3 ms·

It's weird to me that no one on Hacker News has pointed out the MV3 version of uBlock works fine. At least I haven't noticed any difference except for the rare

It's weird to me that no one on Hacker News has pointed out the MV3 version of uBlock works fine. At least I haven't noticed any difference except for the rare minor annoyance of cosmetic filtering (which gorhill removed for political, not technical reasons) Whatever you feel about the politics surrounding MV2 and webRequest, MV3 is by no means blocking uBlock, or ending adblock on Chrome across the board. That's FUD. It's far more convincing to speak about the on-the-ground technical facts than the paranoia of these gossip rags.

lima 3y ago
HN has always been an echo chamber :-) I've been using the MV3 version for months because it does not require permissions. It works just fine. And in the rare case where I do need cosmetic filtering, I can simply click the extension icon, drag the slider to "more" and grant an individual permission for the site. It's great. Another benefit is that a permissionless adblocker works in many corporate environments which would otherwise block any extension with far-reaching permissions.
gorhill 3y ago
> rare minor annoyance of cosmetic filtering (which gorhill removed for political, not technical reasons) Please clarify. No political motivation went into uBO Lite. It supports cosmetic filtering just fine -- it's a matter of picking the appropriate filtering mode.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  I'm misremembering from the initial "uBO Minus" release [1] [1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4de09330cf3d06194ccc897 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4d...
  - gorhill 3y ago
    This was the first commit, and the commit message is accurate about the technical limitations of this first version. If you want cosmetic filtering and other advanced filtering in the current, more mature version, you need to explicitly grant host permission for either the site or everywhere.

lima 3y ago

HN has always been an echo chamber :-) I've been using the MV3 version for months because it does not require permissions. It works just fine. And in the rare case where I do need cosmetic filtering, I can simply click the extension icon, drag the slider to "more" and grant an individual permission for the site. It's great. Another benefit is that a permissionless adblocker works in many corporate environments which would otherwise block any extension with far-reaching permissions.

gorhill 3y ago

> rare minor annoyance of cosmetic filtering (which gorhill removed for political, not technical reasons) Please clarify. No political motivation went into uBO Lite. It supports cosmetic filtering just fine -- it's a matter of picking the appropriate filtering mode.

nickelpro 3y ago
I'm misremembering from the initial "uBO Minus" release [1] [1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4de09330cf3d06194ccc897 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4d...
- gorhill 3y ago
  This was the first commit, and the commit message is accurate about the technical limitations of this first version. If you want cosmetic filtering and other advanced filtering in the current, more mature version, you need to explicitly grant host permission for either the site or everywhere.