31 ms·

Chrome's next weapon in the War on Ad Blockers: Slower extension updates

423 points by my12parsecs 3y ago

Gabrys1 3y ago
I feel like at this point, Google could just officially disallow extensions blocking ads (or just Google ads?). What's happening here is just stupid, IMO.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dotcoma 3y ago
If this won’t lead to people ditching Chrome, I am afraid nothing ever will…
- goku12 3y ago
  It won't. But not because this is desirable. All these anti-user measures are small and gradual steps that regular folks won't immediately recognize. Something about a frog and boiling water.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    What's funny is that, in reality, frogs aren't that stupid: they'll jump out of the water as soon as it gets too hot for them. Humans aren't this smart, however.
  - TheCapeGreek 3y ago
    Beyond that, how many ordinary non-techie people are ever checking the actual changes of their app? I'd bet basically never unless a changelog page opens immediately after the update. And that's not exactly going to be worded in an understandable way like "we're doing this to screw over your ability to do what you want on the web".
    - dun44 3y ago
      Broken adblocking is immediately visible to anyone, including non-tech people.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    The frog boiling analogy doesn't work long-term though, because humans don't live forever, and new ones keep replacing the old ones. A new crop of college kids is going to look at Chrome and say "nope"
    - saurik 3y ago
      Or they look at Chrome and not realize it could ever have been better, as they never experienced such.
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        Hard to imagine someone would switch from Edge/Safari to Chrome without investigating other alternatives like Brave/Firefox.
    - cpeterso 3y ago
      Or the college kids are acclimated to the Google ecosystem because they been using Google Classroom on the Google Chromebooks in their K-12 classes for years.
      - dun44 3y ago
        Chromebooks happen to be a perfect example of a product that’s only ever used by people forced to, in this case by their school, as opposed to something people buy with their own money.
trealira 3y ago
I don't understand why Google counteracts indirectly. Why can't they just ban adblockers from the Chrome Web Store? If that's not possible, why not just remove specific adblockers one by one? Removing the big ones would probably stop most people from using them.
- yakattak 3y ago
  My assumption is that banning them outright will make it super obvious you can’t run adblock on chrome. With Manifest V3 limiting their capabilities but not getting rid of them, the layman user will still feel like they have adblock and aren’t likely to know it’s not as powerful as it was before.
  - bentcorner 3y ago
    Google might be trying to have their cake and eat it too - hamstring adblocking enough that their sites and ad networks can work around it but other sites and ad networks will remain blocked.
    - jdironman 3y ago
      Keep your friends close, your enemies' closer kind of thing.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    This implies we are so stupid we won't realize we are seeing ads where we never saw them before.
    - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
      >> we won't realize we are seeing ads where we never saw them before. Ads are the new content. The killer app for LLMs is generating new and innovative ads that are entertaining and feel like content. Imagine fun games like "Avoid the Noid" (https://www.mobygames.com/game/1095/avoid-the-noid/ https://www.mobygames.com/game/1095/avoid-the-noid/), "Cool Spot" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Spot), and "McKids" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.C._Kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.C._Kids), but with modern graphics and sound and promoting the most annoying brands and products. Help people save money on their insurance by playing as the Geico lizard! Find out the dirt on used cars as the CarFax fox! Yesterday's annoying mascots are today's folk heroes.
outside1234 3y ago
Just use Edge? It is better at this point anyway
- kibwen 3y ago
  Edge uses the Chrome web store. It's just Chrome playing dress-up.
  - nitinreddy88 3y ago
    Not exactly. Edge is fork of Chrome and diverged a lot from actual Chrome. You can load Manifest v2 extensions in Edge while it's not feasible in Chrome
    - tech234a 3y ago
      I just tested loading a manifest v2 extension on Chrome (stable) and it works fine.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    There is also an Edge extension store, which could conceivably keep MV2 extensions alive, and allow for a smoother update experience. However, as someone who manages a couple extension, I rarely update the Edge version for one and didn't bother ever uploading the other.
kevingadd 3y ago
Not only does Google take a long time to review extension updates, but Chrome pulls extension updates infrequently. So even if you manage to get an update pushed to the store in 24 hours, it may take another day or more before your users actually get the update. All of this put together means you really shouldn't trust Chrome extensions for anything important. If there's a security vulnerability in something like your password manager, the update is going to take days to reach your system.
duringmath 3y ago
> Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay. So the author can't think of any other reason for this change other than to "slow down ad blocker updates" Well how about stuff like this: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 Where an extension dev details offers to "monetize" his extension and basically perform a bait and switch and make it malicious. Pretending that V3 is all about ad blockers is more than a little disingenuous.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  MV3 does not stop those monetization offers. I don’t understand why you think they would stop. Source: I have two open-source extensions with almost 1,000,000 active daily users combined, and the MV3 versions still elicit offers for me to sell them
  - duringmath 3y ago
    It might not stop the offers coming but it might stop you from taking up one or more of them.
    - NBPEL 3y ago
      How ? If you are offered 2 meals, it's YOUR choice to take 1 or 2, it's all about yourself. MV3 won't even prevent this one bit.
      - duringmath 3y ago
        Malicious extensions are less likely to make it passed the review process. That in turn should deter bad actors from monkeying with their extensions but more importantly it makes it less likely that malicious extensions make their way to users browsers.
croes 3y ago
Time to hold Google liable for any damage by malware, phishing, scams etc. served by ads.
- antifa 3y ago
  I've gotten malware twice from ads on reputable websites. I've never gotten malware via piracy or while using adblock.
bastard_op 3y ago
I long ago stopped using chrome under linux, it's like malware inviting themselves to my home. Chrome is the new IE6.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  I quit using Chrome and recently quit using Google as the default search. It is so hard to get away from them but I am making progress.
  - virtualpain 3y ago
    what search engine you use as default now?
    - orphea 3y ago
      Check out Kagi. It's paid but has subjectively higher quality search results and lacks BS that Google is full of these days.
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      DDG for the time being but honestly I am tempted by Kagi as well. Ad tech is cancer on the internet. I decided to quit Google after the trusted devices bullshit, but if I could remove junk listicles from my results that would be a big improvement.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
delroth 3y ago
What about MV3 requires going through the Chrome Web Store to update block lists? A quick look at the declarativeNetRequest docs (https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...) shows that there are indeed static rulesets which need to be declared in the extension's manifest, but also dynamic rulesets which can be updated via JavaScript (and so presumably can be fetched and updated dynamically). I can't seem to find any specific limitation of dynamic rulesets vs. static rulesets.
- fgoesbrrr 3y ago
  They can claim dynamic fetch is "phoning home" and a user privacy danger.
  - delroth 3y ago
    You're just making stuff up at this point with no evidence or source. If the intention was to forbid dynamic fetching of declarativeNetRequest filter lists, Google could also just... not have dynamic filter lists.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Google's playing the long EEE game. They do small things like this so people like you go around telling us it's not a big deal. Will you say the same things 5 years from now? Google needs to be kicked out of consideration for web standards. They keep treating it like they own it.
  - tinus_hn 3y ago
    Now there’s something Google Chrome would never do, phoning home.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      Not even Brave would do that. Wait..
- 3y ago
simbolit 3y ago
Firefox rennaissance anyone?
- tpowell 3y ago
  I use Brave, Safari, Arc and Firefox, basically in that order. I never even installed Chrome once Apple introduced their own chips. Brave has always felt just like Chrome once you turn off their rewards stuff. Arc is doing some really thoughtful integration of Chat-GPT, including cleaning up tab titles, that is worth paying attention to. I actually look forward to their ~weekly YouTube updates.
  - antifa 3y ago
    > Arc You have to enter an email address to get a download link??? Also the homepage was laggy on firefox nightly for Android.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I wish. Likely most people just won't notice this happening, and won't realize their experience could be better with a different browser. Only people like us will. And if you read a lot of the comments here, seems like a lot of people who should know better still use Chrome.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    People who start seeing ads will know the difference. People don't like ads and will ask their local geek why ads are back and how to avoid them.
- vehemenz 3y ago
  The numbers are pretty grim though. Apple is taking market share in desktop and mobile, so I'd put my money on Safari.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    How are you expecting them to gain market share on Windows, Linux and Android?
CSMastermind 3y ago
This might be a stupid question but will this affect Edge as well? Right now it's unclear to me how much Edge extensions are tied to the Chrome Store policies.
- nitinreddy88 3y ago
  Edge still supports Manifest v2 extensions and they are trying to keep it open.
  - tech234a 3y ago
    For now. The docs [1] indicate they might follow along with what Chrome does, though they haven't been updated since January. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494451
zgs 3y ago
Looks like Chrome is digging a hole they'll not get out of. I run Chrome as little as possible. Sadly, there are a few places where it is the best still.
- myspy 3y ago
  I went through the process installing googleless Chromium and that‘s fine to work with. Since the Keystone saga I‘m not using Chrome anymore. Google Chrome can go the way of the dodo.
  - squidbeak 3y ago
    As we see from this topic, even googleless Chrome is constrained by Google's business needs.
- timbit42 3y ago
  I only use Chrome on Google websites. It keeps my Google account separated from all my other web browsing.
zacte 3y ago
Are there any decent alternatives for the Chrome Web store? Are there unified extension hubs for chromium/firefox with version history similar to how android has apk websites
- YoshiRulz 3y ago
  Mozilla's first-party marketplace has version history. Click "See all versions" in the left sidebar. As for third-party marketplaces, I couldn't say, but I'm aware of some work in that direction for Nixpkgs.
calamari4065 3y ago
Now, right now, this is the moment for Mozilla to pull their heads out of their asses and really push to improve Firefox. Google is cranking up the user hostility, but if there's no viable alterative, people are gonna be stuck being spied on and tracked everywhere by chrome. If we had an alternative, this would be the time for an organized push to get people on it. But Mozilla has either become complacent or been quietly bought out behind the scenes and Firefox isn't really competitive anymore. Sure, you can still use Firefox. I do, begrudgingly. But it's not good enough to convince people to switch. It hasn't been for a very long time which is why we're in this mess in the first place. I expect nothing will change and everyone will suffer for it. Maybe people will get offline more. The internet as a whole is becoming exponentially shittier as time goes on. How much longer before it's completely intolerable?
- roca 3y ago
  What exactly do you think is substandard about Firefox?
  - _cenw 3y ago
    https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abrowser-firefox https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%... Microsoft Teams (which I don't think many people use voluntarily) in particular breaks in stupid ways - and then in others if you spoof your user agent.
    - phs318u 3y ago
      I use Microsoft Edge - have added their apt repository so updates are automagical. Edge, though based on Chrome's engine, still supports manifest V2 so adblockers such as UO still work fine. Even better, Edge let's you "appify" sites like Teams and Outlook - perfect for work. I use Edge for all my WFH needs, turning off UO for most MS sites (to avoid any subtle issues), and Firefox for all personal needs. Works for me. Oh, and Teams on Linux using Edge works a treat.
      - 3y ago
lakpan 3y ago
Absolutely clickbait. Nothing in the article suggests that review times are increasing, they’ve always been “from a few minutes to a few days”. Also filters do not depend on extension updates at all, they are plain text files that can be updated at any time. Not to mention that they can contain “scriptlets”, which make them quite literally “remotely hosted code” and still allowed by MV3 (because they’re not raw JavaScript)
- nneonneo 3y ago
  From TFA: > We've covered this already. But we haven't talked about the other side of the equation: Ad block rules can't be updated quickly anymore. Today, ad blockers and privacy apps can ship filter list updates themselves, often using giant open-source community lists. Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay. If this is factually incorrect, it would absolutely warrant a correction to the article.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/migrating/improve-security/#configuration-drive https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/migrating/impro... Looks factually correct-- though exactly how Google interprets rules will affect how limiting this is.
  - SquareWheel 3y ago
    > If this is factually incorrect, it would absolutely warrant a correction to the article. It is incorrect. MV3 definition updates go through an automated fast-track process for safe rules. See the presentation[1] and Q&A[2] at the recent Ad Blocking Summit. I wouldn't hold my breath on a correction. Ron never corrects his articles, like when he confused the Privacy Sandbox with the Topics API a couple months ago[3]. [1] https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=24745 https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=24745 [2] https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=26552 https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=26552 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227
zwaps 3y ago
Using a browser made by an ad company. Just don’t. Other browsers are fine and in fact Chrome is becoming increasingly user hostile anyway.
- mbork_pl 3y ago
  What "other browsers"? I know there's Firefox (it's my main browser, in fact), but where is the rest? Edge is Chrome, Safari is only available for iThings, so it's not like there's a big selection...
  - unnouinceput 3y ago
    I suggest watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5r6jFE8gic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5r6jFE8gic
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      Looks interesting, but it's almost 40 minutes of video. Can I read that somewhere?
      - raybb 3y ago
        Here's a kagi summary The video ranks different web browsers on a tier list from spyware tier to base tier based on privacy, usability, and other factors. Brave is placed in excellent tier for its good default privacy settings and built-in ad blocking, though some dislike its use of cryptocurrency. Firefox is only decent tier due to its many annoying default features, but can be excellent with the right privacy-focused user.js file. Icecat is decent tier for free software purists due to its use of LibreJS blocking non-free scripts, though this breaks many sites. Librewolf is excellent tier as an easy to use private version of Firefox without much configuration needed. Chromium-based browsers like Vivaldi can be good but have limitations from not being fully open source. Closed source browsers like Chrome, Edge and Opera are automatically placed in spyware tier due to privacy concerns. Qutebrowser is decent tier for power users due to its keyboard-focused design but has issues with advanced ad blocking. Waterfox is excellent tier as a lightweight Firefox fork, though its ownership by an ad company concerns some. Overall, Brave, Librewolf and hardened Firefox are recommended as having the best balance of privacy, usability and customizability.
nneonneo 3y ago
Weirdly, earlier today I had a bunch of problems loading Google web properties on Firefox - GMail hung completely (wouldn't even load all the way! no more basic HTML option!) and Sheets was showing half-rendered documents (even after several refresh attempts). All the other sites were fine. It's probably just a coincidence...
- eyegor 3y ago
  This happens periodically, where google services act funny with a Firefox user agent. Just use edge or chromes user agent string, and Google sites will work again.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    This is such an annoying approach for Google to force people to using Chrome... I get that they're not testing stuff on Firefox, so much is obvious. But there are so many times things don't work properly in Firefox (YouTube loading slower, lag in Gmail, Drive having weird UI<>backend synchronization bugs) at a first glance, but as soon as you set the user-agent to Chrome, things just magically work perfectly fine, and all issues disappear. Someone should really be doing a deep dive into this issue, because it's been going on for a long time, and is clearly anti-competitive. My guess is that they're really good at hiding this/making it look accidental rather than on purpose.
    - tommek4077 3y ago
      Maybe Firefox should just start using the Chrome useragent. Making those metrics unusable.
- timbit42 3y ago
  I use Chrome for Google websites and Firefox for everything else. I like keeping everything else separated from my Google account.
- wharvle 3y ago
  Gmail’s always very nearly unusable on mobile safari, mostly due to their user-hating decision to use custom scrolling. Constant accidental touch events when trying to scroll, and it breaks in weird ways that require reloads to fix. And that’s aside from the scrolling itself working poorly to begin with, but short of outright breakage. IDK if it’s better in iOS Chrome, but it’d be pretty damning if it is, since they necessarily use the same engine on that platform.
butz 3y ago
Google might as well skip all this dancing around and build their ads straight into Chrome. Good luck doing some work while you have to watch a video ad every hour or so, and every page has ads literally in browsers "chrome".
workfromspace 3y ago
To me it seems like Google would rather break all other extensions than give up war against ad blockers.
ddxv 3y ago
Been using Firefox again. Was a great breath of fresh air for me.
- Ayesh 3y ago
  AMO also takes several days for plugins to update. I recently wanted to update Bitwarden addon, which took well over two weeks for it to land on AMO. Addon sideloading is only possible on Firefox Developer edition (which I use, so it didn't bother me much).
maxglute 3y ago
Is there a way to backup current Chrome version + settings + extensions, preferrably in a portable app/container. I'm pretty content with my setup and wouldn't mind running it for as long as possible. Hopefully in a few years we can have AI convert currently chrome exclusive extentions onto another browser. But right now it's still hard to swtich.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  Imo it's dangerous for security reasons. Better start switching to ff from now
  - maxglute 3y ago
    I actually tried to do the switch this week, still too many essential plugins/addons missing. I have some basic technical skills to rewrite some functions into userscripts. But it's still a fairly subpar experience.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I just kinda don't get this. I don't really think there are "essential" addons, aside from ad-blocking/privacy-related things (and Firefox is at least as good, and possibly better, than Chrome on those). Like... sure, web browser UX isn't always the best, but by rejecting Firefox on the merits of optional addons, you're just saying that the convenience of how you prefer to interact with a browser is more important than your privacy and ability to block ads. Which is fair, I suppose, but let's call it what it is. Meanwhile, we're back in the IE days: alternative browsers don't have enough market share to do much but accept whatever Google wants to do with the web. Frankly I'm just tired of people making excuses for using a browser made by a company that is actively making the web worse and eroding our privacy, bit by bit.
      - maxglute 3y ago
        Without getting into details there's a few niche extentions for my daily productivity that saves me a few hours every week. It's not critical, but it automates a bunch of things that would make switching cost for those tasks too high. Most of the missing things I can probably do without an adapt. I actually firefox UI more. >we're back in the IE days Reminds me of when Asian banks still required IE activex well into 2010s and one had to keep IE around, which was easy since it comes with Windows. I can probably use get used to firefox for most of my use case, but have to keep chrome around for some sites.
NBPEL 3y ago
And it's sad that hackers are still using MV3 to write malware extensions, then what is the point of improving non-existence security ? https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stand.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan... > Is it true that Manifest V3 will increase privacy and security of the browser? > Honestly, I wouldn’t say so. I see the advantages of MV3 in terms of unification, cross-platform compatibility, and performance, but *I don’t see any advantages in terms of increasing user security, unfortunately*. *The amount of scam extensions in the Chrome Web Store remains high despite the fact that it has been a long time since the store stopped accepting non-MV3 extensions.* And what, people are more likely to get virus from Google Ads or Ads overall than those improved security: https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_entire_digital_livelihood_drained_after/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_... https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networkidn_show_punycodetrue_to_protect/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networ...
- mrjin 3y ago
  I think you just do get it that it has nothing to do with security.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    It's about the security of Google's revenue stream.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
saos 3y ago
Use FF. best decision I made years ago.
HlessClaudesman 3y ago
Continued enshitification of Chrome will result in exodus of tech savvy users.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Well, it hasn't happened yet. Judging by many comments here, a lot of HNers still use Chrome. If people here still use Chrome, I see little hope of regular users ditching it for these sorts of reasons.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    That's because Google so far has only been dancing around and preparing to make ad blocking difficult. Until they actually do it, Chrome is fine.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      "Yeah there's a lot of smoke, but I'm not going to evacuate until I see flames" The writing is on the wall, why are you so keen to wait til the last minute?
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        Because many tech people who are sticks in the mud like this don't actually care about the browser, or the implications of what's happening in real time. They'll eventually leave and wonder why nobody told them sooner.
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        Ugh, that's a bad analogy and you know it. No actually what you're doing is a classic case of "it's in the EULA, so they can do it". Like, if tomorrow Google puts a clause in their EULA that they have the right to harvest the eyeballs of everyone who lives on Earth, you'd be scrambling for passage to Mars. "It's in the EULA! Corporations are all-powerful and can do anything, as long as they state it in the EULA!" I no more fear Google banning ad-blockers than I fear Toyota putting spikes on all of their steering wheels. It would be much more painful to their bottom-line than any Toyota drivers, because people would do this magical thing called... not using that product.
kelnos 3y ago
I still don't get why people who care about privacy (and ad-blocking) use Chrome. Firefox works really well these days, even if Mozilla's track record isn't the greatest of late. I haven't had a need to open a website in Chrome in... years? I can't even remember the last time.
- linuxandrew 3y ago
  MS Teams doesn't support Firefox: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/unsupported-browsers https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/unsupported... Or the VMware console: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1769175 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1769175 There's probably a bunch of other web apps that exclusively support Chromium-based browsers, unfortunately.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Why would anyone want to use ms teams? I understand employers stuck in the fax age might demand it but it’s their problem if they want their data leaked. For personal and outside work no one should use ms teams.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      Companies like to use Teams because it's basically free: they already subscribe to Microsoft's Office365 services, and Teams comes with it. To use a competitor, they'd have to pay for that separately. "Teams is shitty and buggy" isn't enough of a justification to convince upper management to shell out big bucks for licenses for something like Zoom when they're already getting Teams effectively for free.
  - mikkelam 3y ago
    I mean, it's not that bad to jump into chromium once in a while
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Chrome really has become the new IE. That's sad.
l8_to_catch_up 3y ago
Fuck Google. They do evil. You don't need Chrome. You have Firefox. Download Firefox now: https://www.mozilla.org https://www.mozilla.org Addons for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org https://addons.mozilla.org
dr_kiszonka 3y ago
In principle, if they need ads to keep the lights on, then it is reasonable that they would block ad blockers on, e.g., YouTube, no? (What upsets me more is purposefully degrading the experience of FF users.)
phendrenad2 3y ago
That's cute. Seems like a classic case of "you can't make someone understand something when their job depends on not understanding it", but in case anyone at Google reads this, here's a hint: People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective. They will use Edge, or Safari, or (in case you think you can make backroom deals with Microsoft and Apple to implement this in their browsers too), they'll use Brave. It's not a winnable game, save your money and play something else.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective Look how long the most of humanity stuck to Internet Explorer, even with Chrome literally stickied on the Google front page and IE's more dramatic drawbacks. Edge in particular is kind of a bloated mess now. I used to prefer it over the Chromium fork of the week (Currently Thorium and Cromite), but now its just too spammy and slow. No one is switching to that. Also I have extremely mixed feelings about Brave. Maybe even net negative.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    > Look how long the most of humanity stuck to Internet Explorer Chrome surpassed IE usage within 4 years, so the answer is "not particularly long". > IE's more dramatic drawbacks Such as? > its just too spammy and slow Spammy yes, slow no. > I have extremely mixed feelings about Brave. Maybe even net negative Why?
  - idonotknowwhy 3y ago
    I actual installed the unusable mess that is edge, on my Linux desktop, because I like the sound of it's text to speech voice. Turns out that feature is only available on windows. Uninstalled and will never try that piece of rubbish again!
- blibble 3y ago
  > People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective. post remote attestation they will if they want to use google services
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Excellent. I hope they continue making Chrome worse on purpose. More reasons for users to switch to Firefox is always good.
- narag 3y ago
  Firefox is not immune. Changes in the extensions must be reviewed so advertisers can break blockers for some days until the blockers are fixed and then some more days until Mozilla reviews the changes. Then they'll have another trick ready to break blockers again.
  - Kubuxu 3y ago
    Mozilla allows for direct update of blocker lists instead of requiring that they are included in the extension and updated with it.
    - narag 3y ago
      You're right. But the anti-blockers code needs to be addressed with more code, not just lists. That's not a hypothetical situation, it's happening right now with YouTube.
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        You're missing other players watching what happens with YouTube and amend their plans accordingly. If there's no effective way to block ad blockers, others will let Google do the fighting and move on when the conclusion comes out. Google is punching WAY above its class. It does not own the Web, or the Internet, and there's a huge number of people willing to prove it.
        narag 3y ago
        It seems we agree that in the long run, it's unsustainable. My point is more modest: that in the specific topic of this post, using response time against the blockers, Firefox is also vulnerable. The mechanism is actually very simple if the content is served using JavaScript, as is the case with videos: make the code that shows the ads create some token and then the media player will check if it's present, refusing to play otherwise. You can circumvent it with code, but new code triggers new review and, when it's approved, the token is changed and back to square one. In the case of Firefox it might be faster, but I don't think extension maintainers and reviewers can be 24x7 available to play that cat & mouse game. In Firefox you need to sign extensions to install them or go through the debug menu. Both methods are not easy for the regular user. At the end of the day, either blocking turns to be only for power users/programmers, or a new trust model for browsers is adopted. Chromium and Firefox are both open source but how many % of their users have actually compiled them from sources? I haven't. Last time I checked, Chromium recommended a minimum 0.5 TB free space. And Firefox now requires two programming languages.
Timber-6539 3y ago
Manifest v3 offers free performance and increased security & privacy. Gone are the days where any/every extension had access to every website you visited. It would be a damn shame to throw this baby out with all the water.
- nerdbert 3y ago
  Cool. Then you can use Firefox which will support Mv3 extensions without castrating ad blocking.
  - Timber-6539 3y ago
    uBlock in Firefox will not be updated to use Manifest v3, it will remain as is i.e MV2. Of course, there is an MV3 version of uBlock but that's castrated too going with your definition.
arbol 3y ago
Countdown to brave extension store begins...
ij3o2ijIOJ 3y ago
[flagged]
jokoon 3y ago
I really want to keep http but replace html and js with something more strict, lighter, secure and safe by design, that would prevent the use of targeted ads like it's possible in HTML. I understand that companies might probably not use something else if it's harder to put ads because they could not make money, but there are still a lot of use cases where companies will prefer having a technology that's safe. The law is evolving which means targeted ads will not be viable anymore. Also, maybe a lot of internet media companies, including reddit, instagram, etc need to rethink their business model, why don't they try to sell news article through a platform like netflix? I still don't understand why media companies are able to make money over content they never make on internet infrastructure they did not build, this baffles logic. HTML is way too permissive.
- rollcat 3y ago
  > [...] replace html and js with something more strict, lighter, secure and safe by design, that would prevent the use of targeted ads like it's possible in HTML. You can't do that and still have a useful system. You'd have to start by neutering basic functionality like inline images, and when that turns out to not be enough (because ads can also be just text), you'd have to go down the path of censorship. You can't do that because the ability to fingerprint (and thus track) user-agents is not an oversight in the design of the web (although third-party cookies did help kickstart the current trends), but a fundamental property of the universe - every existing "thing" radiates information, and our means to collect and process it are developing faster than our understanding of what needs to be done to conceal it. > I understand that companies might probably not use something else if it's harder to put ads because they could not make money, but there are still a lot of use cases where companies will prefer having a technology that's safe. You can try measuring commercial support for Gemini[1] to get an indicator of how valuable your proposed technology would be for companies. The current network effect of well... the network, is way too strong. [1]: https://geminiprotocol.net/ https://geminiprotocol.net/ > Also, maybe a lot of internet media companies, including reddit, instagram, etc need to rethink their business model [...] They don't need to rethink anything at all while what they're doing right now is 1. profitable, 2. legal, and 3. even when not exactly legal, the fines continue to be smaller than the profits. > The law is evolving which means targeted ads will not be viable anymore. Pretty much this, you can't solve social/political problems with technology. We could use a simpler/safer web, but the cost of switching outweighs the benefits. We could build better privacy protections into the core of our technology, but we will keep finding ways to leak information and fingerprint behavior. The problem with Manifest v3 is not what Manifest v3 allows and what it doesn't, the problem is that Google are in a position to unilaterally force it, and antitrust no longer seems to be a thing. The only real change we can hope for is a social/political change.
succo 3y ago
There is much offer in the browser world, i don't understand what's the point of keep using google shit suite
- alargemoose 3y ago
  As a Firefox user since its beta, there is? Last I checked there remain 3 browser engines left. Mozilla’s Gecko, Google’s Blink, and Apple’s Webkit. Everything else is just variants using those engines, and the vast majority of those variants (Opera, Brave, Edge, etc) are Chromium-based/using Blink. That’s not a lot of difference. If you really want to get away from chrome, your mainstream option is just Firefox. Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and safari.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and Safari. On iPhone it's all WebKit. Apple doesn't (yet!) allow Firefox to use Gecko.
  - cesarb 3y ago
    > Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and safari. AFAIK, you cannot, on iPhone you're forced to use Safari (all other browsers forced by Apple to be reskins of Safari).
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Calling Firefox "mainstream" is being very generous at this point, I recall its marketshare is in the single digit percentage points.
    - throwuxiytayq 3y ago
      How many hundreds of millions of users would you say it needs to have until you can call it mainstream non-generously?
      - 3y ago
bossyTeacher 3y ago
Firefoxer here, HN folk are one of the most if not the most tech savvy communities in the whole planet. I don't understand why, in the name of an open internet for ours and the future, you don't refuse to use an actively hostile Chrome in your personal devices. Someone please explain this to me
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vehemenz 3y ago
  1. Google employees 2. People who "bought in" to the Google/Android ecosystem 3. Web developers who won't use inferior dev tools 4. Stockholm Syndrome
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    5. Too much ego to admit they've been wrong for years when they told Firefox advocates that there was nothing wrong with using Chrome, that the advertising corporation with monopoly power was actually benevolent and wouldn't abuse their market position.
- nolist_policy 3y ago
  Chromebooks are really nice and you get great touchpad gesture input in Chrome. And obviously Chrome has better performance and power efficiency, etc. there. I didn't use Chrome before I bought this Chromebook.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Being savvy in a field does not correlate to making good decisions in said field, especially if rewards and incentives are not aligned. Lots of tech people got their start on Google tech and don't mind ads. They're a strange breed of people who I guess just give into anything being pushed on them in tech.
ameshkov 3y ago
I like that Ars tries to defend ad blocking, but please, prepare better, maybe talk to actual developers and avoid false accusations. It’s completely okay to criticize Google for doing really controversial (to say the least) stuff like getting rid of blocking webRequest, but criticizing them for prohibiting inclusion of remote JS in the extension is simply bad work. They could do a minimal fact check, remote JS was never allowed in Mozilla Addons store. A bit more research and they’ll learn that cosmetic filters updates do not require an extension update. A little bit more research and one can learn about the no-review-fast-track that Chrome WebStore plans to implement next year.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  This is the first time I've really looked into Manifest V3, and I'm confused as to how the "no remote JS" restriction is enforced. What prevents a developer from using non-remote JS (code built into the extension) to tell the current web page to fetch remote JS from a server, and execute that? Obviously, web pages must be able to fetch remote JS, or the whole internet would break. Google could delist such an extension from the Chrome Web Store. But Chrome (unlike Firefox, grr!) allows extension sideloading, so if I was UBlock Origin I would just say screw the Web Store, download from our website. And then, once UBlock Origin can inject an unlimited amount of turing-complete Javascript onto the page, the sky is basically the limit... right?
  - ameshkov 3y ago
    If the server is yours it will probably be rejected. Definitely will be rejected by Mozilla. Userscripts is a notable exception of this rule as in this case the user instructs the extension what JS to execute.
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      Yes, but Chrome allows users to sideload extensions.
      - 3y ago
FaridIO 3y ago
Chrome is going full Internet Explorer.
SCAQTony 3y ago
Is Google shooting itself in the foot by taking an adversarial approach toward the user's desire to avoid invasive surveillance? I think so.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ath3nd 3y ago
Dunno, but it seems ublock origin's version in Chrome Web Store is 1.53.0, was last updated on 8-th of November. As of yesterday, that version can't get around Youtube's adblocking detection. I built Ublock latest 1.54.2 from source, and so far (apart from being manifest v2), it can easily go around Youtube's adblock detection with no problem. I wonder if the delay in the 1.54.x release in Chrome Web Store has something to do with Google purposefully delaying updates.
hydrok9 3y ago
[flagged]
unrequited 3y ago
Not sure about the larger impacts of V3. But, we have gone with V3 since the beginning, and now there is a better turn around time for reviews, typically in an hour and sometimes 24hrs max. Its been a much smoother process rather than having to wait for couple of days or even weeks sometimes earlier. I've heard it being much worse on V2.
kgwxd 3y ago
Hey Google, it's a User Agent, not a Corporate Agent.
vorticalbox 3y ago
Doesn't this just ignore the fact you can install the updates outwith of the Chrome store? I assume they are betting on most users not side loading them. All this seems like a complete waste of time, if you want to "war on ad blockers" the why not just ban them from the store? Why have a "war" at all?
- aftbit 3y ago
  Perhaps they are worried about the antitrust implications of banning adblockers and would prefer to hide behind a technical change that nerfs adblockers but with ostensibly reasonable and unrelated logic.
ivanjermakov 3y ago
Why can't adblockers fetch updated filter lists and adblock strategies from a server and execute them dynamically? This would allow not having to update extension source every time to fix updated website adblocking.
mediumsmart 3y ago
Cut them some slack. What about their clients? Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core
rldjbpin 3y ago
noob question but is there a way to get most of the way there by combining an ad-blocking dns over https and an mv3 based extension?

423 points by my12parsecs 3y ago

I feel like at this point, Google could just officially disallow extensions blocking ads (or just Google ads?). What's happening here is just stupid, IMO.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dotcoma 3y ago

If this won’t lead to people ditching Chrome, I am afraid nothing ever will…

goku12 3y ago
It won't. But not because this is desirable. All these anti-user measures are small and gradual steps that regular folks won't immediately recognize. Something about a frog and boiling water.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  What's funny is that, in reality, frogs aren't that stupid: they'll jump out of the water as soon as it gets too hot for them. Humans aren't this smart, however.
- TheCapeGreek 3y ago
  Beyond that, how many ordinary non-techie people are ever checking the actual changes of their app? I'd bet basically never unless a changelog page opens immediately after the update. And that's not exactly going to be worded in an understandable way like "we're doing this to screw over your ability to do what you want on the web".
  - dun44 3y ago
    Broken adblocking is immediately visible to anyone, including non-tech people.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  The frog boiling analogy doesn't work long-term though, because humans don't live forever, and new ones keep replacing the old ones. A new crop of college kids is going to look at Chrome and say "nope"
  - saurik 3y ago
    Or they look at Chrome and not realize it could ever have been better, as they never experienced such.
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      Hard to imagine someone would switch from Edge/Safari to Chrome without investigating other alternatives like Brave/Firefox.
  - cpeterso 3y ago
    Or the college kids are acclimated to the Google ecosystem because they been using Google Classroom on the Google Chromebooks in their K-12 classes for years.
    - dun44 3y ago
      Chromebooks happen to be a perfect example of a product that’s only ever used by people forced to, in this case by their school, as opposed to something people buy with their own money.

trealira 3y ago

I don't understand why Google counteracts indirectly. Why can't they just ban adblockers from the Chrome Web Store? If that's not possible, why not just remove specific adblockers one by one? Removing the big ones would probably stop most people from using them.

yakattak 3y ago
My assumption is that banning them outright will make it super obvious you can’t run adblock on chrome. With Manifest V3 limiting their capabilities but not getting rid of them, the layman user will still feel like they have adblock and aren’t likely to know it’s not as powerful as it was before.
- bentcorner 3y ago
  Google might be trying to have their cake and eat it too - hamstring adblocking enough that their sites and ad networks can work around it but other sites and ad networks will remain blocked.
  - jdironman 3y ago
    Keep your friends close, your enemies' closer kind of thing.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  This implies we are so stupid we won't realize we are seeing ads where we never saw them before.
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> we won't realize we are seeing ads where we never saw them before. Ads are the new content. The killer app for LLMs is generating new and innovative ads that are entertaining and feel like content. Imagine fun games like "Avoid the Noid" (https://www.mobygames.com/game/1095/avoid-the-noid/ https://www.mobygames.com/game/1095/avoid-the-noid/), "Cool Spot" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Spot), and "McKids" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.C._Kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.C._Kids), but with modern graphics and sound and promoting the most annoying brands and products. Help people save money on their insurance by playing as the Geico lizard! Find out the dirt on used cars as the CarFax fox! Yesterday's annoying mascots are today's folk heroes.

outside1234 3y ago

Just use Edge? It is better at this point anyway

kibwen 3y ago
Edge uses the Chrome web store. It's just Chrome playing dress-up.
- nitinreddy88 3y ago
  Not exactly. Edge is fork of Chrome and diverged a lot from actual Chrome. You can load Manifest v2 extensions in Edge while it's not feasible in Chrome
  - tech234a 3y ago
    I just tested loading a manifest v2 extension on Chrome (stable) and it works fine.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  There is also an Edge extension store, which could conceivably keep MV2 extensions alive, and allow for a smoother update experience. However, as someone who manages a couple extension, I rarely update the Edge version for one and didn't bother ever uploading the other.

kevingadd 3y ago

Not only does Google take a long time to review extension updates, but Chrome pulls extension updates infrequently. So even if you manage to get an update pushed to the store in 24 hours, it may take another day or more before your users actually get the update. All of this put together means you really shouldn't trust Chrome extensions for anything important. If there's a security vulnerability in something like your password manager, the update is going to take days to reach your system.

duringmath 3y ago

> Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay. So the author can't think of any other reason for this change other than to "slow down ad blocker updates" Well how about stuff like this: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 Where an extension dev details offers to "monetize" his extension and basically perform a bait and switch and make it malicious. Pretending that V3 is all about ad blockers is more than a little disingenuous.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
MV3 does not stop those monetization offers. I don’t understand why you think they would stop. Source: I have two open-source extensions with almost 1,000,000 active daily users combined, and the MV3 versions still elicit offers for me to sell them
- duringmath 3y ago
  It might not stop the offers coming but it might stop you from taking up one or more of them.
  - NBPEL 3y ago
    How ? If you are offered 2 meals, it's YOUR choice to take 1 or 2, it's all about yourself. MV3 won't even prevent this one bit.
    - duringmath 3y ago
      Malicious extensions are less likely to make it passed the review process. That in turn should deter bad actors from monkeying with their extensions but more importantly it makes it less likely that malicious extensions make their way to users browsers.

croes 3y ago

Time to hold Google liable for any damage by malware, phishing, scams etc. served by ads.

antifa 3y ago
I've gotten malware twice from ads on reputable websites. I've never gotten malware via piracy or while using adblock.

bastard_op 3y ago

I long ago stopped using chrome under linux, it's like malware inviting themselves to my home. Chrome is the new IE6.

plagiarist 3y ago
I quit using Chrome and recently quit using Google as the default search. It is so hard to get away from them but I am making progress.
- virtualpain 3y ago
  what search engine you use as default now?
  - orphea 3y ago
    Check out Kagi. It's paid but has subjectively higher quality search results and lacks BS that Google is full of these days.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    DDG for the time being but honestly I am tempted by Kagi as well. Ad tech is cancer on the internet. I decided to quit Google after the trusted devices bullshit, but if I could remove junk listicles from my results that would be a big improvement.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

delroth 3y ago

What about MV3 requires going through the Chrome Web Store to update block lists? A quick look at the declarativeNetRequest docs (https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...) shows that there are indeed static rulesets which need to be declared in the extension's manifest, but also dynamic rulesets which can be updated via JavaScript (and so presumably can be fetched and updated dynamically). I can't seem to find any specific limitation of dynamic rulesets vs. static rulesets.

fgoesbrrr 3y ago
They can claim dynamic fetch is "phoning home" and a user privacy danger.
- delroth 3y ago
  You're just making stuff up at this point with no evidence or source. If the intention was to forbid dynamic fetching of declarativeNetRequest filter lists, Google could also just... not have dynamic filter lists.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Google's playing the long EEE game. They do small things like this so people like you go around telling us it's not a big deal. Will you say the same things 5 years from now? Google needs to be kicked out of consideration for web standards. They keep treating it like they own it.
- tinus_hn 3y ago
  Now there’s something Google Chrome would never do, phoning home.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Not even Brave would do that. Wait..
3y ago

simbolit 3y ago

Firefox rennaissance anyone?

tpowell 3y ago
I use Brave, Safari, Arc and Firefox, basically in that order. I never even installed Chrome once Apple introduced their own chips. Brave has always felt just like Chrome once you turn off their rewards stuff. Arc is doing some really thoughtful integration of Chat-GPT, including cleaning up tab titles, that is worth paying attention to. I actually look forward to their ~weekly YouTube updates.
- antifa 3y ago
  > Arc You have to enter an email address to get a download link??? Also the homepage was laggy on firefox nightly for Android.
kelnos 3y ago
I wish. Likely most people just won't notice this happening, and won't realize their experience could be better with a different browser. Only people like us will. And if you read a lot of the comments here, seems like a lot of people who should know better still use Chrome.
- timbit42 3y ago
  People who start seeing ads will know the difference. People don't like ads and will ask their local geek why ads are back and how to avoid them.
vehemenz 3y ago
The numbers are pretty grim though. Apple is taking market share in desktop and mobile, so I'd put my money on Safari.
- timbit42 3y ago
  How are you expecting them to gain market share on Windows, Linux and Android?

CSMastermind 3y ago

This might be a stupid question but will this affect Edge as well? Right now it's unclear to me how much Edge extensions are tied to the Chrome Store policies.

nitinreddy88 3y ago
Edge still supports Manifest v2 extensions and they are trying to keep it open.
- tech234a 3y ago
  For now. The docs [1] indicate they might follow along with what Chrome does, though they haven't been updated since January. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494451

zgs 3y ago

Looks like Chrome is digging a hole they'll not get out of. I run Chrome as little as possible. Sadly, there are a few places where it is the best still.

myspy 3y ago
I went through the process installing googleless Chromium and that‘s fine to work with. Since the Keystone saga I‘m not using Chrome anymore. Google Chrome can go the way of the dodo.
- squidbeak 3y ago
  As we see from this topic, even googleless Chrome is constrained by Google's business needs.
timbit42 3y ago
I only use Chrome on Google websites. It keeps my Google account separated from all my other web browsing.

zacte 3y ago

Are there any decent alternatives for the Chrome Web store? Are there unified extension hubs for chromium/firefox with version history similar to how android has apk websites

YoshiRulz 3y ago
Mozilla's first-party marketplace has version history. Click "See all versions" in the left sidebar. As for third-party marketplaces, I couldn't say, but I'm aware of some work in that direction for Nixpkgs.

calamari4065 3y ago

Now, right now, this is the moment for Mozilla to pull their heads out of their asses and really push to improve Firefox. Google is cranking up the user hostility, but if there's no viable alterative, people are gonna be stuck being spied on and tracked everywhere by chrome. If we had an alternative, this would be the time for an organized push to get people on it. But Mozilla has either become complacent or been quietly bought out behind the scenes and Firefox isn't really competitive anymore. Sure, you can still use Firefox. I do, begrudgingly. But it's not good enough to convince people to switch. It hasn't been for a very long time which is why we're in this mess in the first place. I expect nothing will change and everyone will suffer for it. Maybe people will get offline more. The internet as a whole is becoming exponentially shittier as time goes on. How much longer before it's completely intolerable?

roca 3y ago
What exactly do you think is substandard about Firefox?
- _cenw 3y ago
  https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abrowser-firefox https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%... Microsoft Teams (which I don't think many people use voluntarily) in particular breaks in stupid ways - and then in others if you spoof your user agent.
  - phs318u 3y ago
    I use Microsoft Edge - have added their apt repository so updates are automagical. Edge, though based on Chrome's engine, still supports manifest V2 so adblockers such as UO still work fine. Even better, Edge let's you "appify" sites like Teams and Outlook - perfect for work. I use Edge for all my WFH needs, turning off UO for most MS sites (to avoid any subtle issues), and Firefox for all personal needs. Works for me. Oh, and Teams on Linux using Edge works a treat.
    - 3y ago

lakpan 3y ago

Absolutely clickbait. Nothing in the article suggests that review times are increasing, they’ve always been “from a few minutes to a few days”. Also filters do not depend on extension updates at all, they are plain text files that can be updated at any time. Not to mention that they can contain “scriptlets”, which make them quite literally “remotely hosted code” and still allowed by MV3 (because they’re not raw JavaScript)

nneonneo 3y ago
From TFA: > We've covered this already. But we haven't talked about the other side of the equation: Ad block rules can't be updated quickly anymore. Today, ad blockers and privacy apps can ship filter list updates themselves, often using giant open-source community lists. Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay. If this is factually incorrect, it would absolutely warrant a correction to the article.
- mlyle 3y ago
  https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/migrating/improve-security/#configuration-drive https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/migrating/impro... Looks factually correct-- though exactly how Google interprets rules will affect how limiting this is.
- SquareWheel 3y ago
  > If this is factually incorrect, it would absolutely warrant a correction to the article. It is incorrect. MV3 definition updates go through an automated fast-track process for safe rules. See the presentation[1] and Q&A[2] at the recent Ad Blocking Summit. I wouldn't hold my breath on a correction. Ron never corrects his articles, like when he confused the Privacy Sandbox with the Topics API a couple months ago[3]. [1] https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=24745 https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=24745 [2] https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=26552 https://youtu.be/Vw1eIaRuy7w?t=26552 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227

zwaps 3y ago

Using a browser made by an ad company. Just don’t. Other browsers are fine and in fact Chrome is becoming increasingly user hostile anyway.

mbork_pl 3y ago
What "other browsers"? I know there's Firefox (it's my main browser, in fact), but where is the rest? Edge is Chrome, Safari is only available for iThings, so it's not like there's a big selection...
- unnouinceput 3y ago
  I suggest watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5r6jFE8gic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5r6jFE8gic
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    Looks interesting, but it's almost 40 minutes of video. Can I read that somewhere?
    - raybb 3y ago
      Here's a kagi summary The video ranks different web browsers on a tier list from spyware tier to base tier based on privacy, usability, and other factors. Brave is placed in excellent tier for its good default privacy settings and built-in ad blocking, though some dislike its use of cryptocurrency. Firefox is only decent tier due to its many annoying default features, but can be excellent with the right privacy-focused user.js file. Icecat is decent tier for free software purists due to its use of LibreJS blocking non-free scripts, though this breaks many sites. Librewolf is excellent tier as an easy to use private version of Firefox without much configuration needed. Chromium-based browsers like Vivaldi can be good but have limitations from not being fully open source. Closed source browsers like Chrome, Edge and Opera are automatically placed in spyware tier due to privacy concerns. Qutebrowser is decent tier for power users due to its keyboard-focused design but has issues with advanced ad blocking. Waterfox is excellent tier as a lightweight Firefox fork, though its ownership by an ad company concerns some. Overall, Brave, Librewolf and hardened Firefox are recommended as having the best balance of privacy, usability and customizability.

nneonneo 3y ago

Weirdly, earlier today I had a bunch of problems loading Google web properties on Firefox - GMail hung completely (wouldn't even load all the way! no more basic HTML option!) and Sheets was showing half-rendered documents (even after several refresh attempts). All the other sites were fine. It's probably just a coincidence...

eyegor 3y ago
This happens periodically, where google services act funny with a Firefox user agent. Just use edge or chromes user agent string, and Google sites will work again.
- capableweb 3y ago
  This is such an annoying approach for Google to force people to using Chrome... I get that they're not testing stuff on Firefox, so much is obvious. But there are so many times things don't work properly in Firefox (YouTube loading slower, lag in Gmail, Drive having weird UI<>backend synchronization bugs) at a first glance, but as soon as you set the user-agent to Chrome, things just magically work perfectly fine, and all issues disappear. Someone should really be doing a deep dive into this issue, because it's been going on for a long time, and is clearly anti-competitive. My guess is that they're really good at hiding this/making it look accidental rather than on purpose.
  - tommek4077 3y ago
    Maybe Firefox should just start using the Chrome useragent. Making those metrics unusable.
timbit42 3y ago
I use Chrome for Google websites and Firefox for everything else. I like keeping everything else separated from my Google account.
wharvle 3y ago
Gmail’s always very nearly unusable on mobile safari, mostly due to their user-hating decision to use custom scrolling. Constant accidental touch events when trying to scroll, and it breaks in weird ways that require reloads to fix. And that’s aside from the scrolling itself working poorly to begin with, but short of outright breakage. IDK if it’s better in iOS Chrome, but it’d be pretty damning if it is, since they necessarily use the same engine on that platform.

butz 3y ago

Google might as well skip all this dancing around and build their ads straight into Chrome. Good luck doing some work while you have to watch a video ad every hour or so, and every page has ads literally in browsers "chrome".

workfromspace 3y ago

To me it seems like Google would rather break all other extensions than give up war against ad blockers.

ddxv 3y ago

Been using Firefox again. Was a great breath of fresh air for me.

Ayesh 3y ago
AMO also takes several days for plugins to update. I recently wanted to update Bitwarden addon, which took well over two weeks for it to land on AMO. Addon sideloading is only possible on Firefox Developer edition (which I use, so it didn't bother me much).

maxglute 3y ago

Is there a way to backup current Chrome version + settings + extensions, preferrably in a portable app/container. I'm pretty content with my setup and wouldn't mind running it for as long as possible. Hopefully in a few years we can have AI convert currently chrome exclusive extentions onto another browser. But right now it's still hard to swtich.

Moldoteck 3y ago
Imo it's dangerous for security reasons. Better start switching to ff from now
- maxglute 3y ago
  I actually tried to do the switch this week, still too many essential plugins/addons missing. I have some basic technical skills to rewrite some functions into userscripts. But it's still a fairly subpar experience.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I just kinda don't get this. I don't really think there are "essential" addons, aside from ad-blocking/privacy-related things (and Firefox is at least as good, and possibly better, than Chrome on those). Like... sure, web browser UX isn't always the best, but by rejecting Firefox on the merits of optional addons, you're just saying that the convenience of how you prefer to interact with a browser is more important than your privacy and ability to block ads. Which is fair, I suppose, but let's call it what it is. Meanwhile, we're back in the IE days: alternative browsers don't have enough market share to do much but accept whatever Google wants to do with the web. Frankly I'm just tired of people making excuses for using a browser made by a company that is actively making the web worse and eroding our privacy, bit by bit.
    - maxglute 3y ago
      Without getting into details there's a few niche extentions for my daily productivity that saves me a few hours every week. It's not critical, but it automates a bunch of things that would make switching cost for those tasks too high. Most of the missing things I can probably do without an adapt. I actually firefox UI more. >we're back in the IE days Reminds me of when Asian banks still required IE activex well into 2010s and one had to keep IE around, which was easy since it comes with Windows. I can probably use get used to firefox for most of my use case, but have to keep chrome around for some sites.

NBPEL 3y ago

And it's sad that hackers are still using MV3 to write malware extensions, then what is the point of improving non-existence security ? https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stand.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan... > Is it true that Manifest V3 will increase privacy and security of the browser? > Honestly, I wouldn’t say so. I see the advantages of MV3 in terms of unification, cross-platform compatibility, and performance, but *I don’t see any advantages in terms of increasing user security, unfortunately*. *The amount of scam extensions in the Chrome Web Store remains high despite the fact that it has been a long time since the store stopped accepting non-MV3 extensions.* And what, people are more likely to get virus from Google Ads or Ads overall than those improved security: https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_entire_digital_livelihood_drained_after/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_... https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networkidn_show_punycodetrue_to_protect/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networ...

mrjin 3y ago
I think you just do get it that it has nothing to do with security.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  It's about the security of Google's revenue stream.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

saos 3y ago

Use FF. best decision I made years ago.

HlessClaudesman 3y ago

Continued enshitification of Chrome will result in exodus of tech savvy users.

kelnos 3y ago
Well, it hasn't happened yet. Judging by many comments here, a lot of HNers still use Chrome. If people here still use Chrome, I see little hope of regular users ditching it for these sorts of reasons.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  That's because Google so far has only been dancing around and preparing to make ad blocking difficult. Until they actually do it, Chrome is fine.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    "Yeah there's a lot of smoke, but I'm not going to evacuate until I see flames" The writing is on the wall, why are you so keen to wait til the last minute?
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Because many tech people who are sticks in the mud like this don't actually care about the browser, or the implications of what's happening in real time. They'll eventually leave and wonder why nobody told them sooner.
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      Ugh, that's a bad analogy and you know it. No actually what you're doing is a classic case of "it's in the EULA, so they can do it". Like, if tomorrow Google puts a clause in their EULA that they have the right to harvest the eyeballs of everyone who lives on Earth, you'd be scrambling for passage to Mars. "It's in the EULA! Corporations are all-powerful and can do anything, as long as they state it in the EULA!" I no more fear Google banning ad-blockers than I fear Toyota putting spikes on all of their steering wheels. It would be much more painful to their bottom-line than any Toyota drivers, because people would do this magical thing called... not using that product.

kelnos 3y ago

I still don't get why people who care about privacy (and ad-blocking) use Chrome. Firefox works really well these days, even if Mozilla's track record isn't the greatest of late. I haven't had a need to open a website in Chrome in... years? I can't even remember the last time.

linuxandrew 3y ago
MS Teams doesn't support Firefox: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/unsupported-browsers https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/unsupported... Or the VMware console: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1769175 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1769175 There's probably a bunch of other web apps that exclusively support Chromium-based browsers, unfortunately.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Why would anyone want to use ms teams? I understand employers stuck in the fax age might demand it but it’s their problem if they want their data leaked. For personal and outside work no one should use ms teams.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    Companies like to use Teams because it's basically free: they already subscribe to Microsoft's Office365 services, and Teams comes with it. To use a competitor, they'd have to pay for that separately. "Teams is shitty and buggy" isn't enough of a justification to convince upper management to shell out big bucks for licenses for something like Zoom when they're already getting Teams effectively for free.
- mikkelam 3y ago
  I mean, it's not that bad to jump into chromium once in a while
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Chrome really has become the new IE. That's sad.

l8_to_catch_up 3y ago

Fuck Google. They do evil. You don't need Chrome. You have Firefox. Download Firefox now: https://www.mozilla.org https://www.mozilla.org Addons for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org https://addons.mozilla.org

dr_kiszonka 3y ago

In principle, if they need ads to keep the lights on, then it is reasonable that they would block ad blockers on, e.g., YouTube, no? (What upsets me more is purposefully degrading the experience of FF users.)

phendrenad2 3y ago

That's cute. Seems like a classic case of "you can't make someone understand something when their job depends on not understanding it", but in case anyone at Google reads this, here's a hint: People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective. They will use Edge, or Safari, or (in case you think you can make backroom deals with Microsoft and Apple to implement this in their browsers too), they'll use Brave. It's not a winnable game, save your money and play something else.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
> People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective Look how long the most of humanity stuck to Internet Explorer, even with Chrome literally stickied on the Google front page and IE's more dramatic drawbacks. Edge in particular is kind of a bloated mess now. I used to prefer it over the Chromium fork of the week (Currently Thorium and Cromite), but now its just too spammy and slow. No one is switching to that. Also I have extremely mixed feelings about Brave. Maybe even net negative.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  > Look how long the most of humanity stuck to Internet Explorer Chrome surpassed IE usage within 4 years, so the answer is "not particularly long". > IE's more dramatic drawbacks Such as? > its just too spammy and slow Spammy yes, slow no. > I have extremely mixed feelings about Brave. Maybe even net negative Why?
- idonotknowwhy 3y ago
  I actual installed the unusable mess that is edge, on my Linux desktop, because I like the sound of it's text to speech voice. Turns out that feature is only available on windows. Uninstalled and will never try that piece of rubbish again!
blibble 3y ago
> People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective. post remote attestation they will if they want to use google services

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Excellent. I hope they continue making Chrome worse on purpose. More reasons for users to switch to Firefox is always good.

narag 3y ago
Firefox is not immune. Changes in the extensions must be reviewed so advertisers can break blockers for some days until the blockers are fixed and then some more days until Mozilla reviews the changes. Then they'll have another trick ready to break blockers again.
- Kubuxu 3y ago
  Mozilla allows for direct update of blocker lists instead of requiring that they are included in the extension and updated with it.
  - narag 3y ago
    You're right. But the anti-blockers code needs to be addressed with more code, not just lists. That's not a hypothetical situation, it's happening right now with YouTube.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      You're missing other players watching what happens with YouTube and amend their plans accordingly. If there's no effective way to block ad blockers, others will let Google do the fighting and move on when the conclusion comes out. Google is punching WAY above its class. It does not own the Web, or the Internet, and there's a huge number of people willing to prove it.
      - narag 3y ago
        It seems we agree that in the long run, it's unsustainable. My point is more modest: that in the specific topic of this post, using response time against the blockers, Firefox is also vulnerable. The mechanism is actually very simple if the content is served using JavaScript, as is the case with videos: make the code that shows the ads create some token and then the media player will check if it's present, refusing to play otherwise. You can circumvent it with code, but new code triggers new review and, when it's approved, the token is changed and back to square one. In the case of Firefox it might be faster, but I don't think extension maintainers and reviewers can be 24x7 available to play that cat & mouse game. In Firefox you need to sign extensions to install them or go through the debug menu. Both methods are not easy for the regular user. At the end of the day, either blocking turns to be only for power users/programmers, or a new trust model for browsers is adopted. Chromium and Firefox are both open source but how many % of their users have actually compiled them from sources? I haven't. Last time I checked, Chromium recommended a minimum 0.5 TB free space. And Firefox now requires two programming languages.

Timber-6539 3y ago

Manifest v3 offers free performance and increased security & privacy. Gone are the days where any/every extension had access to every website you visited. It would be a damn shame to throw this baby out with all the water.

nerdbert 3y ago
Cool. Then you can use Firefox which will support Mv3 extensions without castrating ad blocking.
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  uBlock in Firefox will not be updated to use Manifest v3, it will remain as is i.e MV2. Of course, there is an MV3 version of uBlock but that's castrated too going with your definition.

arbol 3y ago

Countdown to brave extension store begins...

ij3o2ijIOJ 3y ago

[flagged]

jokoon 3y ago

I really want to keep http but replace html and js with something more strict, lighter, secure and safe by design, that would prevent the use of targeted ads like it's possible in HTML. I understand that companies might probably not use something else if it's harder to put ads because they could not make money, but there are still a lot of use cases where companies will prefer having a technology that's safe. The law is evolving which means targeted ads will not be viable anymore. Also, maybe a lot of internet media companies, including reddit, instagram, etc need to rethink their business model, why don't they try to sell news article through a platform like netflix? I still don't understand why media companies are able to make money over content they never make on internet infrastructure they did not build, this baffles logic. HTML is way too permissive.

rollcat 3y ago
> [...] replace html and js with something more strict, lighter, secure and safe by design, that would prevent the use of targeted ads like it's possible in HTML. You can't do that and still have a useful system. You'd have to start by neutering basic functionality like inline images, and when that turns out to not be enough (because ads can also be just text), you'd have to go down the path of censorship. You can't do that because the ability to fingerprint (and thus track) user-agents is not an oversight in the design of the web (although third-party cookies did help kickstart the current trends), but a fundamental property of the universe - every existing "thing" radiates information, and our means to collect and process it are developing faster than our understanding of what needs to be done to conceal it. > I understand that companies might probably not use something else if it's harder to put ads because they could not make money, but there are still a lot of use cases where companies will prefer having a technology that's safe. You can try measuring commercial support for Gemini[1] to get an indicator of how valuable your proposed technology would be for companies. The current network effect of well... the network, is way too strong. [1]: https://geminiprotocol.net/ https://geminiprotocol.net/ > Also, maybe a lot of internet media companies, including reddit, instagram, etc need to rethink their business model [...] They don't need to rethink anything at all while what they're doing right now is 1. profitable, 2. legal, and 3. even when not exactly legal, the fines continue to be smaller than the profits. > The law is evolving which means targeted ads will not be viable anymore. Pretty much this, you can't solve social/political problems with technology. We could use a simpler/safer web, but the cost of switching outweighs the benefits. We could build better privacy protections into the core of our technology, but we will keep finding ways to leak information and fingerprint behavior. The problem with Manifest v3 is not what Manifest v3 allows and what it doesn't, the problem is that Google are in a position to unilaterally force it, and antitrust no longer seems to be a thing. The only real change we can hope for is a social/political change.

succo 3y ago

There is much offer in the browser world, i don't understand what's the point of keep using google shit suite

alargemoose 3y ago
As a Firefox user since its beta, there is? Last I checked there remain 3 browser engines left. Mozilla’s Gecko, Google’s Blink, and Apple’s Webkit. Everything else is just variants using those engines, and the vast majority of those variants (Opera, Brave, Edge, etc) are Chromium-based/using Blink. That’s not a lot of difference. If you really want to get away from chrome, your mainstream option is just Firefox. Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and safari.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and Safari. On iPhone it's all WebKit. Apple doesn't (yet!) allow Firefox to use Gecko.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > Unless you’re on a Mac, or iPhone. Where you can choose between Firefox and safari. AFAIK, you cannot, on iPhone you're forced to use Safari (all other browsers forced by Apple to be reskins of Safari).
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Calling Firefox "mainstream" is being very generous at this point, I recall its marketshare is in the single digit percentage points.
  - throwuxiytayq 3y ago
    How many hundreds of millions of users would you say it needs to have until you can call it mainstream non-generously?
    - 3y ago

bossyTeacher 3y ago

Firefoxer here, HN folk are one of the most if not the most tech savvy communities in the whole planet. I don't understand why, in the name of an open internet for ours and the future, you don't refuse to use an actively hostile Chrome in your personal devices. Someone please explain this to me

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vehemenz 3y ago
1. Google employees 2. People who "bought in" to the Google/Android ecosystem 3. Web developers who won't use inferior dev tools 4. Stockholm Syndrome
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  5. Too much ego to admit they've been wrong for years when they told Firefox advocates that there was nothing wrong with using Chrome, that the advertising corporation with monopoly power was actually benevolent and wouldn't abuse their market position.
nolist_policy 3y ago
Chromebooks are really nice and you get great touchpad gesture input in Chrome. And obviously Chrome has better performance and power efficiency, etc. there. I didn't use Chrome before I bought this Chromebook.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Being savvy in a field does not correlate to making good decisions in said field, especially if rewards and incentives are not aligned. Lots of tech people got their start on Google tech and don't mind ads. They're a strange breed of people who I guess just give into anything being pushed on them in tech.

ameshkov 3y ago

I like that Ars tries to defend ad blocking, but please, prepare better, maybe talk to actual developers and avoid false accusations. It’s completely okay to criticize Google for doing really controversial (to say the least) stuff like getting rid of blocking webRequest, but criticizing them for prohibiting inclusion of remote JS in the extension is simply bad work. They could do a minimal fact check, remote JS was never allowed in Mozilla Addons store. A bit more research and they’ll learn that cosmetic filters updates do not require an extension update. A little bit more research and one can learn about the no-review-fast-track that Chrome WebStore plans to implement next year.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
This is the first time I've really looked into Manifest V3, and I'm confused as to how the "no remote JS" restriction is enforced. What prevents a developer from using non-remote JS (code built into the extension) to tell the current web page to fetch remote JS from a server, and execute that? Obviously, web pages must be able to fetch remote JS, or the whole internet would break. Google could delist such an extension from the Chrome Web Store. But Chrome (unlike Firefox, grr!) allows extension sideloading, so if I was UBlock Origin I would just say screw the Web Store, download from our website. And then, once UBlock Origin can inject an unlimited amount of turing-complete Javascript onto the page, the sky is basically the limit... right?
- ameshkov 3y ago
  If the server is yours it will probably be rejected. Definitely will be rejected by Mozilla. Userscripts is a notable exception of this rule as in this case the user instructs the extension what JS to execute.
  - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    Yes, but Chrome allows users to sideload extensions.
    - 3y ago

FaridIO 3y ago

Chrome is going full Internet Explorer.

SCAQTony 3y ago

Is Google shooting itself in the foot by taking an adversarial approach toward the user's desire to avoid invasive surveillance? I think so.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ath3nd 3y ago

Dunno, but it seems ublock origin's version in Chrome Web Store is 1.53.0, was last updated on 8-th of November. As of yesterday, that version can't get around Youtube's adblocking detection. I built Ublock latest 1.54.2 from source, and so far (apart from being manifest v2), it can easily go around Youtube's adblock detection with no problem. I wonder if the delay in the 1.54.x release in Chrome Web Store has something to do with Google purposefully delaying updates.

hydrok9 3y ago

[flagged]

unrequited 3y ago

Not sure about the larger impacts of V3. But, we have gone with V3 since the beginning, and now there is a better turn around time for reviews, typically in an hour and sometimes 24hrs max. Its been a much smoother process rather than having to wait for couple of days or even weeks sometimes earlier. I've heard it being much worse on V2.

kgwxd 3y ago

Hey Google, it's a User Agent, not a Corporate Agent.

vorticalbox 3y ago

Doesn't this just ignore the fact you can install the updates outwith of the Chrome store? I assume they are betting on most users not side loading them. All this seems like a complete waste of time, if you want to "war on ad blockers" the why not just ban them from the store? Why have a "war" at all?

aftbit 3y ago
Perhaps they are worried about the antitrust implications of banning adblockers and would prefer to hide behind a technical change that nerfs adblockers but with ostensibly reasonable and unrelated logic.

ivanjermakov 3y ago

Why can't adblockers fetch updated filter lists and adblock strategies from a server and execute them dynamically? This would allow not having to update extension source every time to fix updated website adblocking.

mediumsmart 3y ago

Cut them some slack. What about their clients? Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core

rldjbpin 3y ago

noob question but is there a way to get most of the way there by combining an ad-blocking dns over https and an mv3 based extension?