9 ms·

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

AlexandrB 2y ago
My understanding is that under manifest v3[1] only a list of rules is allowed. An algorithmic ad blocker wouldn't be able to work at all. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-chrome-will-limit-ad-blockers-starting-june-2024/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-chrome-will-l...
- GioM 2y ago
  This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet. Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules per extension!! [1] Even WORSE worse, under Chrome's manifest v3 rules, the extension cannot load any external code! Meaning that blocklists must be packaged with the extension. [2] Now, one might consider the reading of that link to no affect block lists, it's not a "library" and it's not "code" so long as it's just a list of textual rules.... however, google considers the following to be a violation: "Building an interpreter to run complex commands fetched from a remote source, even if those commands are fetched as data". [3] Sneaky sneaky. An extension update (and hence new app store submission) is required to update filter lists. In other words, dynamic net requests are banned, and remotely-updated blocklists are banned as well. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/declarativeNetRequest/MAX_NUMBER_OF_DYNAMIC_AND_SESSION_RULES https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... [2] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/improve-security#remove-remote-code https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... [3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policies/mv3-requirements https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policies/...
  - nolist_policy 2y ago
    Chrome allows at least 30000 static rules + 30000 dynamic rules[1]. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest#limits https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...
    - avhon1 2y ago
      That's not enough. Just uBlock Origin's default list "uBlock filters – Ads" already accounts for over 38,000 rules. EasyList is over 87,000!
    - xnx 2y ago
      10x more https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begins.html https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi... "Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
  - uyzstvqs 2y ago
    If Manifest v3 is really this bad then it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. It should also not affect browsers with built-in adblocking like Brave and Vivaldi.
    - jgalt212 2y ago
      > it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. I like this. or possibly the COM API. but I'm not a Windows expert.
  - zx8080 2y ago
    How complex is to revert changes to manifest to bring supporting v2 back to Chromium? Or is it intentionally made super complex by Google?
    - HWR_14 2y ago
Gud 2y ago
They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- inversetelecine 2y ago
  I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter. Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    I think you are unfortunately correct about this. I am consistently blown away when I inadvertently experience the Internet without ad-blocking. It’s absolute garbage. I am sad that people are either OK with this or don’t care. For many they don’t know any better, and asking many of those same groups to install and manage plugins is a fraught request.
    - hedora 2y ago
      32.8% of global users use an ad blocker. (33% of Americans.) [1] Chrome's market share is about 65% [2]. If their recent manifest changes eventually break ad blocking (which seems to be the goal), it'll lose a bunch of market share (I guess they're optimizing for short-term profit). [1] https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
  - Spoom 2y ago
    Without commenting on Google[1], I think this sort of thing is true in the short term but less true in the long term. I expect that, were Chrome to ban ad blockers, technical folks will start to teach non-technical folks in their orbit how to e.g. install Firefox to regain ad-blocking capability. I think it would take some number of years but there would be a pushback in the medium- to long-term. 1. Googler, opinion solely my own.
klaussilveira 2y ago
Isn't this the case for a bloom filter (vacuum maybe)? You can have very few rules.
4ggr0 2y ago
I guess that's why uBO Lite exists :) I started using it a couple of months ago instead of Ublock Origin, and still haven't seen any ads since. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
- ladzoppelin 2y ago
  I think eventually there is nothing that can stop certain adds on Chrome once specific API's are removed, even using manifest 3. Maybe someone could chime in on this as its really confusing now since Google keeps pushing back the date to remove manifest 2. (This might be outdated info)
  - 4ggr0 2y ago
    Yeah, it generally does feel like a "Catch me if you can" situation. I'm sure that there will be different ad-blockers once those APIs are removed, as there seems to be a very strong desire from some people not to see ads. I hope we'll not end up in a DRM-like system where ads are somehow really baked in and content stops working for lay-people if they try to circumvent ads.
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    We'll create a shim to render the page in the background and use AI to remove ads and then serve the result to the user, at the least. Fuck ads and malvertising
    - specialist 2y ago
      Yes and: There will be a tipping point where it'll be easier to allow the content rather than blocking the garbage. Dynamic screen scrapping, more or less.
  - efdee 2y ago
    And that will be the day Chrome dies.
Centigonal 2y ago
If Google's goal is to thwart adblockers by creating limitations on what browser extensions can do, then creating a browser extension that blocks ads within the current set of limitations is a temporary solution at best.
- avmich 2y ago
  Google doesn't control the browser, user does.
  - Centigonal 2y ago
    Google controls the APIs that extension writers can use. They are currently using that control to impose limits on what adblocker extensions can do. [1][2] You could download the Chromium source and patch it to change the extensions APIs (or better, just use Firefox), but the majority of users won't do this, and extension writers aren't going to make a version for a patched Chromium browser unless it has significant market share and support. [1] https://nordvpn.com/blog/manifest-v3-ad-blockers/ https://nordvpn.com/blog/manifest-v3-ad-blockers/ [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      You could always provide an extension that loads itself as a .dll/.so. I don't see much difference in friction between adding an extension through google's website vs. download setup.exe from somewhere. Of course like you say, using less user-hostile software is preferable.
      - ysavir 2y ago
        That might work for highly tech savvy people, but that's a very small minority of users. Google will still make ad blocking near-impossible for 99.99% of its users.
      - babypuncher 2y ago
babypuncher 2y ago
Real easy problem to solve by just switching back to Firefox
- shpx 2y ago
  The first thing you see when you open Firefox is an ad for Amazon and Expedia.
  - dbsmith83 2y ago
    I don't. Are you talking about 'sponsored shortcuts'? You can turn those off in the settings. It's on the first page you see when you hit the settings button in the top right

AlexandrB 2y ago

My understanding is that under manifest v3[1] only a list of rules is allowed. An algorithmic ad blocker wouldn't be able to work at all. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-chrome-will-limit-ad-blockers-starting-june-2024/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-chrome-will-l...

GioM 2y ago
This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet. Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules per extension!! [1] Even WORSE worse, under Chrome's manifest v3 rules, the extension cannot load any external code! Meaning that blocklists must be packaged with the extension. [2] Now, one might consider the reading of that link to no affect block lists, it's not a "library" and it's not "code" so long as it's just a list of textual rules.... however, google considers the following to be a violation: "Building an interpreter to run complex commands fetched from a remote source, even if those commands are fetched as data". [3] Sneaky sneaky. An extension update (and hence new app store submission) is required to update filter lists. In other words, dynamic net requests are banned, and remotely-updated blocklists are banned as well. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/declarativeNetRequest/MAX_NUMBER_OF_DYNAMIC_AND_SESSION_RULES https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... [2] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/improve-security#remove-remote-code https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... [3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policies/mv3-requirements https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policies/...
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  Chrome allows at least 30000 static rules + 30000 dynamic rules[1]. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest#limits https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...
  - avhon1 2y ago
    That's not enough. Just uBlock Origin's default list "uBlock filters – Ads" already accounts for over 38,000 rules. EasyList is over 87,000!
  - xnx 2y ago
    10x more https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begins.html https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi... "Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
- uyzstvqs 2y ago
  If Manifest v3 is really this bad then it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. It should also not affect browsers with built-in adblocking like Brave and Vivaldi.
  - jgalt212 2y ago
    > it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. I like this. or possibly the COM API. but I'm not a Windows expert.
- zx8080 2y ago
  How complex is to revert changes to manifest to bring supporting v2 back to Chromium? Or is it intentionally made super complex by Google?
  - HWR_14 2y ago

Gud 2y ago

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
inversetelecine 2y ago
I think you're overestimating the number of people who 1) care and 2) use adblocking extensions or any extension for that matter. Google knows what will likely happen, and pays people lots of money to know.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  I think you are unfortunately correct about this. I am consistently blown away when I inadvertently experience the Internet without ad-blocking. It’s absolute garbage. I am sad that people are either OK with this or don’t care. For many they don’t know any better, and asking many of those same groups to install and manage plugins is a fraught request.
  - hedora 2y ago
    32.8% of global users use an ad blocker. (33% of Americans.) [1] Chrome's market share is about 65% [2]. If their recent manifest changes eventually break ad blocking (which seems to be the goal), it'll lose a bunch of market share (I guess they're optimizing for short-term profit). [1] https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
- Spoom 2y ago
  Without commenting on Google[1], I think this sort of thing is true in the short term but less true in the long term. I expect that, were Chrome to ban ad blockers, technical folks will start to teach non-technical folks in their orbit how to e.g. install Firefox to regain ad-blocking capability. I think it would take some number of years but there would be a pushback in the medium- to long-term. 1. Googler, opinion solely my own.

klaussilveira 2y ago

Isn't this the case for a bloom filter (vacuum maybe)? You can have very few rules.

4ggr0 2y ago

I guess that's why uBO Lite exists :) I started using it a couple of months ago instead of Ublock Origin, and still haven't seen any ads since. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home

ladzoppelin 2y ago
I think eventually there is nothing that can stop certain adds on Chrome once specific API's are removed, even using manifest 3. Maybe someone could chime in on this as its really confusing now since Google keeps pushing back the date to remove manifest 2. (This might be outdated info)
- 4ggr0 2y ago
  Yeah, it generally does feel like a "Catch me if you can" situation. I'm sure that there will be different ad-blockers once those APIs are removed, as there seems to be a very strong desire from some people not to see ads. I hope we'll not end up in a DRM-like system where ads are somehow really baked in and content stops working for lay-people if they try to circumvent ads.
- downrightmike 2y ago
  We'll create a shim to render the page in the background and use AI to remove ads and then serve the result to the user, at the least. Fuck ads and malvertising
  - specialist 2y ago
    Yes and: There will be a tipping point where it'll be easier to allow the content rather than blocking the garbage. Dynamic screen scrapping, more or less.
- efdee 2y ago
  And that will be the day Chrome dies.

Centigonal 2y ago

If Google's goal is to thwart adblockers by creating limitations on what browser extensions can do, then creating a browser extension that blocks ads within the current set of limitations is a temporary solution at best.

avmich 2y ago
Google doesn't control the browser, user does.
- Centigonal 2y ago
  Google controls the APIs that extension writers can use. They are currently using that control to impose limits on what adblocker extensions can do. [1][2] You could download the Chromium source and patch it to change the extensions APIs (or better, just use Firefox), but the majority of users won't do this, and extension writers aren't going to make a version for a patched Chromium browser unless it has significant market share and support. [1] https://nordvpn.com/blog/manifest-v3-ad-blockers/ https://nordvpn.com/blog/manifest-v3-ad-blockers/ [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    You could always provide an extension that loads itself as a .dll/.so. I don't see much difference in friction between adding an extension through google's website vs. download setup.exe from somewhere. Of course like you say, using less user-hostile software is preferable.
    - ysavir 2y ago
      That might work for highly tech savvy people, but that's a very small minority of users. Google will still make ad blocking near-impossible for 99.99% of its users.
    - babypuncher 2y ago

babypuncher 2y ago

Real easy problem to solve by just switching back to Firefox

shpx 2y ago
The first thing you see when you open Firefox is an ad for Amazon and Expedia.
- dbsmith83 2y ago
  I don't. Are you talking about 'sponsored shortcuts'? You can turn those off in the settings. It's on the first page you see when you hit the settings button in the top right