6 ms·
Google is killing one of Chrome's biggest ad blockers
- gnabgib 2y agoDiscussion (169 points, 9 days ago, 43 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
- cranberryturkey 2y agofirefox users unaffected. :-D
- zihotki 2y agoUnaffected for now. Firefox is run by ads company and Firefox will also switch to manifest v3.
- LunicLynx 2y agoSwitch to firefox
- KingOfCoders 2y ago[flagged]
- samplatt 2y agoMind citing a source on that? What ad scheme? What vested interest?
- can16358p 2y agoOr Edge. Or Safari. Or one of the new Chromium based browsers. Basically anything but Chrome.
- defrost 2y agoEdge is also ditching Manifest V2 and embracing V3. This is the extension API change at the heart of the problem. Any browser based on the Chrome engine has to expend energy to hold to V2 support while embracing the latest engine developments. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...
- feverzsj 2y agoFirefox will also switch to manifest v3, although Mozilla claims they will use non-inferior api. Only Brave may never be affected, because it uses a native built-in ad blocker.
- Timshel 2y agoNot sure if I missed something but as far as I'm aware there is no plan to remove v2 support: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manif... And I doubt it will happen but if by some miracle people were switching to Firefox due to v2 phase out in chrome it might send a strong signal to keep supporting it.
- M95D 2y agoNo, they won't keep it. They have a long history of crippling add-ons. If they did all that when Google wasn't funding them, they can't possibly oppose Google now.
- danShumway 2y agoI'm already using Manifest V3 in Firefox for a few personal private addons that I develop, and I can confirm that blocking network requests already work perfectly fine in it. The only issues I have with Manifest V3 in Firefox are technical, I haven't noticed any issues that I think are problems of direction. Firefox's Manifest V3 implementation arguably isn't ready for prime time (it has some pretty egregious bugs), but whenever they finally do get around to dropping Manifest V2 (which I have no idea when that would happen), I'm not really worried about extensions not being able to jump over.
- gradstudent 2y agoGreat? Please block your way to irrelevancy Google, and take your browser with you.
- ricc 2y agoTime to start using Brave then?
- MatekCopatek 2y agoIf I'm not mistaken, Brave is based on Chromium, so it's likely that they'll be subject to the same changes.
- hollerith 2y agoBrave includes an ad-blocker that is not restricted to using the extension API.
- ricc 2y agoYes, but they modify it to build adblock in, so one does not need to install a separate plugin.
- zarzavat 2y agoIt’s not in any way comparable to uBlock, which is very customizable, and has a large community behind it working on the cat and mouse game.
- ricc 2y agoOne does not choose web browsers on adblocking capabilities alone. Some may need Chromium features that FF do not have, so it’s nice to have options, even if one specific feature (i.e., adblock) is just 80-90% as good as the other.
- zarzavat 2y agoI choose a web browser based on ad blocking capabilities alone. If I want to do development I can do that in a different browser. Web developers should have all major web browsers installed anyway.
- StableAlkyne 2y agoUsing their browser business to artificially force the market to be more kind to their advertising business? Google's monopoly can't get broken up soon enough.
- Rinzler89 2y agoBut think of the poor shareholders. How will they get any returns without Google's monopoly?
- johnnyanmac 2y agowas a pretty obvious eventuality when manifest V3 was announced. I knew I needed to jump off ASAP at that moment. They already use that leverage to reject any kinds of extensions on their store that extends on Youtube, after all.
- safety1st 2y agoIt's pretty interesting how this stuff is still going on after a judge has just ruled that it's illegal. The Microsoft monopoly case really did change the company in the sense that it made them a lot more cautious and bureaucratic even before the ruling came down. This ruling doesn't seem to have changed anything at Google yet. Amit Mehta's comments indicate that he was nonplussed about how thoroughly and knowingly Google has been destroying evidence for years, another thing which for all their faults, Microsoft and I suspect IBM before them didn't really do, knowing that the courts would catch on sooner or later. Google is special, it's like this company is committed to criminality in its DNA.
- karmakaze 2y agoThere's no 'browser business'. How does that model work, give away free web browsers on desktop and mobile, then... It certainly helped when they were making what was needed for apps like Gmail, Docs, etc.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoI was thinking, uBlock is getting "isolated" to Firefox, since sooner or later all chromium based browsers will face challenges with removal of manifest v3 code. However, one thing that could be done is integrate uBlock into a chromium based browser. The removal of manifest v3 would still be painful, but uBlock would survive and we get a browser with exceptional ad blocking capabilities builtin
- soygem 2y agoDoesn't le shill lion, aka Brave, already do that?
- zarzavat 2y agoNo, Brave does not integrate uBO. It has its own ad blocker that is somewhat inferior.
- michael9423 2y agoBrave does integrate uBO. It can be activated under "manifest v2 extensions" in the settings.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago[flagged]
- Larrikin 2y agoWhy did you feel the need to post the same thing four different times with no evidence?
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoIdeally someone could create their own spec to replace or supplement declarativeNetRequest in mv3. And ideally write specifications to support that. Rather than hardcode one extension in, re-open the gate to privacy protecting extensions having a lot of tools at their disposal. There's nothing to stop other people from making specs! The main barrier is that there's such a a limited pool of people willing to go implement.
- jokoon 2y agoI've read that there is a ublock for manifest v3 Is that new ublock less capable?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoYes, uBlock minus (or maybe uBlock lite? A quick web search returns both in a way that suggests a rename) works on v3, and yes it's less capable (off the top of my head, I believe it couldn't take as many rules, probably couldn't do as precise of rules, and couldn't do anything about domain fronting).
- TiredOfLife 2y agoWhike it's less capable than manifest2 version it is still much more capable than pihole or other dns based blockers. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
- MangoCoffee 2y agoMicrosoft's decision to bundle IE with Windows was considered a monopoly. Similarly, Google's move to kill off Chrome's extensions for ad revenue is comparable to Microsoft's actions.
- krackers 2y agoExactly as they intended. They can claim all they want that this is for security and that they're "supportive" of adblockers, but if you read the meeting minutes it's clear that they're just phoning it in in terms of the API surface needed to properly support adblocking against a hostile web. https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/56dc974e5d583d69899e29d2471c89da5d18122c/_minutes/2024-03-18-san-diego-meetup.md?plain=1#L331-L341 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/56dc974e5d583d6989... https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/01ac3748984f31885c92b9424f40f6904beb7fec/_minutes/2024-02-29-wecg.md?plain=1#L157-L162 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/01ac3748984f31885c...
- Rinzler89 2y ago>they're "supportive" of adblockers Same way how foxes are supportive of chicken wire.
- Gigachad 2y agoI imagine it’s a bit of both. Google doesn’t need to kill ad blockers at the browser level. Like YouTube has shown, they can just detect ad blockers and block the page from functioning. And browser extensions being malware is more the rule than the exception. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 50% of browser extensions are sucking up your usage data if not actively stealing credentials.
- kreetx 2y agoHow do you mean? For me, uBlock Origin and Firefox have worked ad-free for a long time, that with no pages blocked.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoAny program that doesn't allow plugins of any kind is on that regard safer than any program that does. Shutting down your computer is even safer still. Of course you need to vet the source of any software and that includes plugins. Manifest V3 is not a net gain here, it is a protectionist move by Google.
- hilbert42 2y agoThanks Google. Nothing else is likely to sink Chrome's market share faster.
- M95D 2y agoIt won't. There will be no alternative left.
- hosteur 2y agoWhy do tech savvy people still use a browser from an ad company?
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSame as non-tech saavy. They may try to get around it, but convinience still trumps customizability and control for many. That's why there's still a signifigant IOS/Mac OS even among techies.
- wiseowise 2y agoChrome isn’t installed by default, what convenience are you talking about? And iOS/Mac analogy isn’t holding here, because Firefox is a drop in replacement for Chrome. Not in a sense select either customization or convenience, but select both.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoMaybe it changed recently, but using Google on non-chrome will pester you about being chrome. So it's not exactly hidden either. >what convenience are you talking about? Largest extension support, built in integrations for stuff like casting, translation, image search, etc. It also just seems to have less quirks than Firefox. Not anything game breaking, but fiddling with video calls or tab groups or a half dozen more small features is a lot more intuitive on chrome than Firefox. Even if some of it is just outright incompetence (or malice), like abusing user agents. It's no single thing, but they all add up. >And iOS/Mac analogy isn’t holding here, because Firefox is a drop in replacement for Chrome. In the superficial sense, sure. If you just need to go to 10 websites and need maybe 3 key extentions you'll be fine. Power users will see many subtle differences overtime. You can technically use both, but typically you will spend most time on a selected browser of choice.
- worksonmine 2y agoHow is Chrome more convenient than Firefox?
- 2y ago
- KingOfCoders 2y ago[flagged]
- mrinfinitiesx 2y agohttps://github.com/tycrek/degoogle https://github.com/tycrek/degoogle A good read. It's fun exploring and tinkering with all the softwares out there.
- est 2y agoAt this point, why do extension/plugin authors bother to comply with ManifestV3 anyway? Just inject into chrome.exe and tinker with those network ABIs directly. Just like the good ol' days.
- janandonly 2y agoThe obvious solution is to build a complete browser compiled in WASM and release it as a Chrome extension. This new in-browser-browser can then have a good support for stuff like uBlock Origine or whatever else one pleases. This way you still use chrome while making chrome irrelevant.
- teaearlgraycold 2y agoWhy not just fork chrome? Or use Firefox?
- M95D 2y agoFirefox will drop support too. They can't oppose Google. All other browsers and forks will be unsupported by all major frameworks, CMSs, Discord forums, etc. It will be like trying to browse the web with links/lynx.
- BonoboIO 2y agoOr just don’t use chrome anymore
- lelanthran 2y agoAnyone got a deep dive link (or willing to deep dive in a comment here) on how the best adblockers actually work? I'm assuming it's not simply a DNS blacklist, correct? There must be more to it than simply blocking known domains.
- danpalmer 2y agoI don't have a deep dive, but my understanding is that previous to Manifest V3 or Safari's content blocking extensions from years ago, it was a Javascript free-for-all. Extensions could run code on each network request, extensions could modify the DOM, they could do basically anything. This wasn't great for a number of reasons, including privacy, security, and energy performance on mobile devices. Safari moved to a model for content blocking where the extensions could provide a list of domains, maybe regexes for elements or something, offline, then this would be "precompiled" in some way, and all rules from all extensions would be applied directly by the browser in a way that was faster and didn't disclose information about the things being blocked to the extensions. My understanding of Manifest V3's controversial change is that is basically does this for Chrome. Why is this a problem for uBlock? Because it does limit functionality a little more. You can't have the user directly pick apart the page in the same way, and blocking lists are of limited size. However Safari extensions have already worked around this by providing their own out-of-band user-defined blocking interfaces, and using multiple blocking lists, I'm not sure if that's possible with MV3. uBlock is one of the more feature-complete ad-blocking extensions, with a community of people who probably use those features more than average, so they're more impacted. Whether it really ends up restricting the feature set that much I think remains to be seen. It might take more work to make those features work, but I expect the vast majority of users install adblockers and never think about them again, so perhaps that isn't necessary. Disclaimer, I work at Google, but not on anything related to this. I use uBlock Origin on Chrome currently, and 1Blocker on iOS for Safari.
- throawayonthe 2y ago[dead]
- Timshel 2y agoMight answer part of the question but there is some info on what's not supported in ubol lite vs origin: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- Animats 2y ago> or a different web browser. It's time, if you haven't already.
- can16358p 2y agoWith the track record of Google, I'd love to see people so annoyed by ads starting a movement to switch to other browsers, essentially rendering Google shooting themselves in their foot with this move, starting Google's downfall in terms of browser dominance (and many others).
- wiseowise 2y ago> When that happens, uBlock Origin fans will need to find a different ad blocker… or a different web browser. Sheep will still continue using Chrome despite their interests being stomped upon.
- lobsterthief 2y agoI don’t know… making it super hard to block ads will become a huge deal for those who wish to block them.
- nomilk 2y agoI haven’t followed this but it sounds like the internet is about to become unbearable from chrome. Does this affect firefox? If so, what alternatives are there? (I know of brave but heard it’s not so good). Perhaps safari? But it feels quite different to chrome and Firefox and will take some getting used to.