30 ms·

Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

256 points by talonx 3y ago

lagniappe 3y ago
"You do this, and I will do that.. forever" - Rickson Gracie
- amelius 3y ago
  Except Google has the money/power to put anti-adblocker technology inside chips. Needless to say, I'm not applauding any steps in this direction.
  - layer8 3y ago
    What, a browser chip?
    - doublerabbit 3y ago
      Don't see why it couldn't happen. Offload data communications to it's own chip, one that connects to a StarNet. Locked down running a Java Virtual Machine presenting an optical browser to your eye retina's; surveillance controlled as it's hooked to your brains cortex via Elon's animal killing NutellaLink.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Are you aware of how much "ewaste" is still viable and will 'lose support' for these Big Brother chip designs, but still be plenty serviceable by a normal person? Windows 11 requiring a TPM has already locked some people out of their zeitgeist. There is more old circuitry that can get the job done well enough, they'd be competing with prior freedoms.
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    Could be some DRM tech that will become mandatory to view the web
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers. I suspect this will be good for Firefox.
- djaychela 3y ago
  Occasionally I use a computer that's not my own (I've been using Firefox and UBO for years, and have PiHole here). I can't believe how AWFUL it is. It's just not worth bothering with any more for the most part... it's like I live in this quiet backwater town where everyone walks everywhere, and then I get teleported to the middle of rush-hour Tokyo.
  - christophilus 3y ago
    Rush-hour Tokyo is not too bad by big city standards. Rush hour in Atlanta, now… that’s hell.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  This is an interesting point. If this is good for Firefox, then I... support this...?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  War makes life worst. People like a good life so they should fight for peace. I guess war is good for life.
- colordrops 3y ago
  And possibly great for Brave. Brave has the same feel as chromium.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fbdab103 3y ago
  It is truly unbelievable how bad it has become. Even informational articles might only have a paragraph of text between ads. Plus, the frequent animations/pop-unders/whatever. Everyone can decry the loss of the "small web" as much as they want, but the cram-ads-into-every-pixel dystopia means why should anyone bother? Even big brands are not immune to this behavior. At least if someone stays on the Instagram/Reddit/Tiktok experience, the ads are a consistent frequency and intrusiveness.
pier25 3y ago
I like using Chrome and even went back to it after trying FF and Brave 2-3 years ago. But this would really make me look for alternatives, even if those are inferior. It's not even about Youtube. I pay for Youtube Premium. But not being able to block third party cookies would be a deal breaker.
- iforgotpassword 3y ago
  If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox for minor problems out of convenience, I don't see how Firefox is supposed to really notably gain any market share even if Google completely locks out ad blockers.
  - chias 3y ago
    > If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox very many of us don't.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      There are dozens of us!! I'm one of those dozens too, but sadly, "techies" are not that great at promoting the more open alternatives. Or even ad-blocking in general: just look at how hordes of HN users insist here that everyone who blocks ads is evil and how we have a moral obligation to watch advertising.
  - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
    Sometimes it’s not “out of convenience” but “we only have the resources to test on one browser and most people use chrome” - so we must cater to that even if chrome is far down the road to enshittification.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- vivzkestrel 3y ago
  majority of the people will still use Chrome even if Google literally delists all blockers from the planet. One major reason being "browser migration". The guys on HN crying foul on most of these articles are a vocal minority. This s Google's version of "corner the market and raise the prices". They ll lost 2-5% market share at max
malermeister 3y ago
Can we all finally make a concerted effort to switch back to Firefox? I get it, it was slow and bloated when Chrome initially came out and everyone switched. Well, it's not slow or bloated anymore and Chrome is now officially evil. It's time. Don't just switch your own browser. Switch the browsers of all the non-technical folks that come to you for questions.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Even better, can we all finally make a concerted effort and make a new browser better than Chrome and Firefox? We only let the net get jizzed on because we allow it to be. If Serenity can do it, imagine if all those who push repos to github collaborating together and actually making an open source project for all and everyone. Both browsers are old and have been abused.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    I mean sure, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here. Firefox is good enough and exists right now. Let's not delay this until some perfect future browser arrives.
  - jlmorton 3y ago
    It takes a special kind of hubris to think you're going to develop a browser better than Chrome and Firefox as an open source project. Both Chromium and Firefox are already open source projects. What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort suddenly produce a perfect browser?
    - doublerabbit 3y ago
      > What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort suddenly produce a perfect browser? Another Facebook of course. /s
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      A lack of desire to implement technologies that are harmful to the Web; specifically technologies designed to usurp control from the user and/or its agent. Remove Javascript and 90% of your challenges go away.
flummoxed_pear 3y ago
You die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
- amelius 3y ago
  They were a bunch of creepy voyeurs all along.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stephc_int13 3y ago
Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  *Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a browser is just the thing their OS exists to run for them.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    > Technically inclined users don't need Chrome You're right, but you're forgetting, Chrome needs technically inclined users. Yes there's always people without enough awareness to be satisfied with the walled garden, but Firefox used to be popular because it was user, and importantly power user friendly. Something will usurp that thrown, the power users will switch and then so will everybody else
  - stephc_int13 3y ago
    They don't have to lose 50% of market share to lose this war. Even a 5% dip will end it. And technically inclined users are the ones being asked to configure computers for their families etc.
  - jnrk 3y ago
    Agreed. I look around in my office and no one else than me is running any kind of adblocker. Most people don’t care or don’t even know adblockers exist.
  - snailmailman 3y ago
    This is sadly true My grandmother uses the Google app to browse the web on her phone. Not Chrome. Not safari. the Google Search app. Because every single time she does a search, google tells her to install the app. And I have a few friends that either uninstalled Adblock. Or stopped watching YouTube on PC in response to this new Adblock crackdown. All of them use chrome.
SeanAnderson 3y ago
I've used Chrome for a decade and there's no way I pick it up if they actually commit to this. That said, they already announced plans to do this once and then backed down for a year due to pushback around MV3. Guess we'll see what happens.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- herbst 3y ago
  Same here. My whole approach about internet is how I can effectively block ads. If it isn't chrome, it will be something else. No value in using it then
lapcat 3y ago
How many of these stories do we need on HN? This is like dupe # 100.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
derefr 3y ago
Two questions I haven't seen addressed by any coverage of this change: 1. Will the ultimate removal of Manifest V2 support affect other Chromium-based browsers, or only Chrome itself? If the support for Manifest V2 isn't removed upstream in Chromium, but only disabled in Chrome, then I would expect that we will end up in a world where other browsers (e.g. Edge, Brave, Opera) continue to allow the installation of Manifest V2 extensions, esp. from their own first-party verified-extension hosting platforms. So even if the Chrome Web Store also ceases to host Manifest V2 extensions, users of these other Chromium-based browsers could still get uBlock Origin from "Edge Add-ons" or "Opera Addons" etc. 2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a PR to the upstream Chromium project, to introduce one or more Manifest V3 capabilities (new strings for the manifest.json "permissions" key) that, when added, would allow the extension to do all the stuff that Manifest V2 let extensions do by default, that uBO and others depend on: increased request-filter list size, async periodic network data-file updates, etc? Would such a PR have any chance of being accepted? My own guess is that such a PR wouldn't be accepted, because I get the impression that the nominal goal of Manifest V3 is to allow V3 extensions to run under a streamlined extension "runtime" that has fewer hook-points into the browser runtime, and so fewer places where the browser runtime must call back to the extension runtime; where adding such capabilities would require adding all these additional hook-points and callbacks back in, which would defeat the purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong! I would also guess that even if such a PR were accepted, Chrome would still disable the use of those capabilities downstream, and also reject any extension that used them from the Chrome Web Store. So at best, such a change would just mean that uBO and friends wouldn't be stuck as "legacy" Manifest V2 extensions, but could instead just be "modern" Manifest V3 extensions with a few capabilities that Chrome and only Chrome forcibly rejects.
- layer8 3y ago
  One reason Google wants to remove V2 support is to make implementation changes that V2 currently prevents. This means that a Chromium fork that preserves V2 support will likely have to diverge further and further from Chromium over time (or rather, Chromium will diverge).
  - Justsignedup 3y ago
wslh 3y ago
In a few years: LLM: Hi! Me: Please develop a browser that is full HTML, etc, etc compliant LLM: No problem... download the source here. Me: Thank you, but could you please optimize it for speed? LLM: No problem, done. Me: I have only 5 more minutes, could you please write a version in Rust, and two more in Go and C++? Ah, and support Linux, MacOS, Windows, Android and iOS. Don't forget to use the native WebView in iOS. LLM: done. Me: Could you please do me a favor? Remove all ads. LLM: done.
- whycome 3y ago
  But also LLM: Unfortunately, as a subsidiary of MSFT, I cannot allow you to create a competitor to Edge. Would you like to try Edge now instead?
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Bard: Sorry, your request infringes on the rights of content platforms to serve ads. If you make this request again your Google account will be terminated.
    - Gabrys1 3y ago
      But this was the last wish of my dying grandma, can you help then? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/sob-story-about-dead-grandma-tricks-microsoft-ai-into-solving-captcha/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/sob-s...
  - wslh 3y ago
    Hopefully soon, we would be able to run this models locally/on-premise. Don't you think so?
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  If it's that sophisticated, why even have it develop a browser, just use it as your user agent and have it filter ads for you.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.
- luckman212 3y ago
  Bookmarking this comment. See you in 10 years. Hope I'm still alive and I hope you're right!
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    I hope I'm right, too! Choice is the most important part of technology imo, and we don't have enough of it.
- mrastro 3y ago
  "Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    Safari's share is capped to a specific hardware. Firefox can grow by converting people without needing to wait for them to buy new devices. That said, I'm not really holding my breath for FF to grow again.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      WebKit is portable and is used by a lot of browsers, including on Linux
      - signaru 3y ago
        It took me a bit of searching, but it's nice to know that there are desktop browsers that are not based on Chromium or Gecko, i.e. WebKit [1]. I would like to try Otter Browser [2], next time I use my Windows machine. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/nkzrj0/comment/gzht47d/ https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/nkzrj0/comment/gz... [2] https://otter-browser.org/ https://otter-browser.org/
underseacables 3y ago
Discussed previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
blueridge 3y ago
I like Firefox a lot (with Privacy Badger and uBlock) but sometimes the browser slows to a crawl. New tabs are slow to open, takes way too long to select and activate a text input field, and so on. A restart fixes this, but it's still annoying. I think I might go back to Safari. I like the way it looks and it feels snappier all the way around.
- thexa4 3y ago
  I've reported a similar issue on mac where it gets slower over time [1]. I hope it gets fixed at some point. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1799681 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1799681
- sharps1 3y ago
  Try installing the auto tab discard addon (It is a recommended addon so it gets checked by Firefox). I’ve noticed certain tabs may slow FF down if they aren’t unloaded in the background. I had FF slow to a crawl and when I checked it was using 7gb’s of ram. Turns out a site I had turned off uBO in had opened up a sub frame that was blasting ads. So it is interesting to try to see what is going on with about:processes.
  - blueridge 3y ago
    Oh thank you! Didn't know this was a thing, super helpful.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smarkov 3y ago
  Safari is at a disadvantage - it's behind a walled garden and people outside of that garden don't develop or test for it. Sure, that's a trivial issue for a company but not for small team or single person projects. Not to mention that it feels like Safari is only fast because it does its own thing and doesn't strictly follow the spec. I've often run into CSS specific issues with it when making slightly more complicated animations.
- 3y ago
stainablesteel 3y ago
in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a security issue.
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    This is my sticking point. I understand that building and running websites isn’t free, and if ads were 468x60 PNGs I’d be willing to live with them. I’m not willing to live with you selling the ability to run arbitrary untrusted javascript on my computer to the highest bidder.
  - hoherd 3y ago
    Even the FBI recommends blocking ads for security reasons. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-an-ad-blocker-heres-why https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-...
  - Karellen 3y ago
    > now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, What do you mean "now"? They've been prolific malware vectors for over 20 years!
- otikik 3y ago
  No, it’s not “people” on both sides. Google isn’t “people”. It’s one of the biggest corporations in the world. I’m not a big fan of the EU, mostly because their rulings tend to be a bit …clueless. The specific decision of getting in the way of big corp here is totally ok. They’ll probably do it badly and in an ineffective way, sure, but the problem is the implementation, not the idea.
- 3y ago
virtuous_sloth 3y ago
The war against general-purpose computing is but one front in the class war. Daily reminder that economics is a political theory, not a science, that capitalism is the most incidious form of oligarchy, and that the US is no longer a democracy (if it ever was).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pvg 3y ago
Much discussed last few days https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502
- belltaco 3y ago
  The second and third links are dupes themselves, ironically :)
crorella 3y ago
Good thing there are better browsers out there. As long as they don’t mess with the transport we should be good
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
derefr 3y ago
I'd like clarification on something. I've spent an hour or two trying to figure this out to no avail, so I suspect many other people might be wondering the same thing I am. Examining the Manifest V3 changes more closely (https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-overview/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...), and comparing/contrasting to what uBlock Origin themselves say about it (https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-Google-s-Manifest-V3-What-it-is-and-what-it-means-for-uBlock-Users- https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-...), I can understand the cause of one of uBO's problems with V3... but not the other. The cause of "Allow List Limits" is clear: uBO Lite will be forced to use declarativeNetRequest; and declarativeNetRequest imposes limits on the size of the ruleset you can "declare". But I'm confused about uBO's point on "Ad Blocking Quality". It seems that Manifest V3 only restricts 1. the use of eval(), and 2. the loading of remote-origin scripts into the DOM and/or as service-worker modules. It doesn't restrict the use of remote-origin-loaded data files generally; which I would presume means that uBO would still be able to use its service-worker to periodically fetch and update its filter lists. Is there some part of the way uBO uses these filter lists, that requires arbitrary remote code execution (and for which the only true substitute is burning in the lists locally?) If so: why, exactly? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm not doubting that they do need it. I just can't figure out where the need comes from, and I'd like to know!) It might seem at first blush that the literal answer is this feature: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#scriptlet-injection https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#... ... but it actually isn't, as you don't write actual JS to be eval()ed in these rules, but rather just name a function that's already burned into the extension locally as part of its "scriptlet resource library". Is it instead, just the way that these rules get "baked down" into in-page logic? Does uBO compile the lists into a bunch of Javascript source-code, and then have the page evalScript() that code? And if that is the blocking issue — and I'm still not clear that it is — then wouldn't there be other workarounds for this? For example, sticking the generated JS code into a data: URL and then dropping it into the page as a <script> tag. Or even, at worst, swapping out feeding the page "JS source code", for feeding the page a (static!) interpreter, and then having that interpreter receive instructions as regular ol' data from the uBO service-worker? (Maybe that'd violate uBO's performance goals, I suppose? But it wouldn't have to do it on every page; only on pages that it knows from the ruleset can't be blocked entirely declaratively.)
eigenvalue 3y ago
I thought Brave made very little sense when it was first launched. Who would want an ersatz Chrome browser? Now it's starting to look very smart. Sure, it's open source so anyone can fork Chromium. But it does take a lot of sophistication to do it properly and add back the usability bits in a nice way. And if you could basically have Chrome but without losing the ad blocking, that starts to sound pretty compelling.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- joelthelion 3y ago
  If it started gaining traction I wouldn't be surprised to see Google going closed source with chromium.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Despite being made by that homophobe I will never financially support, you seem to be right. Unfortunately. Brave funnily enough is also the only Chromium-based browser that lets you set policies to turn off their optional features, none of which I want. Vivaldi has some downsides (no gesture navigation is a dealbreaker) and installs its bookmarks every time you sync a new browser. It also feels crowded no matter what settings you use. Edge just does absolute asinine stuff. Yesterday it disabled my new tab page without asking (and it also asks every day) and today it asked if it could submit my Kagi search results to Microsoft to help them make Bing better, which I refused. Weirdly enough the refuse button was blue... and sure enough, Edge set my default search engine to Bing in that moment. Apparently you can switch to a non-consumer Windows SKU to turn down these shenanigans. An Antitrust needs to read that source code, badly. Unfortunately I can't use Firefox because an app I'm forced to use wouldn't support it. The world is ripe for a Chromium fork that just works. Maybe Ungoogled-Chromium can bring back some creature comforts eventually...
account-5 3y ago
I think this is a good opportunity to bypass chrome and use a standalone adblocker, if you're forced to use Google or Microsoft (ad|spy)ware as a browser.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
insanitybit 3y ago
> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > According to Firefox’s Add-on Operations Manager, most malicious extension that manage to get through the security review process, are usually interested in simply observing the conversation between your browser and whatever websites you visit. The malicious activity happens elsewhere, after the data has already been read. So in their mind, what would really help security is a more thorough review process, but that’s not something Google says it has plans for. I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact.
- Macha 3y ago
  > Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? uBlock's built in list has 47,000 EasyList has 75,000 EasyPrivacy has 31,000 Fanboy's List is 78,000 Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've already raised it.
    - jimbob45 3y ago
      Has Google explained why the limit is so low? I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.
LaideeDerry 3y ago
Google's master plan to ditch V2 might be more than just a power move. It's like they're trying to reshape the Chromium landscape, making it a tricky playground for any V2 loyalists. We're looking at a future where maintaining V2 support is like trying to keep a vintage car running in a world of electric vehicles. Nostalgic but increasingly impractical.
Solvency 3y ago
Can anyone explain why there isn't a robust and thriving adblocking solution available at the router or OS level? Why are we all forced to grasp at the straws of the browser?
- Dwedit 3y ago
  Because you would need to Man-in-the-middle HTTPS.
- timeagain 3y ago
  There is in the sense that there are robust black lists you can put in your `/etc/hosts` file, but that only blocks known senders of advertisements. But how can your OS know that this `div` is an ad and that one is content? Since the browser is the authority on what is rendered on a web page, it makes sense that it is the tool that should be utilized to block/hide rendered elements.
- Forgeties79 3y ago
  My guess is less variety on browsers than routers but no clue with OS’s.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Also, most consumers don't know how to configure their router. Most can figure out how to install an ad blocker.
    - Forgeties79 3y ago
      Yeah, especially since ones like unlock origin are simple browser extensions that anyone can install in a few seconds. Hell it’s so simple I hesitate to even describe it as “installing”
- snailmailman 3y ago
  DNS-based solutions do this somewhat. But nearly all web traffic is encrypted. And without being able to inspect the traffic more closely ad block is quite limited. So DNS blocking or router firewalls have trouble. Pihole can’t block YouTube ads. The ads still come from the same domain as the video. Extensions have access to the live page and can do much more inspection, with finer control over the page. (Manifest V3 limits this somewhat) On iOS it can kinda happen at the “OS” level as there is only one web browser. But that has its own drawbacks. The only adblocks are those the AppStore allows.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 3y ago
Ok. Goodbye chrome. I will be switching to whatever privacy-focused browser allows me to keep not seeing ads. I do wonder how long it will be before we see browser browsers, software that takes a browser instance and sanitizes it. Maybe chrome will continue as a daemon allowed to run inside a sandbox within a browser's browser that actually displays content to a human.
- vlod 3y ago
  Welcome to Firefox. We have cookies!
  - eastbound 3y ago
    And ads! Mandatory shortcuts for Nike and Amazon on the homepage! Then ads saying Big Browser Watches For You! Then ads saying we respect privacy! Then a suggestion to open a Mozilla account and synchronize all your history! Because we respect privacy!
    - treyd 3y ago
      Use a non-Mozilla Firefox fork, there's several.
    - vlod 3y ago
      Errh... I don't see them on mine. Maybe I removed them or something. If so, it was relatively easy.
    - avtar 3y ago
      Why not change your homepage to something you prefer? And don’t create or sign into a Mozilla account; host your own sync server instead https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674569
    - idonotknowwhy 3y ago
      2 clicks to turn them off mate.
giantg2 3y ago
Sounds like anything outside the browser should still work, like PiHole
m3kw9 3y ago
Come to Safari..
- class4behavior 3y ago
  The crowd stagnates. Everyone looks to the right, to the left. After a moment of thought they turn around: "Democracy-destroying ad-hell it is then."
cpeterso 3y ago
> Nevertheless, Firefox said it will adopt Manifest V3 in the interest of cross-browser compatibility. The article makes it sound like Firefox will have the same ad blocker limitations as Chrome. The article fails to mention that Mozilla is implementing MV3 APIs in Firefox, but not removing the MV2 APIs like Chrome is: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- timetraveller26 3y ago
  Yeah, that is a really bad misrepresentation
clouddrover 3y ago
The error is to use Chrome in the first place. Use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
notatoad 3y ago
So, manifest v3 is out there, and does allow some form of adblocking. are there any adblockers actually implemented with it, so i can see for myself what the adblocking performance is like?
- agilob 3y ago
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin-lite/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... uBO Lite (uBOL) is a permission-less MV3-based content blocker.
- Pesthuf 3y ago
  Sure, there's uBlock Origin Lite https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
squarefoot 3y ago
I fear this scenario in a few years: 1- non hacker users too starting to realize corporate friendly browsers like Chrome and many derivatives can't be used anymore for painless surfing, then flocking to Firefox. 2- corporations and advertising companies pushing for a new closed HTTP standard that requires their browser, or an old browser using a closed extension that doesn't allow adblockers when using a given service or page. Open browsers work because they still connect to open web servers, and the industry already ruined the mobile environment by forcing users to run apps instead of navigating web pages (that is, installing a hundred application for a hundred services instead of just one that speaks a standard protocol); I have no doubt they'll attempt the same in the desktop world too. We have to fight to keep protocols open.
- Accujack 3y ago
  I'll take option 3: a new browser using better technology (better design, protocols, etc) than chrome gets written by hundreds of open source advocates working together. The new browser becomes the standard for the Internet because it is not under the control of corporate interests and because of its superiority to decade old browsers. Corporations and services are once again forced to standardize on open standards for web access or lose customers because the public (and techies specifically) will not support a proprietary software model for the public internet. It's a cycle - corporations become big and successful, try to establish proprietary control, then lose massive market share to newly created competitors. Once successful corporations get large, they tend to forget that eventually the frog getting boiled does jump out of the pot, and is usually angry when that happens.
aussieguy1234 3y ago
If they do, I'll switch back to Firefox
- reustle 3y ago
  Jump in, the water is great! But seriously, this finally forced my back to Firefox and it has been very smooth so far. The Cloudflare overlords like to force a few more captchas to access sites, and Apple doesn’t support keychain password sharing yet, but they’re worthy compromises to push back on the domination of chrome.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
What's the long term impact on this? * More (Advertising) revenue for Youtube streamers? * More people switching to Edge browser to use Ad Blockers? * People using Pi-hole style Ad blocking?
kderbyma 3y ago
"Chrome pushes forward to make itself the new edge"

256 points by talonx 3y ago

lagniappe 3y ago

"You do this, and I will do that.. forever" - Rickson Gracie

amelius 3y ago
Except Google has the money/power to put anti-adblocker technology inside chips. Needless to say, I'm not applauding any steps in this direction.
- layer8 3y ago
  What, a browser chip?
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    Don't see why it couldn't happen. Offload data communications to it's own chip, one that connects to a StarNet. Locked down running a Java Virtual Machine presenting an optical browser to your eye retina's; surveillance controlled as it's hooked to your brains cortex via Elon's animal killing NutellaLink.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Are you aware of how much "ewaste" is still viable and will 'lose support' for these Big Brother chip designs, but still be plenty serviceable by a normal person? Windows 11 requiring a TPM has already locked some people out of their zeitgeist. There is more old circuitry that can get the job done well enough, they'd be competing with prior freedoms.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  Could be some DRM tech that will become mandatory to view the web
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers. I suspect this will be good for Firefox.

djaychela 3y ago
Occasionally I use a computer that's not my own (I've been using Firefox and UBO for years, and have PiHole here). I can't believe how AWFUL it is. It's just not worth bothering with any more for the most part... it's like I live in this quiet backwater town where everyone walks everywhere, and then I get teleported to the middle of rush-hour Tokyo.
- christophilus 3y ago
  Rush-hour Tokyo is not too bad by big city standards. Rush hour in Atlanta, now… that’s hell.
Gabrys1 3y ago
This is an interesting point. If this is good for Firefox, then I... support this...?
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
War makes life worst. People like a good life so they should fight for peace. I guess war is good for life.
colordrops 3y ago
And possibly great for Brave. Brave has the same feel as chromium.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fbdab103 3y ago
It is truly unbelievable how bad it has become. Even informational articles might only have a paragraph of text between ads. Plus, the frequent animations/pop-unders/whatever. Everyone can decry the loss of the "small web" as much as they want, but the cram-ads-into-every-pixel dystopia means why should anyone bother? Even big brands are not immune to this behavior. At least if someone stays on the Instagram/Reddit/Tiktok experience, the ads are a consistent frequency and intrusiveness.

pier25 3y ago

I like using Chrome and even went back to it after trying FF and Brave 2-3 years ago. But this would really make me look for alternatives, even if those are inferior. It's not even about Youtube. I pay for Youtube Premium. But not being able to block third party cookies would be a deal breaker.

iforgotpassword 3y ago
If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox for minor problems out of convenience, I don't see how Firefox is supposed to really notably gain any market share even if Google completely locks out ad blockers.
- chias 3y ago
  > If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox very many of us don't.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    There are dozens of us!! I'm one of those dozens too, but sadly, "techies" are not that great at promoting the more open alternatives. Or even ad-blocking in general: just look at how hordes of HN users insist here that everyone who blocks ads is evil and how we have a moral obligation to watch advertising.
- loloquwowndueo 3y ago
  Sometimes it’s not “out of convenience” but “we only have the resources to test on one browser and most people use chrome” - so we must cater to that even if chrome is far down the road to enshittification.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vivzkestrel 3y ago
majority of the people will still use Chrome even if Google literally delists all blockers from the planet. One major reason being "browser migration". The guys on HN crying foul on most of these articles are a vocal minority. This s Google's version of "corner the market and raise the prices". They ll lost 2-5% market share at max

malermeister 3y ago

Can we all finally make a concerted effort to switch back to Firefox? I get it, it was slow and bloated when Chrome initially came out and everyone switched. Well, it's not slow or bloated anymore and Chrome is now officially evil. It's time. Don't just switch your own browser. Switch the browsers of all the non-technical folks that come to you for questions.

doublerabbit 3y ago
Even better, can we all finally make a concerted effort and make a new browser better than Chrome and Firefox? We only let the net get jizzed on because we allow it to be. If Serenity can do it, imagine if all those who push repos to github collaborating together and actually making an open source project for all and everyone. Both browsers are old and have been abused.
- malermeister 3y ago
  I mean sure, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here. Firefox is good enough and exists right now. Let's not delay this until some perfect future browser arrives.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  It takes a special kind of hubris to think you're going to develop a browser better than Chrome and Firefox as an open source project. Both Chromium and Firefox are already open source projects. What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort suddenly produce a perfect browser?
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    > What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort suddenly produce a perfect browser? Another Facebook of course. /s
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    A lack of desire to implement technologies that are harmful to the Web; specifically technologies designed to usurp control from the user and/or its agent. Remove Javascript and 90% of your challenges go away.

flummoxed_pear 3y ago

You die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

amelius 3y ago
They were a bunch of creepy voyeurs all along.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stephc_int13 3y ago

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
StableAlkyne 3y ago
*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a browser is just the thing their OS exists to run for them.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  > Technically inclined users don't need Chrome You're right, but you're forgetting, Chrome needs technically inclined users. Yes there's always people without enough awareness to be satisfied with the walled garden, but Firefox used to be popular because it was user, and importantly power user friendly. Something will usurp that thrown, the power users will switch and then so will everybody else
- stephc_int13 3y ago
  They don't have to lose 50% of market share to lose this war. Even a 5% dip will end it. And technically inclined users are the ones being asked to configure computers for their families etc.
- jnrk 3y ago
  Agreed. I look around in my office and no one else than me is running any kind of adblocker. Most people don’t care or don’t even know adblockers exist.
- snailmailman 3y ago
  This is sadly true My grandmother uses the Google app to browse the web on her phone. Not Chrome. Not safari. the Google Search app. Because every single time she does a search, google tells her to install the app. And I have a few friends that either uninstalled Adblock. Or stopped watching YouTube on PC in response to this new Adblock crackdown. All of them use chrome.

SeanAnderson 3y ago

I've used Chrome for a decade and there's no way I pick it up if they actually commit to this. That said, they already announced plans to do this once and then backed down for a year due to pushback around MV3. Guess we'll see what happens.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
herbst 3y ago
Same here. My whole approach about internet is how I can effectively block ads. If it isn't chrome, it will be something else. No value in using it then

lapcat 3y ago

How many of these stories do we need on HN? This is like dupe # 100.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

derefr 3y ago

Two questions I haven't seen addressed by any coverage of this change: 1. Will the ultimate removal of Manifest V2 support affect other Chromium-based browsers, or only Chrome itself? If the support for Manifest V2 isn't removed upstream in Chromium, but only disabled in Chrome, then I would expect that we will end up in a world where other browsers (e.g. Edge, Brave, Opera) continue to allow the installation of Manifest V2 extensions, esp. from their own first-party verified-extension hosting platforms. So even if the Chrome Web Store also ceases to host Manifest V2 extensions, users of these other Chromium-based browsers could still get uBlock Origin from "Edge Add-ons" or "Opera Addons" etc. 2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a PR to the upstream Chromium project, to introduce one or more Manifest V3 capabilities (new strings for the manifest.json "permissions" key) that, when added, would allow the extension to do all the stuff that Manifest V2 let extensions do by default, that uBO and others depend on: increased request-filter list size, async periodic network data-file updates, etc? Would such a PR have any chance of being accepted? My own guess is that such a PR wouldn't be accepted, because I get the impression that the nominal goal of Manifest V3 is to allow V3 extensions to run under a streamlined extension "runtime" that has fewer hook-points into the browser runtime, and so fewer places where the browser runtime must call back to the extension runtime; where adding such capabilities would require adding all these additional hook-points and callbacks back in, which would defeat the purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong! I would also guess that even if such a PR were accepted, Chrome would still disable the use of those capabilities downstream, and also reject any extension that used them from the Chrome Web Store. So at best, such a change would just mean that uBO and friends wouldn't be stuck as "legacy" Manifest V2 extensions, but could instead just be "modern" Manifest V3 extensions with a few capabilities that Chrome and only Chrome forcibly rejects.

layer8 3y ago
One reason Google wants to remove V2 support is to make implementation changes that V2 currently prevents. This means that a Chromium fork that preserves V2 support will likely have to diverge further and further from Chromium over time (or rather, Chromium will diverge).
- Justsignedup 3y ago

wslh 3y ago

In a few years: LLM: Hi! Me: Please develop a browser that is full HTML, etc, etc compliant LLM: No problem... download the source here. Me: Thank you, but could you please optimize it for speed? LLM: No problem, done. Me: I have only 5 more minutes, could you please write a version in Rust, and two more in Go and C++? Ah, and support Linux, MacOS, Windows, Android and iOS. Don't forget to use the native WebView in iOS. LLM: done. Me: Could you please do me a favor? Remove all ads. LLM: done.

whycome 3y ago
But also LLM: Unfortunately, as a subsidiary of MSFT, I cannot allow you to create a competitor to Edge. Would you like to try Edge now instead?
- morkalork 3y ago
  Bard: Sorry, your request infringes on the rights of content platforms to serve ads. If you make this request again your Google account will be terminated.
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    But this was the last wish of my dying grandma, can you help then? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/sob-story-about-dead-grandma-tricks-microsoft-ai-into-solving-captcha/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/sob-s...
- wslh 3y ago
  Hopefully soon, we would be able to run this models locally/on-premise. Don't you think so?
candiddevmike 3y ago
If it's that sophisticated, why even have it develop a browser, just use it as your user agent and have it filter ads for you.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.

luckman212 3y ago
Bookmarking this comment. See you in 10 years. Hope I'm still alive and I hope you're right!
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I hope I'm right, too! Choice is the most important part of technology imo, and we don't have enough of it.
mrastro 3y ago
"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Safari's share is capped to a specific hardware. Firefox can grow by converting people without needing to wait for them to buy new devices. That said, I'm not really holding my breath for FF to grow again.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    WebKit is portable and is used by a lot of browsers, including on Linux
    - signaru 3y ago
      It took me a bit of searching, but it's nice to know that there are desktop browsers that are not based on Chromium or Gecko, i.e. WebKit [1]. I would like to try Otter Browser [2], next time I use my Windows machine. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/nkzrj0/comment/gzht47d/ https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/nkzrj0/comment/gz... [2] https://otter-browser.org/ https://otter-browser.org/

underseacables 3y ago

Discussed previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758

blueridge 3y ago

I like Firefox a lot (with Privacy Badger and uBlock) but sometimes the browser slows to a crawl. New tabs are slow to open, takes way too long to select and activate a text input field, and so on. A restart fixes this, but it's still annoying. I think I might go back to Safari. I like the way it looks and it feels snappier all the way around.

thexa4 3y ago
I've reported a similar issue on mac where it gets slower over time [1]. I hope it gets fixed at some point. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1799681 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1799681
sharps1 3y ago
Try installing the auto tab discard addon (It is a recommended addon so it gets checked by Firefox). I’ve noticed certain tabs may slow FF down if they aren’t unloaded in the background. I had FF slow to a crawl and when I checked it was using 7gb’s of ram. Turns out a site I had turned off uBO in had opened up a sub frame that was blasting ads. So it is interesting to try to see what is going on with about:processes.
- blueridge 3y ago
  Oh thank you! Didn't know this was a thing, super helpful.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smarkov 3y ago
Safari is at a disadvantage - it's behind a walled garden and people outside of that garden don't develop or test for it. Sure, that's a trivial issue for a company but not for small team or single person projects. Not to mention that it feels like Safari is only fast because it does its own thing and doesn't strictly follow the spec. I've often run into CSS specific issues with it when making slightly more complicated animations.
3y ago

stainablesteel 3y ago

in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.

shadowgovt 3y ago
I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a security issue.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  This is my sticking point. I understand that building and running websites isn’t free, and if ads were 468x60 PNGs I’d be willing to live with them. I’m not willing to live with you selling the ability to run arbitrary untrusted javascript on my computer to the highest bidder.
- hoherd 3y ago
  Even the FBI recommends blocking ads for security reasons. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-an-ad-blocker-heres-why https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-...
- Karellen 3y ago
  > now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, What do you mean "now"? They've been prolific malware vectors for over 20 years!
otikik 3y ago
No, it’s not “people” on both sides. Google isn’t “people”. It’s one of the biggest corporations in the world. I’m not a big fan of the EU, mostly because their rulings tend to be a bit …clueless. The specific decision of getting in the way of big corp here is totally ok. They’ll probably do it badly and in an ineffective way, sure, but the problem is the implementation, not the idea.
3y ago

virtuous_sloth 3y ago

The war against general-purpose computing is but one front in the class war. Daily reminder that economics is a political theory, not a science, that capitalism is the most incidious form of oligarchy, and that the US is no longer a democracy (if it ever was).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pvg 3y ago

Much discussed last few days https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502

belltaco 3y ago
The second and third links are dupes themselves, ironically :)

crorella 3y ago

Good thing there are better browsers out there. As long as they don’t mess with the transport we should be good

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

derefr 3y ago

I'd like clarification on something. I've spent an hour or two trying to figure this out to no avail, so I suspect many other people might be wondering the same thing I am. Examining the Manifest V3 changes more closely (https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-overview/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...), and comparing/contrasting to what uBlock Origin themselves say about it (https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-Google-s-Manifest-V3-What-it-is-and-what-it-means-for-uBlock-Users- https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-...), I can understand the cause of one of uBO's problems with V3... but not the other. The cause of "Allow List Limits" is clear: uBO Lite will be forced to use declarativeNetRequest; and declarativeNetRequest imposes limits on the size of the ruleset you can "declare". But I'm confused about uBO's point on "Ad Blocking Quality". It seems that Manifest V3 only restricts 1. the use of eval(), and 2. the loading of remote-origin scripts into the DOM and/or as service-worker modules. It doesn't restrict the use of remote-origin-loaded data files generally; which I would presume means that uBO would still be able to use its service-worker to periodically fetch and update its filter lists. Is there some part of the way uBO uses these filter lists, that requires arbitrary remote code execution (and for which the only true substitute is burning in the lists locally?) If so: why, exactly? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm not doubting that they do need it. I just can't figure out where the need comes from, and I'd like to know!) It might seem at first blush that the literal answer is this feature: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#scriptlet-injection https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#... ... but it actually isn't, as you don't write actual JS to be eval()ed in these rules, but rather just name a function that's already burned into the extension locally as part of its "scriptlet resource library". Is it instead, just the way that these rules get "baked down" into in-page logic? Does uBO compile the lists into a bunch of Javascript source-code, and then have the page evalScript() that code? And if that is the blocking issue — and I'm still not clear that it is — then wouldn't there be other workarounds for this? For example, sticking the generated JS code into a data: URL and then dropping it into the page as a <script> tag. Or even, at worst, swapping out feeding the page "JS source code", for feeding the page a (static!) interpreter, and then having that interpreter receive instructions as regular ol' data from the uBO service-worker? (Maybe that'd violate uBO's performance goals, I suppose? But it wouldn't have to do it on every page; only on pages that it knows from the ruleset can't be blocked entirely declaratively.)

eigenvalue 3y ago

I thought Brave made very little sense when it was first launched. Who would want an ersatz Chrome browser? Now it's starting to look very smart. Sure, it's open source so anyone can fork Chromium. But it does take a lot of sophistication to do it properly and add back the usability bits in a nice way. And if you could basically have Chrome but without losing the ad blocking, that starts to sound pretty compelling.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
joelthelion 3y ago
If it started gaining traction I wouldn't be surprised to see Google going closed source with chromium.
_cenw 3y ago
Despite being made by that homophobe I will never financially support, you seem to be right. Unfortunately. Brave funnily enough is also the only Chromium-based browser that lets you set policies to turn off their optional features, none of which I want. Vivaldi has some downsides (no gesture navigation is a dealbreaker) and installs its bookmarks every time you sync a new browser. It also feels crowded no matter what settings you use. Edge just does absolute asinine stuff. Yesterday it disabled my new tab page without asking (and it also asks every day) and today it asked if it could submit my Kagi search results to Microsoft to help them make Bing better, which I refused. Weirdly enough the refuse button was blue... and sure enough, Edge set my default search engine to Bing in that moment. Apparently you can switch to a non-consumer Windows SKU to turn down these shenanigans. An Antitrust needs to read that source code, badly. Unfortunately I can't use Firefox because an app I'm forced to use wouldn't support it. The world is ripe for a Chromium fork that just works. Maybe Ungoogled-Chromium can bring back some creature comforts eventually...

account-5 3y ago

I think this is a good opportunity to bypass chrome and use a standalone adblocker, if you're forced to use Google or Microsoft (ad|spy)ware as a browser.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

insanitybit 3y ago

> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > According to Firefox’s Add-on Operations Manager, most malicious extension that manage to get through the security review process, are usually interested in simply observing the conversation between your browser and whatever websites you visit. The malicious activity happens elsewhere, after the data has already been read. So in their mind, what would really help security is a more thorough review process, but that’s not something Google says it has plans for. I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact.

Macha 3y ago
> Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? uBlock's built in list has 47,000 EasyList has 75,000 EasyPrivacy has 31,000 Fanboy's List is 78,000 Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've already raised it.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    Has Google explained why the limit is so low? I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.

LaideeDerry 3y ago

Google's master plan to ditch V2 might be more than just a power move. It's like they're trying to reshape the Chromium landscape, making it a tricky playground for any V2 loyalists. We're looking at a future where maintaining V2 support is like trying to keep a vintage car running in a world of electric vehicles. Nostalgic but increasingly impractical.

Solvency 3y ago

Can anyone explain why there isn't a robust and thriving adblocking solution available at the router or OS level? Why are we all forced to grasp at the straws of the browser?

Dwedit 3y ago
Because you would need to Man-in-the-middle HTTPS.
timeagain 3y ago
There is in the sense that there are robust black lists you can put in your `/etc/hosts` file, but that only blocks known senders of advertisements. But how can your OS know that this `div` is an ad and that one is content? Since the browser is the authority on what is rendered on a web page, it makes sense that it is the tool that should be utilized to block/hide rendered elements.
Forgeties79 3y ago
My guess is less variety on browsers than routers but no clue with OS’s.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Also, most consumers don't know how to configure their router. Most can figure out how to install an ad blocker.
  - Forgeties79 3y ago
    Yeah, especially since ones like unlock origin are simple browser extensions that anyone can install in a few seconds. Hell it’s so simple I hesitate to even describe it as “installing”
snailmailman 3y ago
DNS-based solutions do this somewhat. But nearly all web traffic is encrypted. And without being able to inspect the traffic more closely ad block is quite limited. So DNS blocking or router firewalls have trouble. Pihole can’t block YouTube ads. The ads still come from the same domain as the video. Extensions have access to the live page and can do much more inspection, with finer control over the page. (Manifest V3 limits this somewhat) On iOS it can kinda happen at the “OS” level as there is only one web browser. But that has its own drawbacks. The only adblocks are those the AppStore allows.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sandworm101 3y ago

Ok. Goodbye chrome. I will be switching to whatever privacy-focused browser allows me to keep not seeing ads. I do wonder how long it will be before we see browser browsers, software that takes a browser instance and sanitizes it. Maybe chrome will continue as a daemon allowed to run inside a sandbox within a browser's browser that actually displays content to a human.

vlod 3y ago
Welcome to Firefox. We have cookies!
- eastbound 3y ago
  And ads! Mandatory shortcuts for Nike and Amazon on the homepage! Then ads saying Big Browser Watches For You! Then ads saying we respect privacy! Then a suggestion to open a Mozilla account and synchronize all your history! Because we respect privacy!
  - treyd 3y ago
    Use a non-Mozilla Firefox fork, there's several.
  - vlod 3y ago
    Errh... I don't see them on mine. Maybe I removed them or something. If so, it was relatively easy.
  - avtar 3y ago
    Why not change your homepage to something you prefer? And don’t create or sign into a Mozilla account; host your own sync server instead https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674569
  - idonotknowwhy 3y ago
    2 clicks to turn them off mate.

giantg2 3y ago

Sounds like anything outside the browser should still work, like PiHole

m3kw9 3y ago

Come to Safari..

class4behavior 3y ago
The crowd stagnates. Everyone looks to the right, to the left. After a moment of thought they turn around: "Democracy-destroying ad-hell it is then."

cpeterso 3y ago

> Nevertheless, Firefox said it will adopt Manifest V3 in the interest of cross-browser compatibility. The article makes it sound like Firefox will have the same ad blocker limitations as Chrome. The article fails to mention that Mozilla is implementing MV3 APIs in Firefox, but not removing the MV2 APIs like Chrome is: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
timetraveller26 3y ago
Yeah, that is a really bad misrepresentation

clouddrover 3y ago

The error is to use Chrome in the first place. Use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

notatoad 3y ago

So, manifest v3 is out there, and does allow some form of adblocking. are there any adblockers actually implemented with it, so i can see for myself what the adblocking performance is like?

agilob 3y ago
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin-lite/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... uBO Lite (uBOL) is a permission-less MV3-based content blocker.
Pesthuf 3y ago
Sure, there's uBlock Origin Lite https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home

squarefoot 3y ago

I fear this scenario in a few years: 1- non hacker users too starting to realize corporate friendly browsers like Chrome and many derivatives can't be used anymore for painless surfing, then flocking to Firefox. 2- corporations and advertising companies pushing for a new closed HTTP standard that requires their browser, or an old browser using a closed extension that doesn't allow adblockers when using a given service or page. Open browsers work because they still connect to open web servers, and the industry already ruined the mobile environment by forcing users to run apps instead of navigating web pages (that is, installing a hundred application for a hundred services instead of just one that speaks a standard protocol); I have no doubt they'll attempt the same in the desktop world too. We have to fight to keep protocols open.

Accujack 3y ago
I'll take option 3: a new browser using better technology (better design, protocols, etc) than chrome gets written by hundreds of open source advocates working together. The new browser becomes the standard for the Internet because it is not under the control of corporate interests and because of its superiority to decade old browsers. Corporations and services are once again forced to standardize on open standards for web access or lose customers because the public (and techies specifically) will not support a proprietary software model for the public internet. It's a cycle - corporations become big and successful, try to establish proprietary control, then lose massive market share to newly created competitors. Once successful corporations get large, they tend to forget that eventually the frog getting boiled does jump out of the pot, and is usually angry when that happens.

aussieguy1234 3y ago

If they do, I'll switch back to Firefox

reustle 3y ago
Jump in, the water is great! But seriously, this finally forced my back to Firefox and it has been very smooth so far. The Cloudflare overlords like to force a few more captchas to access sites, and Apple doesn’t support keychain password sharing yet, but they’re worthy compromises to push back on the domination of chrome.

matthewfelgate 3y ago

What's the long term impact on this? * More (Advertising) revenue for Youtube streamers? * More people switching to Edge browser to use Ad Blockers? * People using Pi-hole style Ad blocking?

kderbyma 3y ago

"Chrome pushes forward to make itself the new edge"