7 ms·

So I was actually trying out uBlock Origin Lite [1] (the MV3 compatible version) as my daily driver for the past week and I must say it's not that bad. I had to

by jupp0r 4y ago

So I was actually trying out uBlock Origin Lite [1] (the MV3 compatible version) as my daily driver for the past week and I must say it's not that bad. I had to manually enable content access for a handful of sites but doing so on an opt-in basis and getting more performant experience on 98% of other sites is actually something I'm going to use going forward even if MV2 compatibility gets pushed further into the future. I wonder how long things will stay that way though, when sites will tailor their tracking/ad annoyances to exploit the MV3 limitations. I really wouldn't want to opt into every single site I visit. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/uBOLite_0.1.22.9285 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/uBOLite_0.1.2...

LordDragonfang 4y ago
It's really validating to see someone post their actual experience with MV3 adblocking, because the constant stream of misleading headlines saying "Google is banning adblocking" on low-expertise places like reddit has become a pet peeve of mine. Almost no one involved in those discussions actually know how adblockers work, and are just copying and pasting sub-par reporting, which itself is just poorly-informed fluff around attempts to rephrase comments from gorhill. MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. There's slightly more concern over privacy blockers, but as usual it gets more clicks to mislead users about something they care about (adblocking) rather than get them to really care about privacy.
- MarkusWandel 4y ago
  I tried the "lite" Ublock on my work laptop, on the relatively uninformed opinion that MV3 really is safer than MV2 in terms of a rogue extension being able to reach in and steal your secrets (am I wrong?) An immediate test with Youtube gave pre-roll ads. Oh well. But a later Youtube visit, and all since, have been like Ublock Origin - ads gone, preroll, superimposed and in-video ad breaks. I have no idea how all this works and frankly am glad I don't have to. But yes, of course, Youtube may change in the future to precisely sidestep the MV3 limitations of ad blockers.
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  > MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. I just don't think this is true, ad blocking will be substantially degraded and, more importantly to certain companies involved, the ability to block tracking cookies and request metadata will be almost entirely removed. > just poorly-informed fluff around attempts to rephrase comments from gorhill. gorhill's comments here indicate many issues remain with MV3 and that it still fails to meet his own requirements. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1253893421 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss... > There's slightly more concern over privacy blockers I don't know if users of ad blockers make this distinction.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    > gorhill's comments here indicate many issues remain with MV3 and that it still fails to meet his own requirements. How do you figure? Gorhill actually states that there are many improvements only possible because of V3. What's also said is that for some features in the future there's further investigation required. And the last thing said in that comment is: > Many users of uBO will dislike the limitations of uBOL when compared to uBO. There is no point complaining about it, it's just not for you, it's meant for another kind of users -- you do not have to use it.[..] but I want to offer an option for those who use uBO as an install-and-forget blocker without ever interacting with it. I think you're kind of mischaracterizing the comment.
    - AaronFriel 4y ago
      > Gorhill actually states that there are many improvements only possible because of V3. I think that's a charitable - to the Chrome team - misunderstanding of an artificial limitation they've imposed. The improvements are possible without MV3: * declarativeNetRequest is implemented today, they could expose it in MV2 * nothing prevents Google Chrome from continuing to offer the current onBeforeRequest API as a permission extensions can request in MV3 * nothing prevents Google Chrome from working with developers like gorhill, who are sensitive to performance concerns as you'll see below, to develop more powerful APIs that fit within a security and performance profile that satisfies end users, gorhill, and the Chrome team. On performance: While many of the performance improvements are made possible with a declarative API, uBlock Origin uses WebAssembly for an extremely performant fully dynamic blocking implementation that has almost no impact on battery life. (I believe other experiments have shown that blocking these requests yields increases in battery life, even.) You can see some benchmarks here that were posted from his experimentation: https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hnset-benchmark.html https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hns... On security: gorhill has proven that he's capable of writing WebAssembly to implement highly performant and sandboxed checking of dynamic filters. WebAssembly is in fact the perfect technology for a "declarativeNetRequest" to use. Could Chrome cut the Gordian knot of enabling performant and safe ad blocking extensions with an API that registers a WASM program as web request filter? The program could be limited to pass/fail/redact actions, where redact would involve removing headers, query parameters, trailing path parts. That is, "utm_campaign=..." could be removed, but the extension would not have a side channel for injecting information into requests.
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  Amazing astroturfing buddy, keep it up. It's one thing to degrade service quality for the greater good of the userbase (see spectre/meltdown exploit mitigations for example), and it's another thing entirely to do so to the detriment of your userbase. What you're saying here is the equivalent of me stepping on your brand new shoes and then saying "what... They still work fine!".
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    Your point is ...? Have you tried Ublock Origin Lite? What did you dislike?
- staticassertion 4y ago
  I've tried engaging on reddit in those threads to clarify what the changes actually mean. Everything is met with downvotes. HN is barely better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- laundermaf 4y ago
  I don’t care that they’re wrong, I care that this miscategorization helped the issue reach “the public” and rightly caused some finger pointing and users switching away from Chrome. That’s a good thing. Sensationalism works and we all want content blocking to be as effective as possible. While “it still works”, it’s not as good or as efficient as the MV2 version.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I kinda care, but I am still glad the pitchforks were used for something useful.
- RedShift1 4y ago
  > MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. Why would anyone accept going to a "slightly worse" situation? We're literally going backwards in terms of functionality and we should just accept this?
  - chlorion 4y ago
    The new API reduces the damage a malicious extension can cause. Sandboxing extensions is a good thing, not a bad thing, and if the price is only a slightly less effective adblocker, then I am totally ok with the change.
    - RedShift1 4y ago
      So why not allow the user to decide?
      - kmlx 4y ago
        you are allowed to decide. you can use a different browser.
tssva 4y ago
I have been using it for the last week also and have had a similar experience. I also have no plans to return to the MV2 version.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
No, if you have a single extension that needs to block requests using manifest v3, you're not going to run into the problem that everyone's been pointing out.
postalrat 4y ago
There isn't much incentive right now to make ad delivery that can't be blocked in mv3. I'd bet once mv2 is gone you will suddenly start seeing ads not blocked because it's impossible to block with declarative rules.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Doesn’t v3 work similar to add blockers for Safari on iOS? So hasn’t that incentive already existed?
  - postalrat 4y ago
    Do most Safari users even realize ad blocking is an option?
    - MBCook 4y ago
      Do most chrome users? It looks like 25-40% of internet users block ads. Depends on country. I can’t find per-browser stats, which would be somewhat fascinating.
  - latexr 4y ago
    And Safari on macOS (same system). Worth noting those can’t block the most recent YouTube ads without introducing a bespoke solution.
    - MBCook 4y ago
      At some point Google is going to insert the ads in the video stream and they’ll be unstoppable by anyone who doesn’t buy premium.
cypress66 4y ago
Most websites don't bother with antiadblock because current adblock can handle that. Once most people are using crippled ad blockers that can't bypass antiadblock, they'll implement the antiadblock.
latexr 4y ago
> and getting more performant experience According to uBlock Origin’s creator, we don’t yet know if the performance truly is better: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1262484884 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...

by jupp0r 4y ago

LordDragonfang 4y ago

It's really validating to see someone post their actual experience with MV3 adblocking, because the constant stream of misleading headlines saying "Google is banning adblocking" on low-expertise places like reddit has become a pet peeve of mine. Almost no one involved in those discussions actually know how adblockers work, and are just copying and pasting sub-par reporting, which itself is just poorly-informed fluff around attempts to rephrase comments from gorhill. MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. There's slightly more concern over privacy blockers, but as usual it gets more clicks to mislead users about something they care about (adblocking) rather than get them to really care about privacy.

MarkusWandel 4y ago
I tried the "lite" Ublock on my work laptop, on the relatively uninformed opinion that MV3 really is safer than MV2 in terms of a rogue extension being able to reach in and steal your secrets (am I wrong?) An immediate test with Youtube gave pre-roll ads. Oh well. But a later Youtube visit, and all since, have been like Ublock Origin - ads gone, preroll, superimposed and in-video ad breaks. I have no idea how all this works and frankly am glad I don't have to. But yes, of course, Youtube may change in the future to precisely sidestep the MV3 limitations of ad blockers.
AaronFriel 4y ago
> MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. I just don't think this is true, ad blocking will be substantially degraded and, more importantly to certain companies involved, the ability to block tracking cookies and request metadata will be almost entirely removed. > just poorly-informed fluff around attempts to rephrase comments from gorhill. gorhill's comments here indicate many issues remain with MV3 and that it still fails to meet his own requirements. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1253893421 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss... > There's slightly more concern over privacy blockers I don't know if users of ad blockers make this distinction.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  > gorhill's comments here indicate many issues remain with MV3 and that it still fails to meet his own requirements. How do you figure? Gorhill actually states that there are many improvements only possible because of V3. What's also said is that for some features in the future there's further investigation required. And the last thing said in that comment is: > Many users of uBO will dislike the limitations of uBOL when compared to uBO. There is no point complaining about it, it's just not for you, it's meant for another kind of users -- you do not have to use it.[..] but I want to offer an option for those who use uBO as an install-and-forget blocker without ever interacting with it. I think you're kind of mischaracterizing the comment.
  - AaronFriel 4y ago
    > Gorhill actually states that there are many improvements only possible because of V3. I think that's a charitable - to the Chrome team - misunderstanding of an artificial limitation they've imposed. The improvements are possible without MV3: * declarativeNetRequest is implemented today, they could expose it in MV2 * nothing prevents Google Chrome from continuing to offer the current onBeforeRequest API as a permission extensions can request in MV3 * nothing prevents Google Chrome from working with developers like gorhill, who are sensitive to performance concerns as you'll see below, to develop more powerful APIs that fit within a security and performance profile that satisfies end users, gorhill, and the Chrome team. On performance: While many of the performance improvements are made possible with a declarative API, uBlock Origin uses WebAssembly for an extremely performant fully dynamic blocking implementation that has almost no impact on battery life. (I believe other experiments have shown that blocking these requests yields increases in battery life, even.) You can see some benchmarks here that were posted from his experimentation: https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hnset-benchmark.html https://raw.githack.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/docs/tests/hns... On security: gorhill has proven that he's capable of writing WebAssembly to implement highly performant and sandboxed checking of dynamic filters. WebAssembly is in fact the perfect technology for a "declarativeNetRequest" to use. Could Chrome cut the Gordian knot of enabling performant and safe ad blocking extensions with an API that registers a WASM program as web request filter? The program could be limited to pass/fail/redact actions, where redact would involve removing headers, query parameters, trailing path parts. That is, "utm_campaign=..." could be removed, but the extension would not have a side channel for injecting information into requests.
nebulousthree 4y ago
Amazing astroturfing buddy, keep it up. It's one thing to degrade service quality for the greater good of the userbase (see spectre/meltdown exploit mitigations for example), and it's another thing entirely to do so to the detriment of your userbase. What you're saying here is the equivalent of me stepping on your brand new shoes and then saying "what... They still work fine!".
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Your point is ...? Have you tried Ublock Origin Lite? What did you dislike?
staticassertion 4y ago
I've tried engaging on reddit in those threads to clarify what the changes actually mean. Everything is met with downvotes. HN is barely better.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
laundermaf 4y ago
I don’t care that they’re wrong, I care that this miscategorization helped the issue reach “the public” and rightly caused some finger pointing and users switching away from Chrome. That’s a good thing. Sensationalism works and we all want content blocking to be as effective as possible. While “it still works”, it’s not as good or as efficient as the MV2 version.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I kinda care, but I am still glad the pitchforks were used for something useful.
RedShift1 4y ago
> MV3 adblockers are still going to, broadly, work fine, if slightly worse than before. Why would anyone accept going to a "slightly worse" situation? We're literally going backwards in terms of functionality and we should just accept this?
- chlorion 4y ago
  The new API reduces the damage a malicious extension can cause. Sandboxing extensions is a good thing, not a bad thing, and if the price is only a slightly less effective adblocker, then I am totally ok with the change.
  - RedShift1 4y ago
    So why not allow the user to decide?
    - kmlx 4y ago
      you are allowed to decide. you can use a different browser.

tssva 4y ago

I have been using it for the last week also and have had a similar experience. I also have no plans to return to the MV2 version.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

No, if you have a single extension that needs to block requests using manifest v3, you're not going to run into the problem that everyone's been pointing out.

postalrat 4y ago

There isn't much incentive right now to make ad delivery that can't be blocked in mv3. I'd bet once mv2 is gone you will suddenly start seeing ads not blocked because it's impossible to block with declarative rules.

MBCook 4y ago
Doesn’t v3 work similar to add blockers for Safari on iOS? So hasn’t that incentive already existed?
- postalrat 4y ago
  Do most Safari users even realize ad blocking is an option?
  - MBCook 4y ago
    Do most chrome users? It looks like 25-40% of internet users block ads. Depends on country. I can’t find per-browser stats, which would be somewhat fascinating.
- latexr 4y ago
  And Safari on macOS (same system). Worth noting those can’t block the most recent YouTube ads without introducing a bespoke solution.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    At some point Google is going to insert the ads in the video stream and they’ll be unstoppable by anyone who doesn’t buy premium.

cypress66 4y ago

Most websites don't bother with antiadblock because current adblock can handle that. Once most people are using crippled ad blockers that can't bypass antiadblock, they'll implement the antiadblock.

latexr 4y ago

> and getting more performant experience According to uBlock Origin’s creator, we don’t yet know if the performance truly is better: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1262484884 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...