y ago
Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm down to email someone, put up a banner on my website or call, I don't know.
- coldpie 5y ago
  Use a browser that isn't developed by an advertising company.
  - sergiomattei 5y ago
    Good suggestion, but silently switching is giving a pass to this kind of behavior from the market-dominant browser. Making some noise alongside the switch is a more effective way of preventing user-hostile changes.
bloopernova 5y ago
*Off-topic:* I've experimented with a new layout in Firefox, and now I can't think of going back. I first installed Tree Style Tab. I then removed the tabs at the top of the window and added a permanent status bar to the bottom of the window using userChrome.css: https://i.imgur.com/PIONywj.png https://i.imgur.com/PIONywj.png (edited to add, my userChrome.css: https://gist.github.com/anthonyclarka2/155c038de96e91894cbd4ba15ee03c86 https://gist.github.com/anthonyclarka2/155c038de96e91894cbd4... ) (EDIT: I added some extra css to this to set the titlebar and system UI buttons - use the first revision if you don't want that) The tree style tabs are wonderful. I can see a grouping of tabs, see which tab is the "parent" of a bunch of pages. I often have a root tab with Jira current sprint, then a ticket sub item, then branching from that I have various documentation and github pages open. All of those pages together form one mental "unit" of related information and work. I'm sorry to post this in a somewhat unrelated thread, but I'm geeked out by how well this works! Firefox is better for my needs anyway, because I can tag bookmarks. Much easier to find saved pages through searching tags for "emacs, babel, python" for instance. Or "firefox, tabs, css" *On-topic:* This move by Google is going to lose them a ton of browser users, I think. People love blocking ads! Especially tech-minded folk, who are often asked to recommend software or repair things for less knowledgeable or comfortable people. I'd also like to see a Chromium fork that continues to allow the Manifest V2 API.
- daptaq 5y ago
  I tried this too, but as Mozilla has no regard for any customization that are not done via the official graphical configuration interface (and sometimes not even that, considering how the compact UI mode is being removed), you'll have to find out how to fix it every time you update your browser.
  - worble 5y ago
    I don't think I've ever updated my userChrome.css file, certainly not in the past few years. The browser chrome is pretty stable since this is how the browser itself is styled, so outside of big UI updates like Proton (which didn't even impact my own css) the chance of breakage is pretty slim.
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blondin 5y ago
profiles are my number one reason for using chrome as well. i need them because of my bookmarks. i have close to 6000 bookmarks. 20 years and counting of curated and tagged web links. chrome syncs them across all my devices. i have to do the import gymnastics once in a while for edge and safari. but that's it. why are bookmarks still browser-specific and not a OS-level feature? why do we need all that import/export gymnastic? bookmarks are links to web sites, apps, or pages. they should have never been browser-specific. i want to be able to access them from all my devices. they should have been like my photos, or my music collection. and yet, they are not...
- cube00 5y ago
  To Microsoft's credit in the pre-Edge days they represented bookmarks as a system shortcut which live in a regular folder.
- anewguy9000 5y ago
  because 75% of them are probably dead links now ;-) but all the major browsers have sync. you can export them from chrome and import them into brave and btw if you use a lot of bookmarks (i do too) you might love this graphical bookmark manager YASD - you can browse bookmarks as thumbnail images of the site -- much easier to browse them for the link you want): https://github.com/conceptualspace/yet-another-speed-dial https://github.com/conceptualspace/yet-another-speed-dial
  - blondin 5y ago
    > because 75% of them are probably dead links now ;-) i know that pain far too well :) i created a custom chrome extension that opens a random bookmark in a new tab to check the link. this helps me fix dead links but it is a very slow process. sometimes i go over them manually and remove a bunch. thanks for the link.
    - GeoAtreides 5y ago
      export the bookmarks and use a script to quickly filter 404 responses and even maybe "this domain for sale" pages the results can then be re-imported into the browser
jerrygoyal 5y ago
FYI, Manifest v3 is also coming to Firefox browser. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...
- detaro 5y ago
  And as your own link states, the limitations this submission is about won't apply.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    If it's so easy to just avoid this one awful API change, no need to ditch something like Brave or Vivaldi.
    - detaro 5y ago
      One can hope that they'll maintain it in their engine forks, yes. I've not seen a public commitment yet, but also not looked very hard.
SquareWheel 5y ago
For all the claims that the sky is falling, I'd like to know which functionality is still missing in declarativeNetRequest. Extended rule limits, dynamic rules, and header modification have been added. What else is required for a functional adblocker? This reddit thread barely seems to understand the issue, never mind the technical deficiencies of the API.
- chlorion 5y ago
  Yeah I am wondering the same thing. There have been several times in the past where it was said chromium would lose some of its adblocking abilities and so far that has not actually happened. This is one of those things that I will believe when it's actually in effect, but not sooner.
  - nicce 5y ago
    Check the timeline: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ On next January, new V2 Manifest extensions can't land on the store anymore. Older ones stop working at 2023 January.
- zagrebian 5y ago
  There’s some information here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-873602429 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    Thanks for linking. So this post talks primarily about missing support for noop ("no operation") rules. Jumping into the uBlock docs, they say: >A request can be blocked (block), allowed (allow), or ignored (noop). A noop rule will cause matching network requests to be ignored by the dynamic filtering engine, but those ignored network requests will still be subjected to static filtering (filter lists). So the missing limitation in MV3 right now seems to be that things can be blocked or allowed by dynamic rules, but not ignored such that static rules (be they from a list or the user) can take over. I'm not sure what use case that has exactly, but I'm guessing that could be a problem if a user wants to override an existing filter with a custom, dynamic rule. Is that the right idea?
g8oz 5y ago
Like the EFF said, Chrome is a Google agent not a user agent. Switch to Firefox on desktop and mobile.
- rasz 5y ago
  Firefox is also a Google agent since couple of years, backed by decisions of a 'great ceo' and $200Mil a year.
ur-whale 5y ago
I remember a time when Google used to crank out a seemingly endless stream of stuff that basically were tremendous improvements to the internet. Chrome itself was one of those amazing improvements. These days are long gone it seems. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening right now: every change coming out of a Google seems to improve their lot at the detriment of everyone else, especially their users. The time to ditch Chrome was ~5 years ago, but if you aren't convinced yet, this latest "improvement" should be the straw that breaks the donkey's back.
- akomtu 5y ago
  I've noticed that most companies follow this cycle: they grow reputation first, then they harvest the crops by monetizing that reputation. Someone unfamiliar with farming will be surprised why farmers spend a year to grow crops only to destroy them at the end.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Brave for life it is I guess.
- Exuma 5y ago
  Brave is not a good or secure browser, you can search here on HN for all the things they do wrong
  - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    Nope searches for brave browser secure and brave browser safe brought up nothing on HN except good things.
  - hda2 5y ago
    Could you link to something specific and current. I didn't find anything.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
One of the interesing things about this story is that there appears to be no consideration of not "updating" to a new Chrome version. The idea of user choice in "updating" is completely absent. Why cannot a user say, "V3 sounds wonderful but I will stick with V2, thank you." A user has a version of a program that works for that user (e.g., with uBlock Origin), and Google can apparently forcibly stop that user from using that working version, through a process of "automatic updates". Users must "accept" updates which makes one wonder Google can pull this off. Does it not rely on user behaviour. By accepting every "update" without question, the user is effectively consenting to being controlled. Perhaps users will someday "wake up" to realise that so-called updates are not necessarily being remotely installed for their benefit, but for the benefit of someone else. No doubt Google has some parallel construction type explanation why users need V3, but how many folks cannot see that they are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Perhaps if ads can be blocked, so too can updates. (IME, it's possible.)
- aj3 5y ago
  There were over a dozen of 0day exploits this year alone. Some used in water hole style attacks, so not even that targeted. And these are state of the art incidents which would have pwned even users with all the updates installed. After the patch has been pushed out, exploits become progressively cheaper so letting users to postpone security updates is a crime.
  - akomtu 5y ago
    Ads, which is about running untrusted and usually hostile JS in your briwser, is the Pandora box of 0day exploits. Cut off ads, disable JS by default, and you'll solve 99% of 0days.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Companies rely on their fuckups to force you to update so you get the rest of the kool-aid right along with the stuff that is a must have. You can't say 'just give me that security stuff and hold the trash'.
seanwilson 5y ago
Not saying this is good enough, but there's still 12 months before this needs to happen? https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ > As we look to the future by continuing to iterate on and improve upon Manifest V3 functionality, we also want to share details about the plan to phase out Manifest V2 extensions. > There are two key dates for the phase-out: > January 17, 2022: New Manifest V2 extensions will no longer be accepted by the Chrome Web Store. Developers may still push updates to existing Manifest V2 extensions, but no new Manifest V2 items may be submitted. > January 2023: The Chrome browser will no longer run Manifest V2 extensions. Developers may no longer push updates to existing Manifest V2 extensions.
yokem55 5y ago
The end game on this is that there will be browsers that support ad blocking and browsers that don't. Content vendors will go all out on blocking users that don't use their preferred mandatory ads browsers, and the 'web' as we know it will suffer.
yogthos 5y ago
Firefox is absolutely fantastic nowadays, and I strongly encourage everyone to start using it as their primary browser. It's hard to overstate how important it is to have at least two independent browser implementations around. If Firefox dies then Chromium would become the de facto rendering engine, and we'll no longer have any meaningful specification for web standards. The web will simply be whatever Chromium does including all its quirks. We've already seen the horrors of that back in the days of IE. Furthermore, Google is fundamentally an ads company and it should not be the gatekeeper for the internet. I highly recommend reading a recent antitrust filing regarding how Google has worked with Facebook and Microsoft to discourage them from increasing user privacy https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56... Google has a secret deal with Facebook called "Jedi Blue" that they knew was illegal and has a whole section describing how they'll cover for each other if anyone finds out. Google has a team called gTrade that is wholly dedicated to ad market manipulation. Google had a plan called "Project NERA" to turn the web into a walled garden they called "Not Owned But Operated". A core component of this was the forced logins to the chrome browser you've probably experienced. Google is willing to do almost everything to prevent people from circumventing their ad exchanges which is what AMP is all about. Google habitually does insider trading on their ad exchanges in every way possible. The exchanges are also rigged so that google wins on bids where they aren't the highest bidder. A large amount of people inside Google are aware of all of this. Google has worked with Facebook and Microsoft to discourage them from increasing user privacy, lamenting occasions where they prioritized their reputation over their collective business interest.
- agilob 5y ago
  I'm afraid Mozilla can't promise anything at this point: >After discussing this with several content blocking extension developers, we have decided to implement DNR and continue maintaining support for blocking webRequest Then they say blockingWebRequest will be eventually deprecated: >We’d like to note that it’s still very early to be talking about migrating extensions to Manifest v3. We have not yet set a deprecation date for Manifest v2 but expect it to be supported for at least one year after Manifest v3 becomes stable in the release channel. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...
Jackson__ 5y ago
It seems the chrome team has been fabricating a hostage situation with their own foot for the past year or two. They keep yelling that they'll shoot it any day now, yet we don't seem any closer to it. I wish them the courage to finally pull the trigger.
baxuz 5y ago
I'll probably switch to a system-wide adblocker like Adguard. It's already a life-saver on Android.
sizzle 5y ago
Will PiHole(so?) be able to block ads before chrome can render them or will these Manifestv3 changes break pages from loading?
aasasd 5y ago
Good. Maybe some people will drop Chrome now.
luckman212 5y ago
Fuck. I'm getting too old for this shit. The cat and mouse game of Google / AdTech vs the general public has gone off the deep end. Popups. Popovers. Popunders. Content shifting. Paywalls. GDPR Alert! Chatbots. Can I send you a Cookie? Ok. Can I help you find something? No. Wait! Don't close the page yet! Coupon code? No. Subscribe to our newsletter? No. Autoplaying video. How To Make A Million Bucks A Month Selling On Amazon! You Can Be A Handsome Guy On A Beach Making Money Just Like Me! For. Fucks. Sake. I just want to use the web to access a few of my favorite news sites, use Github, access documentation, watch the (very) occasional YouTube vid, and send email. Am I a dying breed? A mere rounding error in the pie chart of web users? Maybe. But I am truly at a loss for what to do next. Using the internet without uBO is like sticking needles into my eyeballs. "Switch to Firefox!" they said. I've tried, many times. But I really need some simple things that FF can't provide. Like being able to work with JXA to grab tab URLs for some Alfred scripts and other automations I rely heavily on. There's a 20-year old feature request for this[0]. Ok, Brave then? Probably the best option right now, but it keeps me up at night thinking one day Google will actively start going after the forks, making their lives difficult enough in one way or another to the point that they have to shut down. Safari? I haven't checked in a while but there were some critical extensions that just didn't exist last time I checked- things like Rich URL[1] for copying tabs as markdown (so useful!). Dev tools were meh. Just feels like there aren't any good options. Rock and hard place. Google, enough is enough—why are you doing this? (rhetorical. we know why) [0]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125419 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125419 [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rich-url/bkjdcppkdgccnhjibfhlhmeiafnjfamk https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rich-url/bkjdcppkd...
irrational 5y ago
How long until Google pulls funding for Firefox to kill the browser so that ad blocking becomes impossible across the board?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kalinf 5y ago
WTF is PSA
- CRConrad 5y ago
  "Public Service Announcement". HTH!
slowmovintarget 5y ago
This is why I switched back to Firefox three years ago. The writing was on the wall for ad blockers in Chrome. I want one that works. I want control over my web experience.
blacklight 5y ago
Just boycott Chrome, as a user and as a developer. And boycott any other Chromium-based browser altogether. The only reason why a mediocre ads company like Google is managing to mess up the web is that it has >90% of the browser's market share, if you include all Chromium-based browsers. If they can periodically break the basic functionalities of web extensions however they like (HTTP calls within extensions, background scripts, ability to manipulate the DOM...) just to ensure that people won't manage to block ads and trackers, and they still get developers to build stuff for their browser and they don't lose a single user, they can really get away with EVERYTHING. Time to let them know that they can't really get away with everything. Google has been an evil company beyond redemption and with a net negative added value to the industry for too long and now it deserves to go down. MV3 should be the reason why developers should stop building extensions for Chrome, users should stop using Chrome, and other browsers should move to other web engines than Chromium. If nobody follows Google in their efforts to push for MV3, then we'll be left with a limited browser with limited functionalities and nearly no extensions. Let Google sink in their own sh*t.
- barfingclouds 5y ago
  I’ve been a long term chrome user. What’s a good alternative browser you’d recommend?
  - Valord 5y ago
    Firefox. I switched on all of my machines, MacOS and Windows, a few years ago and rarely have any issues. I was expecting it to be a rough ride based on what I hear around the internet but it was quite the opposite: seamless. As with most things you'll hear comments on HN with both sides liking and hating it but I never experience the terribleness that comes from those that say it sucks. I also don't mind switching to Chrome when I absolutely have to. edit: I also use FF on Android and I will admit it has a few more issues than it has on my PC, but nothing that is bad enough to make me use Chrome.
BuckRogers 5y ago
For Microsoft to really rain on Google’s parade here, don’t all they have to do is allow V2 compliant extensions into their extension store? If so that would be a grand opportunity.

571 points by diplodocusaur 5y ago

Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.

everdrive 5y ago
We have more than too much content right now, and in my mind the tracking and ads means that the “free” content is not worth the price. I’d rather there be less content if it meant no tracking.
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Ads consistently overwhelm main content, hijack navigation, and rely on mass collection of user data to sustain the adtech industry. They’re one of the worst products of the tech industry.
justbaker 5y ago
Are you serious?
jqpabc123 5y ago
By themselves, ads aren't the real problem --- personalized ads are the problem. The idea that they have to profile and track your every move all over the internet in order to try and sell you stuff you don't really want or need. Example: If I go to a pet supply web site, an ad for dog food is perfectly understandable --- maybe even welcomed. But just because I was profiled visiting and maybe even buying, I shouldn't be bombarded with ads for cat food all over the internet. Even worse is the fact that over time, your profile becomes incredibly detailed. They sell this info to their "affiliates" -- which is basically any data broker willing to pay for it. Next thing you know, your insurance rates are being increased based on something they found in your profile. For the individual consumer, there is nothing good about privacy invasion and personalized ads.
- ehutch79 5y ago
  No, ads are a problem. when a sprint ad walks across your browser and starts talking while in front of content, that was it for me.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    That is annoying ... but it could be much more detrimental than annoying if it is also reporting back to a global tracking network that sells your profile to be used against you by a multitude of other actors. The difference here is between you watching ads versus ads watching you.
    - ehutch79 5y ago
      Or both? It can do both.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  I don't care if they have my data. My data is useless to me. Have it. I don't even think it's worth that much in the first place. I care that they make the web a crappy, unusable, annoying place. They make the browsing experience less secure. They slow down the webpages and eat bandwidth. They look ugly. It' my goddamn pc, i very well can choose what to run on it.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    I don't care if they have my data. You should. They're inventing new ways to use this data against you all the time. For example, there has been some effort to profile you based on the price you pay for goods on the internet. They assign you a "sucker score". Once you're classified as a sucker, the price you get offered is higher than what a "non-sucker" might receive. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-online-shopping-makes-suckers-of-us-all/521448/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/how-onl...
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
notforsale 5y ago
Previously, ad companies made ads that were watched by people. Now they feel entitled to push ads that are watching people. That's a deal breaker.
howdydoo 5y ago
I'll reply to this comment in a minute, but before I do, have you played Raid Shadow Legends?
vimy 5y ago
I wouldn’t mind simple banner ads without tracking. The digital equivalent of magazine ads.
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  This is the model that DuckDuckGo uses. They simply show ads related to your search terms. No global tracking required.
howinteresting 5y ago
Any semi-serious security posture must involve blocking ads. The incentives in the adtech industry mean that the security issues with ads can never be fixed.
- macNchz 5y ago
  This was really what made the decision easy for me back however many years ago when I started using an adblocker. Internet ads can be irritating and the pervasive cross site tracking and profiling bothers me, but I don’t have fundamental issues with advertising generally. What is totally unacceptable is being served ads with malicious payloads on major websites. If a website wants me to take their “please disable your adblocker” popup seriously they need to make 100% sure they don’t serve ads that instantly redirect the browser to a fake facebook phishing website that breaks the back button. Until then it’s adblock everywhere and the same for all of my friends and family to whom I give computer help.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
To put it as politely as I possibly can: advertisers can suck my ass. They could have been good citizens, but they've proven time and time again they'd rather be the scum of the goddamned earth and use every annoying and malicious trick in the book to fool you into paying attention to their bullshit for the second or two it takes to make their shit go away instead. Not to mention all the overhead of their shit making everything fucking slow as hell.
- sharken 5y ago
  Hehe well put, we are way past the point of wanting to put up with ads as users. The question is how far Google wants to take Manifest V3. The current path will mean a huge boost for browsers with Manifest V2 capability, e.g. Brave, Firefox and to some extent Safari.
smokey_circles 5y ago
there's nothing mild about many online ads. pages load faster and I don't use as much bandwidth. YouTube et al are ok, not so much other pages
butz 5y ago
uBlock Origin can do much more than block ads: you can block annoying live chat scripts, cookie banners, disable JavaScript for specific domains, and even limit maximum size of assets downloaded from website (e.g. huge gif files, images or videos). It's amazing how much faster browsing becomes with correctly customized uBlock Origin.
feanaro 5y ago
I personally don't care about "content creators". I create a lot of content for free because it's useful for me in other ways and interesting on its own. Modern ads are surveillance tech and I want to see that die at any cost. Ads would then either have to adapt to stop being surveillance-based or the most interesting "content creators" would adapt to monetize in other ways. I really don't see a future in which interesting "content" just stops existing just because tracking ads don't exist. If people want things, they will appear and eventually will be able to be monetized in some way.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > If people want things, they will appear Yeah, which explains why journalism has pretty much collapsed in the past few decades.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I'm going to back up the GP on this! HN users tend to get annoyed by (1) ads, (2) paywalls, and (3) articles without enough research (aka time aka money). I'm cognizant of the fact that HN isn't a hive mind, and so these complaints aren't necessarily coming from the same people—but some certainly are. Well, which is it? Or do we expect content creators to work for free? If we have to pick a poison—and, well, I think we do—the ad model has one major advantage: accessibility. If we want to make information available to as many people as possible, an ad-supported model is the way to do it. Paywalls lock out everyone at the lower end of the income bracket, and force everyone consume content from only a smaller number of sources (since subscribing to every website is impractical). This isn't to ignore all of the negative social consequences of advertising. The question isn't whether ads are bad, because they absolutely are—the question is whether they're worth the cost of accessible journalism.
- corobo 5y ago
  > Well, which is it? Or do we expect content creators to work for free? "we" don't care either way. Their business model is their business In any case there's plenty of people not blocking ads. It looks like everyone uses adblock if you look at a tech audience because they are a tech audience, not because everyone is using adblock
- simion314 5y ago
  > If we want to make information available to as many people as possible, an ad-supported model is the way to do it There are alternatives, a good one I see used in Ptreon, the supporters get early access to content, the rest will get it a month later. Let me try find the pros and cons Cons: - you need first to find supporters, so for a while you need to work hard to get them - some supporters might feel entitled to stuff, you need to make sure to be clear about what being a supporter means - you need to be very clear and transparent , some supporters will not tolerate delays or low quality/quantity updates Pro: - you have a predictable revenue model, you don't depend on an algorithm - you mostly don't have to censor your content (there are exceptions true, but there are alternatives) - you don't have to promote scams like VPNs, shit games with loot boxes, crypto scams - you are not forced by an algorithms to release on a certain text/video length , a certain schedule , use certain shitty thumbnails or click-bait titles - if you make public your content after a month or week etc, your fans that don't have money still get it and will promote it, also influencers will promote it because they know it will be free after a time interval. This patreon model does not solve everything, just wanted to mention that there are alternatives to shity ads that track and manipulate you. Other alternative would be honest contextual ads, like if you search for printer ink from city A then Google/Bing could show you an ad from a local shop that refils ink cartridges.
Bayart 5y ago
To me, browsing without ad-blocking is absolutely impossible. I've got a very low threshold of tolerance for those things. And I frankly couldn't care less whether people can earn money off advertising or not. I don't consider it making an honest living. If their businesses failed because of it, so be it. I feel the same about data collection and tracking. As far as I'm concerned, we'd all be better off if that entire industry was nuked off the face of the Internet.
- bambax 5y ago
  Absolutely agree.
sieabahlpark 5y ago
You're going to be hard pressed to find many people who are going to agree with your premise that ads are only a "mild" annoyance. Nobody wants to hear the stupid jingles on YouTube every 5 minutes (yes, I've had them every 5 minutes). I'm sick of lazy loading ads shifting content and then when I interact with the main content spring to life with that interaction and start playing audio. I don't want ads at all, period. Their abusive history is enough reason for that. I do not care if the website owner goes broke, if they want to live off of it charge for it. If people don't want to pay then a lot of people need to realize their content isn't all that valuable in the first place. It is great that small businesses can use ads, but unfortunately the market has ruined it for everyone by being so lax with the experience as a whole. Ads lie and sell you shit, so everything that shows up is probably shit.
sennight 5y ago
Is it my responsibility to help "content creator" small business growth regardless of how ridiculous their revenue model is? Here is a tip: put some thought into the sustainability of tossing that responsibility over the wall to Google - if you want money, do the work. There was a time, not very long ago, when you could pretty easily control the amount of marketing you exposed yourself to.
arthur6667 5y ago
Firstly 'very mild annoyance' for you maybe, I'd rather eat bricks then watch the endless ads and popups. Now a good old advertisement, like you'd get in magazines, target based on context are fine. Even some TV commercials are fine, I'd rather not have 20 minute on the hour of them, but meh. It's all the low effort, spammy targeted crap that is the problem imo. And 'ads also help small businesses to grow' is bs if you ask me. - online ads are largely for the big business as small business gets crowded out & out-spend on search terms etc. - targeted ads do not contribute meaningfully to conversion if you look close enough. Conversion metrics are crap as they do not account for the huge selection bias involved. - marketing in general contributes nothing to society, it is all busy-work that changes nothing but maybe moving some people around between brands. It is a zero-sum game where the everybody keeps spending more and more and more for less impact & the market as whole is not impacted. - 70 to 90% of all clicks & impressions are by bots. - Content creators get jack shit for advertisements, if you pay like 1$ a month for someone's patreon or whatever you are generating more revenue then watching a thousand ads. And then there is all the nefarious uses of targeted advertising that follow from it...
Mezzie 5y ago
My job requires me to spend hours online, including on a lot of news sites. I block all ads for my own mental health: The last thing I want is ads that are calculated to work me up and make me angry/upset following me around everywhere because of my job. Likewise, just because I work doesn't mean I should be forced to be a captive audience for companies/groups trying to work me up. On a larger scale, I believe the mental health harms to the general populace of incessant and emotionally manipulative advertising is far worse in consequence than some artists not earning money (and I've supported myself writing fiction, I'm not dismissing creators here). If artists earned money but it required 80% of the population to become hooked on bath salts, I'd consider that a problem. Also, I have MS and that includes some twitches/spasms + I'm slightly visually impaired so I have some accessibility stuff set up and jumping/moving ads etc. are a common issue for me, as is engaging on accident through a finger/hand spasm. Now consider how many people are elderly or have vision issues; I feel like ads are uniquely predatory to certain populations.
gpvos 5y ago
In principle I don't mind ads, but I do mind the cross-domain tracking. If sites served ads from their own domains, I'd keep them. I consider it up to web site owners to figure out how to make money from their site if that's what they want to do. Until they and the ad providers come up with an acceptable and practical way of doing that, I am willing to look at their content as long as they're willing to serve it to me. Then there are also the ads that are annoying: those with moving parts or sound. I will always block those.
jimbobimbo 5y ago
I used to not block ads, but today it's almost impossible to use any site that depends on ad revenue without an ad blocker. The amount of garbage on the page - notifications, badges, banners, popups, whatever else crap marketing people invent - is staggering. Sites are mangled to the point of being unusable. I want to support creators, but it's a two-way street.
jnwatson 5y ago
I had the same opinion, until they started delivering malware. Then, realizing how much better web pages load without ads, I was hooked.
magicalhippo 5y ago
Besides the issue of tracking and such, there's the fact that limiting arbitrary unchecked third-party executable code to run on your computer is a good thing. I use uBlock primarily as a line of defense, not just to avoid annoying ads. As an example, a few years ago the ad network of a newspaper here in Norway was hacked. Anyone visiting their site (or affiliates) would silently and without any user interaction get infected with a banking malware. The malware that time would cause bank transfers made through the online banking site of the most popular bank here to go to a different account than the one specified. It could have done something else.
syshum 5y ago
Ok, I will address what you have asked for. Tracking based Ads generated by Google Ad-words and other networks should cease being viewed by content creators as the "primary source" of revenue, creators need to get creative and come up with better, most lasting revenue sources. Many already have, from direct memberships, merch, first party ads, but I am sure there are other more creative ways to make money The lazy days of "just toss an adwords tracking cookie everywhere for the fast cash" is over, and I for one will celebrate the death of Ad words and all the other tracking ad networks
jccalhoun 5y ago
Let me give an example. I teach public speaking and I often use online-stopwatch.com as a timer for quick practice speech stuff in class. I had not installed an adblock on the computer in the classroom because I was trying to be good and give that very useful site the ad views. Then one day in the middle of class I start hearing sound coming out of the speakers which disrupted the class. The site had put an ad on it with an autoplay video. I put ublock origin on it right away.
betwixthewires 5y ago
> I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. > I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads. I'd say explaining to you why they don't like ads should help you understand why they think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators, if that primary source is ads. Here's the worlds smallest fiddle. If your primary source of revenue is automated advertising, I don't care if you lose money. Sorry not sorry. Get some sponsorships, exclusive content, whatever. But if you want to sell my information to companies to build a profile on me and then invade my life with all manner of annoying distractions using that data, you want me to feel bad when I put a stop to it because you didn't get your penny from me? Cry about it if you want. Seriously, fuck ads. We have offered a truce to the ad companies before. Put a banner at the top. Slap a commercial in a video. But that's not good enough for them, they autoplay videos and popups and tracking pixels and 10 ads in a video. And then when we tell them where they can go stick it they act like we are stealing. So fuck them, they can go hungry, and if you intend to monetize me by funneling my attention to them, you can go hungry too. Yes, people are that adamant about blocking ads. I block all ads. I don't need my mind polluted with noise and my life to be about stepping over dogshit every step I take and I don't need spyware running in my browser.
akomtu 5y ago
I'd put it this way. Ads networks position themselves as an efficient money delivery pipeline between you and content creators. In reality, they are like a delivery company that employs junkies and is run by heroin addicts. When they take your money, they promise to not steal. But junkies are junkies, they can't not steal, so on the way to those content creators, they steal most of your money.

beervirus 5y ago

Color me shocked. Why does anyone use Chrome anymore? Firefox is better in every way, and it isn’t tied to the biggest data harvester the world has ever known.

jlarocco 5y ago
Firefox is better in every way for you. I personally find the Firefox UI very annoying and slow. Every time I try it, I end up back at Chromium within a week. That said, I'll take an annoying UI over broken ad-blocking...
mcny 5y ago
I think people just don't know what they don't know. Firefox containers is awesome. I can type amazon.com and it will automatically open in my shopping container (after some configuration). I can type messenger.com and it opens in Facebook container out of the box. We even have container sync now so you can sync these settings across browsers. Mozilla isn't perfect though. I don't understand the decision to get rid of lockwise, my default password manager on iPhone and Android. » https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29321796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29321796 I don't get why they removed FTP browsing either » https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896541 Oh and is the source code for Pocket's server infrastructure available publicly as was promised when pocket was integrated into Firefox? Don't get me wrong. I love Firefox. I just think we have a lot of room for improvement.
- blackearl 5y ago
  My understanding is their password manager is now fully part of the browser and you can enable it to act as a password manager for other apps as well. I just tested adding an email account and got the option to "unlock firefox" and input credentials
illTellu 5y ago
Because Firefox on PC has significantly worse performance. It's slower and it's buggier. "But it's not slower and buggier for me" That's nice ancedote. I also have an ancedote, Firefox is buggy/slow on 2 of my computers. 1 of my computers is fine. I already reinstalled and reformated. At some point I can't be blamed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dawnerd 5y ago

How about posting what we’re losing for those out of the loop. That Reddit link is pretty useless.

sva_ 5y ago
From what I gather, this "Manifestv3" will change the permission system of browser extensions. Extensions won't be able to inject themselves into any website anymore, hence adblockers, which do this, won't function anymore. This may not be completely accurate, but I think is the gist of it. Maybe someone can correct me. The Chrome devs claim that this is to enhance user security, but I have my doubts about that.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  > The Chrome devs claim that this is to enhance user security, but I have my doubts about that. Well, then it means they don't need to monitor their extension store for extensions doing bad things, I suppose it's part of the story.
  - dessant 5y ago
    An extension can steal personal data and manipulate pages with Manifest V3 APIs just like before, it does not become any harder for extensions to compromise browsers. There may be an argument that it becomes a bit less performant to execute the JS required to thoroughly compromise a browser, but I don't think such malware cares about microsecond performance losses.
    - johnchristopher 5y ago
      Then what is preventing adblockers from working ? What's that fuss all about ?
      - dessant 5y ago
        Ad blockers will no longer be able to have granular and complete control over requests. Extensions will still be able to observe requests, but not edit them on the fly based on advanced and dynamic criteria. Extensions will no longer be able to neutralize all current and future evasion techniques the advertising and tracking industry implements. Ad blocking and tracking protection extensions will be forced to degrade technologically by about 5 years, and then stagnate.

johnsutor 5y ago

People still use Chrome? I get that experimental web APIs are cool and all, but why not switch over to Brave or Firefox?

dntrkv 5y ago
Are you being serious? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
- johnsutor 5y ago
  It was a snub at Chrome. I understand that the vast majority of the world uses Chrome, I just think it's foolish if you want to preserve your privacy.
- sebow 5y ago
  Chrome has been anti-user, anti-usability for some years now.I don't even want to recall the disgusting changes they did that made it unusable for me,among: website-wide audio mute, disabled click-to-mute audio. Frankly do you consider market share a legitimate argument?It's not,and the fact that some 'tech-literate' people still use chrome baffles me.Same goes for Firefox, but my problems with them are not so much about their browser/tech but other which are not pertinent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sva_ 5y ago
Do Chromium-based browsers also adopt this Manifestv3? If so, isn't Brave Chromium-based?
- vmception 5y ago
  No they don’t, they manually merge code from upstream if they like it. Since Brave doesnt like it they wont merge it.

chinathrow 5y ago

I come from the Mozilla Suite then Phoenix era of times and I am still glad I never switched to Chrome as my main browser.

kome 5y ago
same, i was using Mozilla, then Opera till version 12, and then Firefox. I never even installed Chrome, willingly at least. For one period google was using those very shady tactics of packaging chrome with unrelated software, literally like a malware. Do you remember?
- chinathrow 5y ago
  Yes, I remember, it was bundled and you had to uncheck a checkbox everytime you wanted to download something...

qqj 5y ago

Brave shilling is out of control in this thread. As if I needed any more reasons not to use that cryptomining trash.

lima 5y ago

[citation needed] Last time I checked, the author was going to attempt a port of uBlock to Manifest v3: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/ntlgkv/comment/h0snbbn/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/ntlgkv/commen...

tyingq 5y ago
Chrome is removing the ability to examine an in-flight request and act on it with live code before it happens. So there is no way to port anything. You can perhaps remove all the live heuristics and just use the limited "static list of bad urls" functionality Google is leaving you with. But I wouldn't call that a port of the code.

snth 5y ago

Does this affect Brave?

fsflover 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29521618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29521618
ronnier 5y ago
I switched to brave and love it.

jsnell 5y ago

Discussed most recently 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439

imbnwa 5y ago

FYI Brave Browser doesn't intend on deprecating Manifest v2 and the blocking version of the webRequest API[0]. A discussion has even started on whether to stand up their own extension marketplace[1] [0]https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-... [1]https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187

whimsicalism 5y ago
Ugh, guess it's time to switch back to Brave.
- hyferg 5y ago
  I take it that you prefer FF over Brave?

dessant 5y ago

Granular control over requests is completely lost in Manifest V3. For example, with Manifest V2 we can initiate a request from a content script after we begin listening for it from the background script, pass a single-use token in the Accept header, identify the request from the background script based on the token, remove the token from the Accept header and edit other headers before the request is sent to the server, then manipulate the response for that single request and stop listening from the background script. I use this workflow in Search by Image to grab an image from the page context when no CSP headers are present for the asset, and the image is only served if a certain cookie and referrer is sent. This will no longer be possible to achieve with the current API of Manifest V3. Extensions used for page archival will also be impacted. Manifest V3 removes a robust toolset that content blockers can use the react to all evasion techniques ad companies implement, and the rest of the extension ecosystem will be part of the fallout.

bloopernova 5y ago
Regarding the static list that Google is so graciously allowing us: When is it read by Chrome? Can we submit new lists whenever we want? Are there new API calls for manipulating the block-list? Ugh this change really pisses me off, truly Google has fallen so far. Kind of like the promise of the web. :(
- dessant 5y ago
  Dynamic session-scoped rules are also available, but the whole declarativeNetRequest API is way too primitive to efficiently defend against advanced techniques the advertising and marketing industry currently implements. The allowed length of the rule list is also irrelevant, the API is designed to pose no real threat to state of the art ad serving and user tracking technology. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#dynamic-and-session-scoped-rules https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
salawat 5y ago
>Extensions used for page archival will also be impacted. That has me more concerned than anything else. Christ... Now I've actually got to read the horror that is browser code? I was looking forward to a nice dip into systems for a bit... Archival takes priority though. The signal must be preserved.

miralize 5y ago

Time and time again I try to switch to Firefox. But it always seems to fall short (for me at least). I rely too much on separate profiles to disconnect work-related browsing from personal browsing. Separate bookmarks, sessions, browser plugins, sync preferences etc... A UI that's as powerful is literally all that is needed for me anyway. Its such a shame they've neglected the Profile Manager.

freediver 5y ago
Firefox has containers that achieve the same purpose. Have you tried using them?
detaro 5y ago
What exactly are you missing from the profile feature in Firefox? It's barebones to setup, but I used it for similar purpose a while back and thought it was ok enough.
yuvadam 5y ago
You can still manage profiles in FF via about:profiles, but I 100% agree it's not accessible enough.
- y4mi 5y ago
  the portable version is also an option if the user passes a location as the profile path. This can be made more convenient by adding shortcuts for each profile. The UX could definitely be improved, but it's manageable in my opinion
  - bugmen0t 5y ago
    The "portable version" is not maintained pr built by Mozilla and breaks/disables the sandbox. Don’t use it.
- abyssin 5y ago
  You can add a bookmark shortcut button with the address about:profile and that makes it more accessible. I added a key shortcut to the bookmark itself. Then I can use cmd + L to focus the address bar, type the letter p, and hit Enter. That opens the profiles page and it’s reasonably fast. I also created a similar bookmark with a JavaScript snippet that removes fixed elements from the page, typically top bars. I now have it in my muscle memory.

vegai_ 5y ago

Fuck. Just when I got used to Chromium due its nice profiles feature. Sigh. Back to Firefox then. Or perhaps I should just stop using the web for anything except the necessities. Now that I think about it, that would probably make my life better in more than one way.

Dudemeister_ 5y ago
You can run the profile manager from the terminal with `firefox --profilemanager` and manage the profiles from there Then you can create separate 'shortcuts' for each profile with this `firefox --profile [path to the profile]` This is a workaround for the lack of proper UI, maybe mozilla will make a better UI if users start asking for it
- nuccy 5y ago
  As pointed in the answer above on a similar question there is 'about:profiles' internal page in Firefox, so one can manage all the profiles (add/remove/rename/etc) and then during normal start of Firefox select which one is needed to be started.
- mmis1000 5y ago
  If all you want to do is separation of data on same site. I think the container is the better way to go. Although the profile still serves different purpose from container (like you can have different Firefox account linked/ different extension installed)
  - vegai_ 5y ago
    I actually want the kind of UI chromium provides, where I can see from the background color directly in which "mode" I'm in. This makes it easier to separate work from non-work.
    - rocho 5y ago
      That's exactly what Firefox containers do. I have a different color for each one.

dandare 5y ago

Is Privacy Badger affected as well? (how is Privacy Badger different from uBlock?)

timbit42 5y ago
uBlock Origin is better.
- clairity 5y ago
  ubo is more featureful, while privacy badger is simpler. ‘better’ depends on needs. i’ve used both, even at the same time for some redundancy (at the expense of memory/cpu time). privacy badger (if i’m remembering correctly) is based on ubo but specifically curated for privacy (not ad or other blocking), and as such, does most of the customization for you, whereas with ubo, you need to do much more of the customization manually. so to answer the original question, i think privacy badger, like ubo, does use some dynamic rules, and those would be relegated useless with manifest v3.

StreamBright 5y ago

This link is useless for people who do not know what manifest v3 is. Here is a actual source: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ Much better article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

freediver 5y ago

If you are on a Mac, I suggest that you try Orion browser (currently in beta) [1]. It is based on WebKit, with a custom port of web extensions API [2]. Not only that it runs Chrome and Firefox web extensions like uBlock Origin but we will be keeping support for Manifest v2. [1] https://browser.kagi.com https://browser.kagi.com [2] https://browser.kagi.com/WebExtensions-API-Support.html https://browser.kagi.com/WebExtensions-API-Support.html

malshe 5y ago
I want to and put my email address on the website twice since this was posted on HN a few weeks ago. I never received even a confirmation that I was added to the waitlist let alone the actual invite for beta. Also what’s with sending out invites every 3 weeks? Without knowing the point from which you count 3 weeks, it’s pretty much useless information.
- celsoazevedo 5y ago
  The email with the download link says I can forward the invitation to anyone I think may be interested in Orion, so... Download: https://browser.kagi.com/downloads/Orion.dmg https://browser.kagi.com/downloads/Orion.dmg Report bugs: https://orionfeedback.org/ https://orionfeedback.org/ And I guess you can also give them your email if you want to feel better.
  - malshe 5y ago
    That's awesome. Thanks! They already have my email address.
politician 5y ago
It looked cool, but then it’s not open source. Too much risk for a bait and switch.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

k__ 5y ago

I'm pretty happy with my switch to Brave half a year ago. Was a bit rough around the edges at the beginning, but it got quite good.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

> We introduced a zero- tolerance harassment policy and waived required arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims. We have made significant commitments to increase gender diversity and are dedicating $250 million to accelerate opportunities for diverse talent across the industry. “We made it easier to destroy someone’s career with false sexual harassment charges, and also we discriminate against the main gamedev demographic”.

sergiomattei 5y ago

Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm down to email someone, put up a banner on my website or call, I don't know.

coldpie 5y ago
Use a browser that isn't developed by an advertising company.
- sergiomattei 5y ago
  Good suggestion, but silently switching is giving a pass to this kind of behavior from the market-dominant browser. Making some noise alongside the switch is a more effective way of preventing user-hostile changes.

bloopernova 5y ago

*Off-topic:* I've experimented with a new layout in Firefox, and now I can't think of going back. I first installed Tree Style Tab. I then removed the tabs at the top of the window and added a permanent status bar to the bottom of the window using userChrome.css: https://i.imgur.com/PIONywj.png https://i.imgur.com/PIONywj.png (edited to add, my userChrome.css: https://gist.github.com/anthonyclarka2/155c038de96e91894cbd4ba15ee03c86 https://gist.github.com/anthonyclarka2/155c038de96e91894cbd4... ) (EDIT: I added some extra css to this to set the titlebar and system UI buttons - use the first revision if you don't want that) The tree style tabs are wonderful. I can see a grouping of tabs, see which tab is the "parent" of a bunch of pages. I often have a root tab with Jira current sprint, then a ticket sub item, then branching from that I have various documentation and github pages open. All of those pages together form one mental "unit" of related information and work. I'm sorry to post this in a somewhat unrelated thread, but I'm geeked out by how well this works! Firefox is better for my needs anyway, because I can tag bookmarks. Much easier to find saved pages through searching tags for "emacs, babel, python" for instance. Or "firefox, tabs, css" *On-topic:* This move by Google is going to lose them a ton of browser users, I think. People love blocking ads! Especially tech-minded folk, who are often asked to recommend software or repair things for less knowledgeable or comfortable people. I'd also like to see a Chromium fork that continues to allow the Manifest V2 API.

daptaq 5y ago
I tried this too, but as Mozilla has no regard for any customization that are not done via the official graphical configuration interface (and sometimes not even that, considering how the compact UI mode is being removed), you'll have to find out how to fix it every time you update your browser.
- worble 5y ago
  I don't think I've ever updated my userChrome.css file, certainly not in the past few years. The browser chrome is pretty stable since this is how the browser itself is styled, so outside of big UI updates like Proton (which didn't even impact my own css) the chance of breakage is pretty slim.
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blondin 5y ago

profiles are my number one reason for using chrome as well. i need them because of my bookmarks. i have close to 6000 bookmarks. 20 years and counting of curated and tagged web links. chrome syncs them across all my devices. i have to do the import gymnastics once in a while for edge and safari. but that's it. why are bookmarks still browser-specific and not a OS-level feature? why do we need all that import/export gymnastic? bookmarks are links to web sites, apps, or pages. they should have never been browser-specific. i want to be able to access them from all my devices. they should have been like my photos, or my music collection. and yet, they are not...

cube00 5y ago
To Microsoft's credit in the pre-Edge days they represented bookmarks as a system shortcut which live in a regular folder.
anewguy9000 5y ago
because 75% of them are probably dead links now ;-) but all the major browsers have sync. you can export them from chrome and import them into brave and btw if you use a lot of bookmarks (i do too) you might love this graphical bookmark manager YASD - you can browse bookmarks as thumbnail images of the site -- much easier to browse them for the link you want): https://github.com/conceptualspace/yet-another-speed-dial https://github.com/conceptualspace/yet-another-speed-dial
- blondin 5y ago
  > because 75% of them are probably dead links now ;-) i know that pain far too well :) i created a custom chrome extension that opens a random bookmark in a new tab to check the link. this helps me fix dead links but it is a very slow process. sometimes i go over them manually and remove a bunch. thanks for the link.
  - GeoAtreides 5y ago
    export the bookmarks and use a script to quickly filter 404 responses and even maybe "this domain for sale" pages the results can then be re-imported into the browser

jerrygoyal 5y ago

FYI, Manifest v3 is also coming to Firefox browser. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...

detaro 5y ago
And as your own link states, the limitations this submission is about won't apply.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  If it's so easy to just avoid this one awful API change, no need to ditch something like Brave or Vivaldi.
  - detaro 5y ago
    One can hope that they'll maintain it in their engine forks, yes. I've not seen a public commitment yet, but also not looked very hard.

SquareWheel 5y ago

For all the claims that the sky is falling, I'd like to know which functionality is still missing in declarativeNetRequest. Extended rule limits, dynamic rules, and header modification have been added. What else is required for a functional adblocker? This reddit thread barely seems to understand the issue, never mind the technical deficiencies of the API.

chlorion 5y ago
Yeah I am wondering the same thing. There have been several times in the past where it was said chromium would lose some of its adblocking abilities and so far that has not actually happened. This is one of those things that I will believe when it's actually in effect, but not sooner.
- nicce 5y ago
  Check the timeline: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ On next January, new V2 Manifest extensions can't land on the store anymore. Older ones stop working at 2023 January.
zagrebian 5y ago
There’s some information here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-873602429 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  Thanks for linking. So this post talks primarily about missing support for noop ("no operation") rules. Jumping into the uBlock docs, they say: >A request can be blocked (block), allowed (allow), or ignored (noop). A noop rule will cause matching network requests to be ignored by the dynamic filtering engine, but those ignored network requests will still be subjected to static filtering (filter lists). So the missing limitation in MV3 right now seems to be that things can be blocked or allowed by dynamic rules, but not ignored such that static rules (be they from a list or the user) can take over. I'm not sure what use case that has exactly, but I'm guessing that could be a problem if a user wants to override an existing filter with a custom, dynamic rule. Is that the right idea?

g8oz 5y ago

Like the EFF said, Chrome is a Google agent not a user agent. Switch to Firefox on desktop and mobile.

rasz 5y ago
Firefox is also a Google agent since couple of years, backed by decisions of a 'great ceo' and $200Mil a year.

ur-whale 5y ago

I remember a time when Google used to crank out a seemingly endless stream of stuff that basically were tremendous improvements to the internet. Chrome itself was one of those amazing improvements. These days are long gone it seems. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening right now: every change coming out of a Google seems to improve their lot at the detriment of everyone else, especially their users. The time to ditch Chrome was ~5 years ago, but if you aren't convinced yet, this latest "improvement" should be the straw that breaks the donkey's back.

akomtu 5y ago
I've noticed that most companies follow this cycle: they grow reputation first, then they harvest the crops by monetizing that reputation. Someone unfamiliar with farming will be surprised why farmers spend a year to grow crops only to destroy them at the end.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Brave for life it is I guess.

Exuma 5y ago
Brave is not a good or secure browser, you can search here on HN for all the things they do wrong
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Nope searches for brave browser secure and brave browser safe brought up nothing on HN except good things.
- hda2 5y ago
  Could you link to something specific and current. I didn't find anything.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

One of the interesing things about this story is that there appears to be no consideration of not "updating" to a new Chrome version. The idea of user choice in "updating" is completely absent. Why cannot a user say, "V3 sounds wonderful but I will stick with V2, thank you." A user has a version of a program that works for that user (e.g., with uBlock Origin), and Google can apparently forcibly stop that user from using that working version, through a process of "automatic updates". Users must "accept" updates which makes one wonder Google can pull this off. Does it not rely on user behaviour. By accepting every "update" without question, the user is effectively consenting to being controlled. Perhaps users will someday "wake up" to realise that so-called updates are not necessarily being remotely installed for their benefit, but for the benefit of someone else. No doubt Google has some parallel construction type explanation why users need V3, but how many folks cannot see that they are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Perhaps if ads can be blocked, so too can updates. (IME, it's possible.)

aj3 5y ago
There were over a dozen of 0day exploits this year alone. Some used in water hole style attacks, so not even that targeted. And these are state of the art incidents which would have pwned even users with all the updates installed. After the patch has been pushed out, exploits become progressively cheaper so letting users to postpone security updates is a crime.
- akomtu 5y ago
  Ads, which is about running untrusted and usually hostile JS in your briwser, is the Pandora box of 0day exploits. Cut off ads, disable JS by default, and you'll solve 99% of 0days.
jacquesm 5y ago
Companies rely on their fuckups to force you to update so you get the rest of the kool-aid right along with the stuff that is a must have. You can't say 'just give me that security stuff and hold the trash'.

seanwilson 5y ago

Not saying this is good enough, but there's still 12 months before this needs to happen? https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ > As we look to the future by continuing to iterate on and improve upon Manifest V3 functionality, we also want to share details about the plan to phase out Manifest V2 extensions. > There are two key dates for the phase-out: > January 17, 2022: New Manifest V2 extensions will no longer be accepted by the Chrome Web Store. Developers may still push updates to existing Manifest V2 extensions, but no new Manifest V2 items may be submitted. > January 2023: The Chrome browser will no longer run Manifest V2 extensions. Developers may no longer push updates to existing Manifest V2 extensions.

yokem55 5y ago

The end game on this is that there will be browsers that support ad blocking and browsers that don't. Content vendors will go all out on blocking users that don't use their preferred mandatory ads browsers, and the 'web' as we know it will suffer.

yogthos 5y ago

Firefox is absolutely fantastic nowadays, and I strongly encourage everyone to start using it as their primary browser. It's hard to overstate how important it is to have at least two independent browser implementations around. If Firefox dies then Chromium would become the de facto rendering engine, and we'll no longer have any meaningful specification for web standards. The web will simply be whatever Chromium does including all its quirks. We've already seen the horrors of that back in the days of IE. Furthermore, Google is fundamentally an ads company and it should not be the gatekeeper for the internet. I highly recommend reading a recent antitrust filing regarding how Google has worked with Facebook and Microsoft to discourage them from increasing user privacy https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56... Google has a secret deal with Facebook called "Jedi Blue" that they knew was illegal and has a whole section describing how they'll cover for each other if anyone finds out. Google has a team called gTrade that is wholly dedicated to ad market manipulation. Google had a plan called "Project NERA" to turn the web into a walled garden they called "Not Owned But Operated". A core component of this was the forced logins to the chrome browser you've probably experienced. Google is willing to do almost everything to prevent people from circumventing their ad exchanges which is what AMP is all about. Google habitually does insider trading on their ad exchanges in every way possible. The exchanges are also rigged so that google wins on bids where they aren't the highest bidder. A large amount of people inside Google are aware of all of this. Google has worked with Facebook and Microsoft to discourage them from increasing user privacy, lamenting occasions where they prioritized their reputation over their collective business interest.

agilob 5y ago
I'm afraid Mozilla can't promise anything at this point: >After discussing this with several content blocking extension developers, we have decided to implement DNR and continue maintaining support for blocking webRequest Then they say blockingWebRequest will be eventually deprecated: >We’d like to note that it’s still very early to be talking about migrating extensions to Manifest v3. We have not yet set a deprecation date for Manifest v2 but expect it to be supported for at least one year after Manifest v3 becomes stable in the release channel. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...

Jackson__ 5y ago

It seems the chrome team has been fabricating a hostage situation with their own foot for the past year or two. They keep yelling that they'll shoot it any day now, yet we don't seem any closer to it. I wish them the courage to finally pull the trigger.

baxuz 5y ago

I'll probably switch to a system-wide adblocker like Adguard. It's already a life-saver on Android.

sizzle 5y ago

Will PiHole(so?) be able to block ads before chrome can render them or will these Manifestv3 changes break pages from loading?

aasasd 5y ago

Good. Maybe some people will drop Chrome now.

luckman212 5y ago

Fuck. I'm getting too old for this shit. The cat and mouse game of Google / AdTech vs the general public has gone off the deep end. Popups. Popovers. Popunders. Content shifting. Paywalls. GDPR Alert! Chatbots. Can I send you a Cookie? Ok. Can I help you find something? No. Wait! Don't close the page yet! Coupon code? No. Subscribe to our newsletter? No. Autoplaying video. How To Make A Million Bucks A Month Selling On Amazon! You Can Be A Handsome Guy On A Beach Making Money Just Like Me! For. Fucks. Sake. I just want to use the web to access a few of my favorite news sites, use Github, access documentation, watch the (very) occasional YouTube vid, and send email. Am I a dying breed? A mere rounding error in the pie chart of web users? Maybe. But I am truly at a loss for what to do next. Using the internet without uBO is like sticking needles into my eyeballs. "Switch to Firefox!" they said. I've tried, many times. But I really need some simple things that FF can't provide. Like being able to work with JXA to grab tab URLs for some Alfred scripts and other automations I rely heavily on. There's a 20-year old feature request for this[0]. Ok, Brave then? Probably the best option right now, but it keeps me up at night thinking one day Google will actively start going after the forks, making their lives difficult enough in one way or another to the point that they have to shut down. Safari? I haven't checked in a while but there were some critical extensions that just didn't exist last time I checked- things like Rich URL[1] for copying tabs as markdown (so useful!). Dev tools were meh. Just feels like there aren't any good options. Rock and hard place. Google, enough is enough—why are you doing this? (rhetorical. we know why) [0]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125419 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125419 [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rich-url/bkjdcppkdgccnhjibfhlhmeiafnjfamk https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rich-url/bkjdcppkd...

irrational 5y ago

How long until Google pulls funding for Firefox to kill the browser so that ad blocking becomes impossible across the board?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kalinf 5y ago

WTF is PSA

CRConrad 5y ago
"Public Service Announcement". HTH!

slowmovintarget 5y ago

This is why I switched back to Firefox three years ago. The writing was on the wall for ad blockers in Chrome. I want one that works. I want control over my web experience.

blacklight 5y ago

Just boycott Chrome, as a user and as a developer. And boycott any other Chromium-based browser altogether. The only reason why a mediocre ads company like Google is managing to mess up the web is that it has >90% of the browser's market share, if you include all Chromium-based browsers. If they can periodically break the basic functionalities of web extensions however they like (HTTP calls within extensions, background scripts, ability to manipulate the DOM...) just to ensure that people won't manage to block ads and trackers, and they still get developers to build stuff for their browser and they don't lose a single user, they can really get away with EVERYTHING. Time to let them know that they can't really get away with everything. Google has been an evil company beyond redemption and with a net negative added value to the industry for too long and now it deserves to go down. MV3 should be the reason why developers should stop building extensions for Chrome, users should stop using Chrome, and other browsers should move to other web engines than Chromium. If nobody follows Google in their efforts to push for MV3, then we'll be left with a limited browser with limited functionalities and nearly no extensions. Let Google sink in their own sh*t.

barfingclouds 5y ago
I’ve been a long term chrome user. What’s a good alternative browser you’d recommend?
- Valord 5y ago
  Firefox. I switched on all of my machines, MacOS and Windows, a few years ago and rarely have any issues. I was expecting it to be a rough ride based on what I hear around the internet but it was quite the opposite: seamless. As with most things you'll hear comments on HN with both sides liking and hating it but I never experience the terribleness that comes from those that say it sucks. I also don't mind switching to Chrome when I absolutely have to. edit: I also use FF on Android and I will admit it has a few more issues than it has on my PC, but nothing that is bad enough to make me use Chrome.

BuckRogers 5y ago

For Microsoft to really rain on Google’s parade here, don’t all they have to do is allow V2 compliant extensions into their extension store? If so that would be a grand opportunity.