11 ms·

Google Chrome will limit ad blockers starting June 2024

227 points by AlexandrB 3y ago

gardenhedge 3y ago
I don't even have Google Chrome installed. I have Firefox, Edge and Vivaldi. I pretty much switch between them throughout the day and it's unnoticeable really.
edrxty 3y ago
Wouldn't this be a pretty obvious anti trust violation?
- missedthecue 3y ago
  What is the angle you're thinking of?
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    "bundling"
  - agloe_dreams 3y ago
    Google owns web browser with monopoly market share. Google uses product with monopoly market share to limit tools that allow a user to block ads that harms their other half...of which they are also a monopoly in. There is a strong argument that they are using a monopoly to control and prevent users from choice to display or not display content, removing their choice to not see Google ads. I'm not sure that any of this would ever have weight in the US...but it does feel off.
  - rurp 3y ago
    Google used billions of dollars from its online ad dominance to gain a monopoly in a different market via Chrome. Google is now using the latter monopoly to juice profits in the former, to the detriment of users.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      Having the best product is not the same as monopoly. The switching costs of web browsers is as close to zero as is possible. Downloading opera, Firefox, brave, or any of the others is free and takes less than two minutes. This isn't standard oil where you either buy oil from them or freeze.
  - wolpoli 3y ago
    I am thinking "A pattern of anti-competitive actions leveraging Google's control in multiple parts of the web ecosystem to limit competition." Will this fly in the US?
philprx 3y ago
Last or first nail in the coffin for Google? Definitely ground for breakup IMHO.
- pianoben 3y ago
  I'd be off of Chrome in a heartbeat if it weren't for all the Google properties required by my work, which themselves cripple non-Chromium browsers. (Looking at you, Meet!) Firefox, for all of Mozilla's faults, stands head-and-shoulders over Chrome in terms of good and respectful user experience.
  - marak830 3y ago
    Generally isn't a user agent change enough?
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    you can use different browsers for Meet and for browsing. I use different browsers for basically everything, tech stuff, reddit and everything more salacious, banking, email
  - conradludgate 3y ago
    I use Google meet just fine on Firefox at work. Even video filters work. The only thing I can imagine not being 100% is tab-only sharing
    - LesZedCB 3y ago
      woah, filters work now! i am 100% firefox at home and 95% at work, i keep (kept, yay!) chrome for meet so i could blur. thanks for mentioning this!
      - neurostimulant 3y ago
        It's been working for months if you spoof your user agent to chrome. Google just really taking their time allowing Firefox to use filters on Meets.
ssijak 3y ago
Just use something that lives outside of the browser and covers blocking at the computer level (or router for the whole home), but I prefer at the computer level if you are up to the blocker being proxy for all https traffic. But a very small number of people will do that. I was surprised how small is the number of people running any adblocker at all.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  For web browsing, these solutions necessarily cannot be as sophisticated as software running in the browser. They're also much less convenient to install and use. DNS filters and firewall rules are crude tools by comparison but you can't install uBO on random apps or your TV.
  - SCHiM 3y ago
    Not to mention this is an attack on multiple fronts: do you _really_ believe DoH is about privacy?
    - kbenson 3y ago
      It both is and it isn't. It moves people from different threat models to a middle ground, and for some people that's worse and for some people it's significantly better. If you live in the U.S. for most major ISP users it's probably a wash and you're just letting a different party have your info. If you live in a nation that desires to control what you consume online then it probably is a net gain.
      - attentive 3y ago
        dnscrypt.org will shuffle between multiple encrypted resolvers. So no single party has your info.
        Scion9066 3y ago
        Isn't that worse though since your data would be spread across multiple potentially untrustworthy parties instead of just a single one? Given how many requests a browser makes and normal browsing habits like regularly visiting the same sites, it would eventually lead to each resolver having a full profile of what you browse. That makes me think of the reason Tor has Entry Guards where the first hop is limited to just a few selected nodes instead of random: https://support.torproject.org/about/entry-guards/ https://support.torproject.org/about/entry-guards/
Clubber 3y ago
Time to limit using Google Chrome.
lukeschlather 3y ago
Unfortunately Firefox is just as caught up in enforcing unsolicited web advertising. I have sponsored urlbar suggestions off, but still Firefox enrolled me in a "Weather Suggestions Follow On" "study" which puts sponsored AccuWeather results ahead of normal URL bar autocomplete results.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I get the critique, but "just as"? Really? It is possible for two things to be bad without pretending that they're equivalent. And in any case, if you're worried about Firefox, use Librewolf; it will not have sponsored search suggestions. But either option is better than Chrome if you're trying to avoid advertisements.
- frfl 3y ago
  Kind of a stretch to equate these two things. But honestly it comes down to this: in one you have an option to disable stuff you dont like, in the other you hope there will an option. You can guess which is which.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    If they change settings at their discretion to enable sponsored results, do I really have an option?
    - frfl 3y ago
      Most stuff in Firefox is configurable. So unless you're saying you have found no way to opt-out of what you're describing you don't have a point. You mention "study", in Firefox's settings (about:preferences#privacy) I can see "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" checkbox. So yeah, I think you do have an option.
      - lukeschlather 3y ago
        I would like to be able to leave studies on to participate without having my trust violated. Part of me is willing to chalk this up to an error, but it feels bad faith and there is a definite pattern of Mozilla adding new intrusions that they know are not welcome without asking.
ymir_e 3y ago
How’s firefox these days? On a serious note - I’ve seen a lot of browser startups lately. Are there any of them that really stand out?
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  I prefer it over Chrome. It's a (mostly) de-botnetted browser that allows deep customization and control.
- LightHugger 3y ago
  I can recommend librewolf, firefox with all the mozilla crap stripped out and good default privacy settings. Can tweak the options easily too if there's anything too annoying.
  - Phelinofist 3y ago
    Quoting another HN user regarding librewolf: > Binaries are unsigned, third party update service, Google safe browsing disabled unless you build from source, running unusual browser setups can actually make you more distinctive online, unencrypted DNS by default, speed of security patches is slower than base Firefox, etc.
    - babypuncher 3y ago
      Yeah I like what LibreWolf is doing, but it seems more reasonable to just disable the Firefox features you don't like.
    - oynqr 3y ago
      All of those except the last one are positives.
    - LightHugger 3y ago
      Unsigned binaries is good, update service is good, google safe browsing disabled is mega good, unencrypted dns is comparatively good from what i understand compared to mozilla's imperfect solution. Speed of security patches is not great, but having non-mozilla vetting on security patches is a tradeoff that is worthwhile.
infamouscow 3y ago
Base salary cuts are coming next for employees. It's all but a forgone conclusion at this point.
- hooo 3y ago
  You mean at Google?
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    Yes, at Google. The MBA's are in charge now.
BizarreByte 3y ago
HN vastly over estimates how many people use adblockers every time this comes up and it is getting tiring. Google will likely not see any noticeable reduction in user count from the upcoming addon changes. If you value your software freedom you shouldn't have been on Chrome in the first place for any reason.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Is there a demographic skew to consider? There are billions online, but the most desirable eyeballs on ads are Western and young. I would guess that population uses ad-blockers at a much higher rate than the background population, but I won't venture to guess how much higher.
- exabrial 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - exabrial 3y ago
      fine, ok
- 4death4 3y ago
  According to a random Google search, something like 40% of internet users use an ad blocker.
- burkaman 3y ago
  35-45% of users worldwide use ad blockers, depending on the source. It is extremely common, otherwise Google wouldn't be doing this. The top few ad blockers in the Chrome store (uBlock, AdBlock, AdGuard, etc.) have tens of millions of users each.
wmf 3y ago
UBOL on Manifest V3 still blocks 99% of ads or more. Advanced functionality will be lost but I'm not sure how many people will notice.
- hu3 3y ago
  I had to search UBOL and it is "uBlock Origin Lite" [0] from the same author of uBlock Origin. uBO Lite (uBOL) is a *permission-less* MV3-based content blocker. The default ruleset corresponds to uBlock Origin's default filterset: - uBlock Origin's built-in filter lists - EasyList - EasyPrivacy - Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list [0] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
  - masto 3y ago
    It's mentioned at the very bottom of the article, dismissively. (Despite the fact that the FAQ linked to doesn't make it seem nearly as limited as the author of this article wants you to believe)
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > Despite the fact that the FAQ linked to doesn't make it seem nearly as limited as the author of this article wants you to believe "The media is exaggerating Gorhill's opposition to Google's Manifest V3 changes" is just about the wildest take I've seen on Manifest V3 yet. ---- Just to be clear, here's the author of that FAQ describing how the FAQ has been covered: https://nitter.privacydev.net/gorhill/status/1725633169070649710#m https://nitter.privacydev.net/gorhill/status/172563316907064... > I've seen mentions that uBO Lite (uBOL) is proof that MV3-based blockers are as capable as MV2 ones. I can't speak for other blockers but this is not the case for uBOL vs. uBO
- zb3 3y ago
  But afterwards, companies like "adrecover" will surely exploit these MV3 limitations for profit.
- 3y ago
endisneigh 3y ago
If chrome limits ad blockers and provides some way to unambiguously determine whether or not you’re chrome that cannot be spoofed, i wonder if sites will explicitly start blocking Firefox and other browsers.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Yes. That’s very likely actually.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    This site works exclusively with IE6.
  - ryeights 3y ago
    That would seem to fall afoul of antitrust regulation.
    - beej71 3y ago
      It sure would, we hope. But we have to keep screaming about WEI and similar proposals until Google stops being an asshole. Pressure must be kept up. I remember when I was young thinking it would be impossible to out-asshole Microsoft. Ah, the innocent days.
  - lstamour 3y ago
    Right now, Safari being the only game in town on iOS is basically the only reason why websites don’t exclude non-Chrome browsers already. Now if Apple ever supported this in a way that broke or deprecated adblocking, I’d probably seriously consider switching to an un-Googled Android phone. Until then, though, I’ve switched to Firefox on my desktop computers and use Safari on mobile and am pretty darn happy with the adblocking of both.
- neuralRiot 3y ago
  Probably you could always be able to install an adblocker as an “unpacked extension” if they’re banned in the official chrome extension store.
chankstein38 3y ago
I was already working my way off of chrome but without a suitable adblocking extension I'm going to move to whatever I have to. I've been using firefox off and on and it seems great and I see someone in the comments recommending Librewolf. Going to have to check that out. I have been planning for a while to setup a pihole but hadn't yet bothered because I have sufficient ad blockers but definitely going to be doing that now as well. Well done Google, you succeeded in making at least one person up their adblocking game.
- ggpsv 3y ago
  You can use nextdns [0] pretty much to the same effect of a pihole, yet you can get up and running in minutes. You can then configure wherever you please: your browser, your laptop, your phone, or even your router. [0]: https://nextdns.io https://nextdns.io
  - shujito 3y ago
    Are there any self-hosted options or similar?
    - arcanemachiner 3y ago
      Like PiHole?
    - ggpsv 3y ago
      pihole or adguard home[0] [0]: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome#getting-started https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome#getting-started
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    NextDNS does not help you with ads served from the same domain as the website itself, like Google ads.
    - greggsy 3y ago
      It can help with subdomains like adservice.google.com
jmyeet 3y ago
This is how you get the DoJ to sue you for antitrust violations. It starts with blocking ad blockers on Chrome. Then, to prop up Chrome usage you deliberately slow down other browsers, something that's arguably already happening [1] and has arguably already happened [2]. At some point the government takes the same actions they did with Microsoft over Internet Explorer: abuse of market power to require your browsers for the supposedly open Web. [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-down-videos-firefox-3387206/ https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-... [2]: https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/google-denies-altering-youtube-code-to-slow-down-microsoft-edge-story-8OElzy4dk7trSwokQmDtBK.html https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/google-denies-alte...
mcwiggin2 3y ago
What bugs me most about this stuff is the dishonestly. This is about AdBlockers. It's okay to say it's bad for your business and you don't want them. To make up all these other excuses is what is painful and just feels so patronizing.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  It may not actually be OK to say that, since admitting it publicly could make antitrust regulators jobs easier when investigating how Google uses its stranglehold over the browser and search markets to enforce its stranglehold over the online advertising market.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    There should be extra (and enormous) antitrust penalties for publicly lying. These lies can be proven with internal communications gained from discovery or from leaks (incentivized by large bounties).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  Search engines have shown over and over that they'll talk all the money but hide behind the 'we're just the market' cover when one of their ads serves you with a virus. That's why I run an AdBlocker.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  It's both imo. The security issue is both true and a huge problem being actively exploited on a massive scale. Its a "Ah great, we can improve security _and_ cripple ad blockers" moment for Google.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
butterfi 3y ago
My impression is that security people already consider Chrome a "virus" application. This is just one more nail the coffin for anyone who cares about such things. (To be clear, people should care)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dumpsterdiver 3y ago
Seems like an appropriate time to shamelessly plug my tiny Chrome extension, JS Toggle. It's just a low key button that makes it easy to toggle javascript that I made for myself, and use pretty much every day. It does refresh all open pages after toggling, so be mindful of toggling it when dealing with forms, etc. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/js-toggle/bnhjfamolmolljikdopibpabimjfellc https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/js-toggle/bnhjfamol...
dottjt 3y ago
I'm surprised more people don't use Firefox, even from a practical point of view. The main reason I use it as my main driver is because I use Chrome for all my work stuff. I then use Firefox for all my personal stuff, so it separates the two, especially on my work laptop.
- quesera 3y ago
  You can use Firefox for both work and personal stuff, with a couple options: - Multi-Account Containers segregates cookies (i.e. enables multiple simultaneous logins to Gmail, GitHub, etc, any service, in different tabs of the same browser window) - Firefox Profiles segregates everything (cookies, preferences, bookmarks, history), by running a separate browser instance. Containers are more convenient for simple separation. Profiles are 100% separation.
  - 28304283409234 3y ago
    Profiles for the lazy: firefox -P --no-remote
  - suprjami 3y ago
    Another good option is Firefox for work and Librewolf for personal, or vice versa
  - dottjt 3y ago
    I find that tedious. Mainly because it's really easy to switch between chrome and firefox via keyboard, but to switch between profiles/containers requires mouse clicks etc.
    - quesera 3y ago
      Not sure what platform you're on, but I switch between Firefox containers and profiles primarily from keyboard. Profile switching is the usual app switching, handled by the desktop environment. Just like Firefox-to-Chrome would be. Container switching is just tab switching, which Firefox handles well enough. If you need to go deeper in your tab history, you might need to scroll/click, but for the most-recent 9 tabs, it's right there.
apienx 3y ago
The market for 1-click DNS sinkholes is about to get heated. ;)
DeIlliad 3y ago
This goes beyond Youtube. Most ads are absolutely malicious and the web is unsafe and unusable without an adblocker. The FBI themselves recommend using an adblocker to stay safe online https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  > Most ads are absolutely malicious and the web is unsafe and unusable without an adblocker. I haven't used an ad blocker in a decade. The web is perfectly safe and usable. What do you believe makes it unsafe and unusable?
  - Dayshine 3y ago
    The few times I turned it off I started getting fullscreen highjacking adverts: one was convincing enough that unless I knew to tap F11/esc I wouldn't have noticed.
  - styxfrix 3y ago
    > The FBI themselves recommend using an adblocker to stay safe online https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      That's nice for them. They also recommend paying attention to what you're clicking on, as a dot point above that.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    I was going to use my authority as a front line tech in a past life but I'll just link to Wikipedia : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
quotemstr 3y ago
> Enterprise users with the "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" policy turned on will get an extra year of Manifest V2 compatibility. FWIW, anyone can enable this policy. All you have to do is drop some files in /etc. See https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408?hl=en Chrome doesn't look in your home directory for enterprise policy manifest files, sadly.
quotemstr 3y ago
In the long run, as long we have general-purpose computers, ad-blockers will win. Suppose a ManifestV4 completely cuts off network filtering: so what? Run a GPU driver that uses an AI model to block out anything that looks like an ad. Sure, you won't stop ads distorting page layout or causing unnecessary network traffic, but as long as you control your computer a whole, you don't have to see them.
- melesian 3y ago
  It's not simply about what you SEE. It's about tracking what sites you visit, where you are, what information can be collated to profile you in any and every way: your political preferences and likely interests can be gathered with some degree of probability from such things as your taste in music. Google buys your purchase history. Facebook has over 4,000 data points on you even if you don't use Facebook (use WhatsApp? people you know do? you're in their phone's address book?). Microsoft, Amazon and others likewise. The data are for sale. This is how Trump got elected and the UK got Brexit. Microtargeted political messages to persuade a proportion of the population to vote the way the very rich wanted them to vote.
cs02rm0 3y ago
If this comes to pass, does it affect Brave?
- martin1b 3y ago
  Hope not. I like Brave
gridder 3y ago
Chrome today is worse than IE6 in 07.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Seems like having a browser monopoly is bad no matter who's in charge. It's also interesting to see how each company used its power. Microsoft wanted to keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, so they crippled the web. Meanwhile Google wants you to use the web, just not modify it in any way to maintain the profitability of its ad business - so we get a feature-rich rendering engine and proposals like "Web Environment Integrity".
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  It's much better than IE6 in 07, but that also makes it much more dangerous. MS stopping IE development was a major strategic mistake (and unintended gift to free internet).
peoplenotbots 3y ago
Business wise makes sense google's cashflow is based on shoveling mostly shitty ads at people and youtube allows people to self select for more profitable ads. Longterm will continue to harm google's product of search and youtube media products as it will motivate some people to figure out more ways that are more costly to google to dodge ads. Human side wise this is starting to feel like the strangest form of corporate bullying. I want to believe that the motivation is to push up the demand for the strange mix products that is youtube premieum.
namuol 3y ago
Conflicts of interest abound in most major browser vendors. Firefox gets most of its funding from Google for defaulting the search engine to theirs. Apple gets a huge amount of revenue sharing from Google for doing the same in Safari, as was recently leaked. It’s perhaps a fabulous irony that Microsoft’s browser has the fewest conflicts of interest as very little of their revenue comes from Bing, and Google hasn’t been able to convince them to take a bribe.
LightBug1 3y ago
Ad blockers will limit Google Chrome starting ... err a decade ago. Thanks for the all the fish.
aranelsurion 3y ago
Wouldn't be the first time Google flailing with a user-hostile decision back and forth, only to gather bad publicity and further animosity towards their brand at the end with nothing of value gained for themselves. Google shutting down legacy accounts comes first to my mind. So I still think it may or may not happen. If it happens, it better be worth it to them, as it'll repel many of the power users, making it the next unsexy browser after IE.
sowbug 3y ago
I've never used an ad blocker. I accept that today's web largely depends on advertising, so it feels like the right thing to do. I also think that using an ad blocker is like wanting to attend a concert, deciding the price is too high, and sneaking in anyway. It feels like stealing. That said, I don't like ads any more than anyone else does. I rarely click on them, and I avoid sites that overdo them. It makes me sad that the web is in a death spiral. The more people use ad blockers, the more intrusive ads need to be for the remainder of us who don't, which further encourages the self-interested to use ad blockers. The only ways I see to end the death spiral are to successfully reset the ad-vs-ad-blocker dynamic (which I suppose Google is trying to do with this move), or for another revenue model to take hold. I don't think either will happen. It's too bad, because I grew up with the web, and I don't want it to die.
- suprjami 3y ago
  If advertising was reasonable, I would agree with you. A static image in a 90s-style top banner or sidebar is not too awful. But advertisers don't stop there. Distracting animations, flyovers which block the page content, tiny impossible buttons to close such flyovers, malicious crap which tries to trick you by looking like an OS window, downloaded apps which full your OS with junk, auto-play audio and videos, cross-site tracking of your personal life and building a "profile" on you to target ads which appeal to your innermost desires or problems or vulnerabilities. Give an inch and advertisers take 100 miles and then take some more. Fuck ads and fuck companies whose business model is based on advertising. I'd rather they just vanished off the internet.
- amatecha 3y ago
  I mean, the web only started "depending" on advertising when corporations started believing they need to exploit the web (and all its users) as their next source of profit. I've built literally hundreds of websites and not a single one relied on nor necessitated advertising. They are all still running just fine (barring ones that have of course been rebuilt/replaced since the version(s) I worked on).
- Gigachad 3y ago
  I use an ad blocker, but I'm not surprised or upset that they are getting pushed back on. I couldn't justify buying youtube premium when I can legally and easily get exactly the same thing with a browser extension. Now that I can't, I'm fine to pay for it since it's a good service and I hate ads.
peoplenotbots 3y ago
Its do depressing how much better everything runs ad free
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"Google is protecting your privacy like a wolf would protect sheep -" LOL. This "cooling off period" tactic is amusing. Apparently, Web Environment Integrity will return as Android WebView Media Integrity API in early 2024.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  > Apparently, Web Environment Integrity will return as Android WebView Media Integrity API in early 2024. This will kill accessing YouTube with (many) 3rd party apps to bypass ads, right? 2024 will be interesting.
nonstopdev 3y ago
I started using Safari for everything now the last few months and now won’t look back. Chrome in a sandbox with devtools is the only thing i miss and need occasionally but they have really shifted from the original Chromium branch.
iteratethis 3y ago
You'll then switch to Firefox or Brave, if not done already. Which Google will then try to detect on their services (Search, Youtube, etc) and block or hamper. Well, at least ad blocking works on services not controlled by them? Even this is under threat if they get their way with their "genuine web client" tech. Do not underestimate how far Google has gone and will go to create an inescapable ad viewing network.
ulfw 3y ago
Why people prefer to use a web browser from an ad company is beyond me. I never ever understood Chrome's huge fanbase.
dramm 3y ago
Google Chrome is dead to me. Migrated to Firefox recently. Some learning on the developer tools side, but not looking back.
jeffybefffy519 3y ago
Cory Doctrow’s enshitification proves itself again…
kmos17 3y ago
Anyone using Vivaldi? It supports Chrome extensions and has built in ad blocking. Just started playing around with it, has some interesting features like tabs tiling and a built in rss reader, and fast performance. Only con so far I’ve found is the ui is a bit cluttered.
szundi 3y ago
Or not.

227 points by AlexandrB 3y ago

I don't even have Google Chrome installed. I have Firefox, Edge and Vivaldi. I pretty much switch between them throughout the day and it's unnoticeable really.

edrxty 3y ago

Wouldn't this be a pretty obvious anti trust violation?

missedthecue 3y ago
What is the angle you're thinking of?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  "bundling"
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  Google owns web browser with monopoly market share. Google uses product with monopoly market share to limit tools that allow a user to block ads that harms their other half...of which they are also a monopoly in. There is a strong argument that they are using a monopoly to control and prevent users from choice to display or not display content, removing their choice to not see Google ads. I'm not sure that any of this would ever have weight in the US...but it does feel off.
- rurp 3y ago
  Google used billions of dollars from its online ad dominance to gain a monopoly in a different market via Chrome. Google is now using the latter monopoly to juice profits in the former, to the detriment of users.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Having the best product is not the same as monopoly. The switching costs of web browsers is as close to zero as is possible. Downloading opera, Firefox, brave, or any of the others is free and takes less than two minutes. This isn't standard oil where you either buy oil from them or freeze.
- wolpoli 3y ago
  I am thinking "A pattern of anti-competitive actions leveraging Google's control in multiple parts of the web ecosystem to limit competition." Will this fly in the US?

philprx 3y ago

Last or first nail in the coffin for Google? Definitely ground for breakup IMHO.

pianoben 3y ago
I'd be off of Chrome in a heartbeat if it weren't for all the Google properties required by my work, which themselves cripple non-Chromium browsers. (Looking at you, Meet!) Firefox, for all of Mozilla's faults, stands head-and-shoulders over Chrome in terms of good and respectful user experience.
- marak830 3y ago
  Generally isn't a user agent change enough?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  you can use different browsers for Meet and for browsing. I use different browsers for basically everything, tech stuff, reddit and everything more salacious, banking, email
- conradludgate 3y ago
  I use Google meet just fine on Firefox at work. Even video filters work. The only thing I can imagine not being 100% is tab-only sharing
  - LesZedCB 3y ago
    woah, filters work now! i am 100% firefox at home and 95% at work, i keep (kept, yay!) chrome for meet so i could blur. thanks for mentioning this!
    - neurostimulant 3y ago
      It's been working for months if you spoof your user agent to chrome. Google just really taking their time allowing Firefox to use filters on Meets.

ssijak 3y ago

Just use something that lives outside of the browser and covers blocking at the computer level (or router for the whole home), but I prefer at the computer level if you are up to the blocker being proxy for all https traffic. But a very small number of people will do that. I was surprised how small is the number of people running any adblocker at all.

Clamchop 3y ago
For web browsing, these solutions necessarily cannot be as sophisticated as software running in the browser. They're also much less convenient to install and use. DNS filters and firewall rules are crude tools by comparison but you can't install uBO on random apps or your TV.
- SCHiM 3y ago
  Not to mention this is an attack on multiple fronts: do you _really_ believe DoH is about privacy?
  - kbenson 3y ago
    It both is and it isn't. It moves people from different threat models to a middle ground, and for some people that's worse and for some people it's significantly better. If you live in the U.S. for most major ISP users it's probably a wash and you're just letting a different party have your info. If you live in a nation that desires to control what you consume online then it probably is a net gain.
    - attentive 3y ago
      dnscrypt.org will shuffle between multiple encrypted resolvers. So no single party has your info.
      - Scion9066 3y ago
        Isn't that worse though since your data would be spread across multiple potentially untrustworthy parties instead of just a single one? Given how many requests a browser makes and normal browsing habits like regularly visiting the same sites, it would eventually lead to each resolver having a full profile of what you browse. That makes me think of the reason Tor has Entry Guards where the first hop is limited to just a few selected nodes instead of random: https://support.torproject.org/about/entry-guards/ https://support.torproject.org/about/entry-guards/

Clubber 3y ago

Time to limit using Google Chrome.

lukeschlather 3y ago

Unfortunately Firefox is just as caught up in enforcing unsolicited web advertising. I have sponsored urlbar suggestions off, but still Firefox enrolled me in a "Weather Suggestions Follow On" "study" which puts sponsored AccuWeather results ahead of normal URL bar autocomplete results.

danShumway 3y ago
I get the critique, but "just as"? Really? It is possible for two things to be bad without pretending that they're equivalent. And in any case, if you're worried about Firefox, use Librewolf; it will not have sponsored search suggestions. But either option is better than Chrome if you're trying to avoid advertisements.
frfl 3y ago
Kind of a stretch to equate these two things. But honestly it comes down to this: in one you have an option to disable stuff you dont like, in the other you hope there will an option. You can guess which is which.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  If they change settings at their discretion to enable sponsored results, do I really have an option?
  - frfl 3y ago
    Most stuff in Firefox is configurable. So unless you're saying you have found no way to opt-out of what you're describing you don't have a point. You mention "study", in Firefox's settings (about:preferences#privacy) I can see "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" checkbox. So yeah, I think you do have an option.
    - lukeschlather 3y ago
      I would like to be able to leave studies on to participate without having my trust violated. Part of me is willing to chalk this up to an error, but it feels bad faith and there is a definite pattern of Mozilla adding new intrusions that they know are not welcome without asking.

ymir_e 3y ago

How’s firefox these days? On a serious note - I’ve seen a lot of browser startups lately. Are there any of them that really stand out?

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
I prefer it over Chrome. It's a (mostly) de-botnetted browser that allows deep customization and control.
LightHugger 3y ago
I can recommend librewolf, firefox with all the mozilla crap stripped out and good default privacy settings. Can tweak the options easily too if there's anything too annoying.
- Phelinofist 3y ago
  Quoting another HN user regarding librewolf: > Binaries are unsigned, third party update service, Google safe browsing disabled unless you build from source, running unusual browser setups can actually make you more distinctive online, unencrypted DNS by default, speed of security patches is slower than base Firefox, etc.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    Yeah I like what LibreWolf is doing, but it seems more reasonable to just disable the Firefox features you don't like.
  - oynqr 3y ago
    All of those except the last one are positives.
  - LightHugger 3y ago
    Unsigned binaries is good, update service is good, google safe browsing disabled is mega good, unencrypted dns is comparatively good from what i understand compared to mozilla's imperfect solution. Speed of security patches is not great, but having non-mozilla vetting on security patches is a tradeoff that is worthwhile.

infamouscow 3y ago

Base salary cuts are coming next for employees. It's all but a forgone conclusion at this point.

hooo 3y ago
You mean at Google?
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Yes, at Google. The MBA's are in charge now.

BizarreByte 3y ago

HN vastly over estimates how many people use adblockers every time this comes up and it is getting tiring. Google will likely not see any noticeable reduction in user count from the upcoming addon changes. If you value your software freedom you shouldn't have been on Chrome in the first place for any reason.

EA-3167 3y ago
Is there a demographic skew to consider? There are billions online, but the most desirable eyeballs on ads are Western and young. I would guess that population uses ad-blockers at a much higher rate than the background population, but I won't venture to guess how much higher.
exabrial 3y ago
[flagged]
- crazygringo 3y ago
  "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - exabrial 3y ago
    fine, ok
4death4 3y ago
According to a random Google search, something like 40% of internet users use an ad blocker.
burkaman 3y ago
35-45% of users worldwide use ad blockers, depending on the source. It is extremely common, otherwise Google wouldn't be doing this. The top few ad blockers in the Chrome store (uBlock, AdBlock, AdGuard, etc.) have tens of millions of users each.

wmf 3y ago

UBOL on Manifest V3 still blocks 99% of ads or more. Advanced functionality will be lost but I'm not sure how many people will notice.

hu3 3y ago
I had to search UBOL and it is "uBlock Origin Lite" [0] from the same author of uBlock Origin. uBO Lite (uBOL) is a *permission-less* MV3-based content blocker. The default ruleset corresponds to uBlock Origin's default filterset: - uBlock Origin's built-in filter lists - EasyList - EasyPrivacy - Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list [0] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
- masto 3y ago
  It's mentioned at the very bottom of the article, dismissively. (Despite the fact that the FAQ linked to doesn't make it seem nearly as limited as the author of this article wants you to believe)
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > Despite the fact that the FAQ linked to doesn't make it seem nearly as limited as the author of this article wants you to believe "The media is exaggerating Gorhill's opposition to Google's Manifest V3 changes" is just about the wildest take I've seen on Manifest V3 yet. ---- Just to be clear, here's the author of that FAQ describing how the FAQ has been covered: https://nitter.privacydev.net/gorhill/status/1725633169070649710#m https://nitter.privacydev.net/gorhill/status/172563316907064... > I've seen mentions that uBO Lite (uBOL) is proof that MV3-based blockers are as capable as MV2 ones. I can't speak for other blockers but this is not the case for uBOL vs. uBO
zb3 3y ago
But afterwards, companies like "adrecover" will surely exploit these MV3 limitations for profit.
3y ago

endisneigh 3y ago

If chrome limits ad blockers and provides some way to unambiguously determine whether or not you’re chrome that cannot be spoofed, i wonder if sites will explicitly start blocking Firefox and other browsers.

aaomidi 3y ago
Yes. That’s very likely actually.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  This site works exclusively with IE6.
- ryeights 3y ago
  That would seem to fall afoul of antitrust regulation.
  - beej71 3y ago
    It sure would, we hope. But we have to keep screaming about WEI and similar proposals until Google stops being an asshole. Pressure must be kept up. I remember when I was young thinking it would be impossible to out-asshole Microsoft. Ah, the innocent days.
- lstamour 3y ago
  Right now, Safari being the only game in town on iOS is basically the only reason why websites don’t exclude non-Chrome browsers already. Now if Apple ever supported this in a way that broke or deprecated adblocking, I’d probably seriously consider switching to an un-Googled Android phone. Until then, though, I’ve switched to Firefox on my desktop computers and use Safari on mobile and am pretty darn happy with the adblocking of both.
neuralRiot 3y ago
Probably you could always be able to install an adblocker as an “unpacked extension” if they’re banned in the official chrome extension store.

chankstein38 3y ago

I was already working my way off of chrome but without a suitable adblocking extension I'm going to move to whatever I have to. I've been using firefox off and on and it seems great and I see someone in the comments recommending Librewolf. Going to have to check that out. I have been planning for a while to setup a pihole but hadn't yet bothered because I have sufficient ad blockers but definitely going to be doing that now as well. Well done Google, you succeeded in making at least one person up their adblocking game.

ggpsv 3y ago
You can use nextdns [0] pretty much to the same effect of a pihole, yet you can get up and running in minutes. You can then configure wherever you please: your browser, your laptop, your phone, or even your router. [0]: https://nextdns.io https://nextdns.io
- shujito 3y ago
  Are there any self-hosted options or similar?
  - arcanemachiner 3y ago
    Like PiHole?
  - ggpsv 3y ago
    pihole or adguard home[0] [0]: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome#getting-started https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome#getting-started
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  NextDNS does not help you with ads served from the same domain as the website itself, like Google ads.
  - greggsy 3y ago
    It can help with subdomains like adservice.google.com

jmyeet 3y ago

This is how you get the DoJ to sue you for antitrust violations. It starts with blocking ad blockers on Chrome. Then, to prop up Chrome usage you deliberately slow down other browsers, something that's arguably already happening [1] and has arguably already happened [2]. At some point the government takes the same actions they did with Microsoft over Internet Explorer: abuse of market power to require your browsers for the supposedly open Web. [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-down-videos-firefox-3387206/ https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-... [2]: https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/google-denies-altering-youtube-code-to-slow-down-microsoft-edge-story-8OElzy4dk7trSwokQmDtBK.html https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/google-denies-alte...

mcwiggin2 3y ago

What bugs me most about this stuff is the dishonestly. This is about AdBlockers. It's okay to say it's bad for your business and you don't want them. To make up all these other excuses is what is painful and just feels so patronizing.

babypuncher 3y ago
It may not actually be OK to say that, since admitting it publicly could make antitrust regulators jobs easier when investigating how Google uses its stranglehold over the browser and search markets to enforce its stranglehold over the online advertising market.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  There should be extra (and enormous) antitrust penalties for publicly lying. These lies can be proven with internal communications gained from discovery or from leaks (incentivized by large bounties).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
Search engines have shown over and over that they'll talk all the money but hide behind the 'we're just the market' cover when one of their ads serves you with a virus. That's why I run an AdBlocker.
Gigachad 3y ago
It's both imo. The security issue is both true and a huge problem being actively exploited on a massive scale. Its a "Ah great, we can improve security _and_ cripple ad blockers" moment for Google.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758

butterfi 3y ago

My impression is that security people already consider Chrome a "virus" application. This is just one more nail the coffin for anyone who cares about such things. (To be clear, people should care)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dumpsterdiver 3y ago

Seems like an appropriate time to shamelessly plug my tiny Chrome extension, JS Toggle. It's just a low key button that makes it easy to toggle javascript that I made for myself, and use pretty much every day. It does refresh all open pages after toggling, so be mindful of toggling it when dealing with forms, etc. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/js-toggle/bnhjfamolmolljikdopibpabimjfellc https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/js-toggle/bnhjfamol...

dottjt 3y ago

I'm surprised more people don't use Firefox, even from a practical point of view. The main reason I use it as my main driver is because I use Chrome for all my work stuff. I then use Firefox for all my personal stuff, so it separates the two, especially on my work laptop.

quesera 3y ago
You can use Firefox for both work and personal stuff, with a couple options: - Multi-Account Containers segregates cookies (i.e. enables multiple simultaneous logins to Gmail, GitHub, etc, any service, in different tabs of the same browser window) - Firefox Profiles segregates everything (cookies, preferences, bookmarks, history), by running a separate browser instance. Containers are more convenient for simple separation. Profiles are 100% separation.
- 28304283409234 3y ago
  Profiles for the lazy: firefox -P --no-remote
- suprjami 3y ago
  Another good option is Firefox for work and Librewolf for personal, or vice versa
- dottjt 3y ago
  I find that tedious. Mainly because it's really easy to switch between chrome and firefox via keyboard, but to switch between profiles/containers requires mouse clicks etc.
  - quesera 3y ago
    Not sure what platform you're on, but I switch between Firefox containers and profiles primarily from keyboard. Profile switching is the usual app switching, handled by the desktop environment. Just like Firefox-to-Chrome would be. Container switching is just tab switching, which Firefox handles well enough. If you need to go deeper in your tab history, you might need to scroll/click, but for the most-recent 9 tabs, it's right there.

apienx 3y ago

The market for 1-click DNS sinkholes is about to get heated. ;)

DeIlliad 3y ago

This goes beyond Youtube. Most ads are absolutely malicious and the web is unsafe and unusable without an adblocker. The FBI themselves recommend using an adblocker to stay safe online https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624

averageRoyalty 3y ago
> Most ads are absolutely malicious and the web is unsafe and unusable without an adblocker. I haven't used an ad blocker in a decade. The web is perfectly safe and usable. What do you believe makes it unsafe and unusable?
- Dayshine 3y ago
  The few times I turned it off I started getting fullscreen highjacking adverts: one was convincing enough that unless I knew to tap F11/esc I wouldn't have noticed.
- styxfrix 3y ago
  > The FBI themselves recommend using an adblocker to stay safe online https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    That's nice for them. They also recommend paying attention to what you're clicking on, as a dot point above that.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  I was going to use my authority as a front line tech in a past life but I'll just link to Wikipedia : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago

quotemstr 3y ago

> Enterprise users with the "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" policy turned on will get an extra year of Manifest V2 compatibility. FWIW, anyone can enable this policy. All you have to do is drop some files in /etc. See https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408?hl=en Chrome doesn't look in your home directory for enterprise policy manifest files, sadly.

quotemstr 3y ago

In the long run, as long we have general-purpose computers, ad-blockers will win. Suppose a ManifestV4 completely cuts off network filtering: so what? Run a GPU driver that uses an AI model to block out anything that looks like an ad. Sure, you won't stop ads distorting page layout or causing unnecessary network traffic, but as long as you control your computer a whole, you don't have to see them.

melesian 3y ago
It's not simply about what you SEE. It's about tracking what sites you visit, where you are, what information can be collated to profile you in any and every way: your political preferences and likely interests can be gathered with some degree of probability from such things as your taste in music. Google buys your purchase history. Facebook has over 4,000 data points on you even if you don't use Facebook (use WhatsApp? people you know do? you're in their phone's address book?). Microsoft, Amazon and others likewise. The data are for sale. This is how Trump got elected and the UK got Brexit. Microtargeted political messages to persuade a proportion of the population to vote the way the very rich wanted them to vote.

cs02rm0 3y ago

If this comes to pass, does it affect Brave?

martin1b 3y ago
Hope not. I like Brave

gridder 3y ago

Chrome today is worse than IE6 in 07.

AlexandrB 3y ago
Seems like having a browser monopoly is bad no matter who's in charge. It's also interesting to see how each company used its power. Microsoft wanted to keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, so they crippled the web. Meanwhile Google wants you to use the web, just not modify it in any way to maintain the profitability of its ad business - so we get a feature-rich rendering engine and proposals like "Web Environment Integrity".
The_Colonel 3y ago
It's much better than IE6 in 07, but that also makes it much more dangerous. MS stopping IE development was a major strategic mistake (and unintended gift to free internet).

peoplenotbots 3y ago

Business wise makes sense google's cashflow is based on shoveling mostly shitty ads at people and youtube allows people to self select for more profitable ads. Longterm will continue to harm google's product of search and youtube media products as it will motivate some people to figure out more ways that are more costly to google to dodge ads. Human side wise this is starting to feel like the strangest form of corporate bullying. I want to believe that the motivation is to push up the demand for the strange mix products that is youtube premieum.

namuol 3y ago

Conflicts of interest abound in most major browser vendors. Firefox gets most of its funding from Google for defaulting the search engine to theirs. Apple gets a huge amount of revenue sharing from Google for doing the same in Safari, as was recently leaked. It’s perhaps a fabulous irony that Microsoft’s browser has the fewest conflicts of interest as very little of their revenue comes from Bing, and Google hasn’t been able to convince them to take a bribe.

LightBug1 3y ago

Ad blockers will limit Google Chrome starting ... err a decade ago. Thanks for the all the fish.

aranelsurion 3y ago

Wouldn't be the first time Google flailing with a user-hostile decision back and forth, only to gather bad publicity and further animosity towards their brand at the end with nothing of value gained for themselves. Google shutting down legacy accounts comes first to my mind. So I still think it may or may not happen. If it happens, it better be worth it to them, as it'll repel many of the power users, making it the next unsexy browser after IE.

sowbug 3y ago

I've never used an ad blocker. I accept that today's web largely depends on advertising, so it feels like the right thing to do. I also think that using an ad blocker is like wanting to attend a concert, deciding the price is too high, and sneaking in anyway. It feels like stealing. That said, I don't like ads any more than anyone else does. I rarely click on them, and I avoid sites that overdo them. It makes me sad that the web is in a death spiral. The more people use ad blockers, the more intrusive ads need to be for the remainder of us who don't, which further encourages the self-interested to use ad blockers. The only ways I see to end the death spiral are to successfully reset the ad-vs-ad-blocker dynamic (which I suppose Google is trying to do with this move), or for another revenue model to take hold. I don't think either will happen. It's too bad, because I grew up with the web, and I don't want it to die.

suprjami 3y ago
If advertising was reasonable, I would agree with you. A static image in a 90s-style top banner or sidebar is not too awful. But advertisers don't stop there. Distracting animations, flyovers which block the page content, tiny impossible buttons to close such flyovers, malicious crap which tries to trick you by looking like an OS window, downloaded apps which full your OS with junk, auto-play audio and videos, cross-site tracking of your personal life and building a "profile" on you to target ads which appeal to your innermost desires or problems or vulnerabilities. Give an inch and advertisers take 100 miles and then take some more. Fuck ads and fuck companies whose business model is based on advertising. I'd rather they just vanished off the internet.
amatecha 3y ago
I mean, the web only started "depending" on advertising when corporations started believing they need to exploit the web (and all its users) as their next source of profit. I've built literally hundreds of websites and not a single one relied on nor necessitated advertising. They are all still running just fine (barring ones that have of course been rebuilt/replaced since the version(s) I worked on).
Gigachad 3y ago
I use an ad blocker, but I'm not surprised or upset that they are getting pushed back on. I couldn't justify buying youtube premium when I can legally and easily get exactly the same thing with a browser extension. Now that I can't, I'm fine to pay for it since it's a good service and I hate ads.

peoplenotbots 3y ago

Its do depressing how much better everything runs ad free

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"Google is protecting your privacy like a wolf would protect sheep -" LOL. This "cooling off period" tactic is amusing. Apparently, Web Environment Integrity will return as Android WebView Media Integrity API in early 2024.

neurostimulant 3y ago
> Apparently, Web Environment Integrity will return as Android WebView Media Integrity API in early 2024. This will kill accessing YouTube with (many) 3rd party apps to bypass ads, right? 2024 will be interesting.

nonstopdev 3y ago

I started using Safari for everything now the last few months and now won’t look back. Chrome in a sandbox with devtools is the only thing i miss and need occasionally but they have really shifted from the original Chromium branch.

iteratethis 3y ago

You'll then switch to Firefox or Brave, if not done already. Which Google will then try to detect on their services (Search, Youtube, etc) and block or hamper. Well, at least ad blocking works on services not controlled by them? Even this is under threat if they get their way with their "genuine web client" tech. Do not underestimate how far Google has gone and will go to create an inescapable ad viewing network.

ulfw 3y ago

Why people prefer to use a web browser from an ad company is beyond me. I never ever understood Chrome's huge fanbase.

dramm 3y ago

Google Chrome is dead to me. Migrated to Firefox recently. Some learning on the developer tools side, but not looking back.

jeffybefffy519 3y ago

Cory Doctrow’s enshitification proves itself again…

kmos17 3y ago

Anyone using Vivaldi? It supports Chrome extensions and has built in ad blocking. Just started playing around with it, has some interesting features like tabs tiling and a built in rss reader, and fast performance. Only con so far I’ve found is the ui is a bit cluttered.

szundi 3y ago

Or not.