9 ms·

I know the submission title matches the title of the Reddit post, but both titles are misleading—Google didn't mention uBO by name, they just confirmed that all

I know the submission title matches the title of the Reddit post, but both titles are misleading—Google didn't mention uBO by name, they just confirmed that all Manifest v2 extensions will be disabled.

xdennis 3y ago
Of course Google don't mention uBO by name. But this is the real reason they are doing it. Privacy is just a pretext. uBO lite will still be available but it will be very nerfed. Hopefully people move to Firefox, but I'm not so optimistic. It took a huge campaign to get people to move from IE6 to Firefox, and I'm not certain it can be replicated with Chrome.
- ge96 3y ago
  What is the nerfing reason between 2/3?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Scion9066 3y ago
    Switching to an extension providing a list of things to block or redirect to the browser rather than the extension having access to all content on every page that you visit. I'd imagine that people don't vet extensions nearly as much as they should for the access they give them to all their web browser traffic. Not to mention an extension that is okay now may not be once sold to someone else (for those extension developers not as honorable as those of uBlock Origin and hoverzoom).
    - ge96 3y ago
      Oh man I've seen that happen before eg. a JSON parser I feel the same. It's crazy what kind of extensions people just use, there is one called Snov or something, to add a pixel in emails... it's like dude, you gave this random company access to read your emails... idk. which yeah... UBO but still that's open source at least. An extension you can view the source sure.
      - soraminazuki 3y ago
        uBO is more exceptional than typical open source extensions. Its developers has shown themselves to be much more trustworthy and well-intentioned than Google.
      - dabockster 3y ago
        I think, at some point, people should have the right to be stupid on their computers. What needs to change is holding them liable if their negligence affects others.
  - konart 3y ago
    Manifest v3 is killing current WebRequest API so you won't be able to filter requests on the fly (sort of playing man in the middle). This means uBlock won't be as effective because once web request is done\page\script is loaded - it is impossible to stop it from loading other scripts. Also it limits how many or what urls can be filtered at all if I'm not mistaken.
- mmis1000 3y ago
  Plus the new api don't even prevent you from peeking the traffic. Only prevent you from modify it. How is this able to improve privacy? And the biggest user of traffic modification? You got it, it's all sorts of adblocks. They are literally not trying to hide it. Or they should probably also limit apis that are able to peeking the traffics.
jjulius 3y ago
... which means that UBO will be disabled. If A=B and B=C, then yadda yadda.
- apetresc 3y ago
  Sure, but surely you agree there's a difference in implication, right? Like, if a headline says "McDonald's Announces It Will Stop Serving McNuggets to Donald Trump", and the story was actually that McDonald's was discontinuing McNuggets altogether (and therefore also to Trump), would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?
  - meiraleal 3y ago
    > would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property? The latter because McDonalds managers have been publicly discussing how and why they should stop serving nuggets to Trump in order to better protect their customers
    - Arainach 3y ago
      That's not true in reality or in your weird twisting of the metaphor. When has Google ever mentioned uBlock specifically?
  - john-radio 3y ago
    How dare you tease us with that pornographic hypothetical?
  - selcuka 3y ago
    Not the best analogy as we all know that the rationale behind the change is to cripple ad blockers. If most people thinks that McDonald's actual motive is to starve Trump, then it would be fair to post a headline like that too.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    If McDonalds sees a certain politician walking toward their register eyeing the picture of nuggets on the overhead screen, and they frantically rush to slap “sold out indefinitely” there… well, then I’ll think they had an agenda. Chrome wants to get ad revenue on YouTube, but those ads are blocked. Now, it after many years finally decides Manifest v2 has to go? Suspicious.
Zandikar 3y ago
Why are we linking to reddit posts and not just the actual source anyway?
- dabockster 3y ago
  Why do you all even care? We’re on a web forum not the New York Times.
  - rsanek 3y ago
    it's in this web forum's rules > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
jugad 3y ago
That sounds very similar to hiding behind sneaky talk in order to keep the practical effects in the background. Almost no-one cares about the terms "Manifest v2 extensions" - because almost no one recognizes them for what they really are. Most people can understand it by its effect - that it will disable UBO. Only sneaky people will insist on using the technically correct, but obscure term in a PUBLIC announcement - clearly the aim is to make sure that the public overlooks the announcement.

xdennis 3y ago

Of course Google don't mention uBO by name. But this is the real reason they are doing it. Privacy is just a pretext. uBO lite will still be available but it will be very nerfed. Hopefully people move to Firefox, but I'm not so optimistic. It took a huge campaign to get people to move from IE6 to Firefox, and I'm not certain it can be replicated with Chrome.

ge96 3y ago
What is the nerfing reason between 2/3?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Scion9066 3y ago
  Switching to an extension providing a list of things to block or redirect to the browser rather than the extension having access to all content on every page that you visit. I'd imagine that people don't vet extensions nearly as much as they should for the access they give them to all their web browser traffic. Not to mention an extension that is okay now may not be once sold to someone else (for those extension developers not as honorable as those of uBlock Origin and hoverzoom).
  - ge96 3y ago
    Oh man I've seen that happen before eg. a JSON parser I feel the same. It's crazy what kind of extensions people just use, there is one called Snov or something, to add a pixel in emails... it's like dude, you gave this random company access to read your emails... idk. which yeah... UBO but still that's open source at least. An extension you can view the source sure.
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      uBO is more exceptional than typical open source extensions. Its developers has shown themselves to be much more trustworthy and well-intentioned than Google.
    - dabockster 3y ago
      I think, at some point, people should have the right to be stupid on their computers. What needs to change is holding them liable if their negligence affects others.
- konart 3y ago
  Manifest v3 is killing current WebRequest API so you won't be able to filter requests on the fly (sort of playing man in the middle). This means uBlock won't be as effective because once web request is done\page\script is loaded - it is impossible to stop it from loading other scripts. Also it limits how many or what urls can be filtered at all if I'm not mistaken.
mmis1000 3y ago
Plus the new api don't even prevent you from peeking the traffic. Only prevent you from modify it. How is this able to improve privacy? And the biggest user of traffic modification? You got it, it's all sorts of adblocks. They are literally not trying to hide it. Or they should probably also limit apis that are able to peeking the traffics.

jjulius 3y ago

... which means that UBO will be disabled. If A=B and B=C, then yadda yadda.

apetresc 3y ago
Sure, but surely you agree there's a difference in implication, right? Like, if a headline says "McDonald's Announces It Will Stop Serving McNuggets to Donald Trump", and the story was actually that McDonald's was discontinuing McNuggets altogether (and therefore also to Trump), would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?
- meiraleal 3y ago
  > would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property? The latter because McDonalds managers have been publicly discussing how and why they should stop serving nuggets to Trump in order to better protect their customers
  - Arainach 3y ago
    That's not true in reality or in your weird twisting of the metaphor. When has Google ever mentioned uBlock specifically?
- john-radio 3y ago
  How dare you tease us with that pornographic hypothetical?
- selcuka 3y ago
  Not the best analogy as we all know that the rationale behind the change is to cripple ad blockers. If most people thinks that McDonald's actual motive is to starve Trump, then it would be fair to post a headline like that too.
- true_religion 3y ago
  If McDonalds sees a certain politician walking toward their register eyeing the picture of nuggets on the overhead screen, and they frantically rush to slap “sold out indefinitely” there… well, then I’ll think they had an agenda. Chrome wants to get ad revenue on YouTube, but those ads are blocked. Now, it after many years finally decides Manifest v2 has to go? Suspicious.

Zandikar 3y ago

Why are we linking to reddit posts and not just the actual source anyway?

dabockster 3y ago
Why do you all even care? We’re on a web forum not the New York Times.
- rsanek 3y ago
  it's in this web forum's rules > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

jugad 3y ago

That sounds very similar to hiding behind sneaky talk in order to keep the practical effects in the background. Almost no-one cares about the terms "Manifest v2 extensions" - because almost no one recognizes them for what they really are. Most people can understand it by its effect - that it will disable UBO. Only sneaky people will insist on using the technically correct, but obscure term in a PUBLIC announcement - clearly the aim is to make sure that the public overlooks the announcement.