9 ms·
Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mullingitover 2y agoI've been keeping Firefox around just waiting for Google to pull this stunt. RIP Chrome, 2008-2024.
- santoshalper 2y agoYeah, I won't use the web without an ad-blocker, full stop.
- kerkeslager 2y agoI really don't understand how people stand the internet with ads. In most cases I'd rather not use the internet than use the internet with ads.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoWe need a browser with the ad blocker native, never to be pulled out. Bake the damn thing in.
- kerkeslager 2y agoOrion is that for Apple products. There was a Firefox that came bundled with Adblock at one point for Android, but since then Adblock has gotten in bed with advertisers. I'm not sure what's available these days for Android.
- bitzun 2y agoFirefox supports ublock origin on android.
- kerkeslager 2y agoCool, last time I used Firefox on Android they only supported extensions on Desktop. I'm glad to hear progress continues!
- Arthur_ODC 2y agoI believe you have to install "Firefox Nightly" from the playstore to be able to use extensions like uBlock on mobile.
- Zak 2y agoThat's not accurate. For a couple years, Firefox limited extensions to a very short approved list, but even then, uBlock Origin was on that list. That restriction has since been removed, however installing from local storage is limited to nightly.
- OutOfHere 2y agoLibreWolf, a fork of Firefox, is not bad. It has uBlock Origin bundled in. This is not quite an integrated ad-blocker, but it's the closest thing.
- ryandrake 2y agoNot sure why you're downvoted. The ad blocker being an extension makes as much sense as "CSS" being an extension. Browser makers, why not just permanently integrate ad blocking into the guts of the browser? You could probably do an even better job, not being limited to the extension API.
- superkuh 2y agoFF is an option for now since they say they'll maintain the slightly more powerful v2 chrome web extensions (still gimped compared to the old actual FF extensions they dropped). But they've tied their horse to Goog and are now being led, even if it takes a few years to bring the pot to boil.
- mullingitover 2y agoWhen that day comes, I'll drop Firefox like a bad habit as well. Whoever keeps full-strength ad blocking working is going to be my browser provider. I don't mind paying. Heck, maybe we can just crowdfund someone to operate a minimal fork of Chromium that just keeps Manifest V2 running. I can't emphasize enough how little brand loyalty I have for any browser that breaks ad blocking. They may as well be removing the back button, it's that boneheaded of a feature removal.
- katzinsky 2y agoIt will probably be Opera. The only reason I don't use their browsers is because I don't like running non-free software and really don't like using it heavily or for anything important but losing ad block would push me into it.
- KerryJones 2y agoBefore people take this at pure headline value: "uBlock Origin fans can rest at ease since a new and improved version is already available — uBlock Origin Lite. It's worth noting that while the new app ships with similar features to the original version, including core ad-blocking features, it doesn't support dynamic filters for blocking scriptlet injection. The Lite version's capabilities are relatively limited due to its compliance with the Manifest V3 framework threshold."
- amarshall 2y ago“Improved version…capabilities are relatively limited”. Who writes this stuff? The Lite version is only “improved” in the sense that it works with Manifest v3. It’s certainly not a replacement for the original, and the original isn’t going anywhere.
- LeoPanthera 2y agoThe word "improved" seems to be misused here.
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoGoogle's advertising revenue has been improved by this Lite version of uBlock Origin. According to Google's lens, the Internet has been improved by Manifest V3. User Hostility has been strongly improved. The on-going rate of enshittification-of-all-the-things has been improved by Google's actions for a number of years.
- kerkeslager 2y ago[flagged]
- jbk 2y agoHow are only 30M people on Chrome using uBO? How do the other people survive on the web?
- JimDabell 2y agoOnly about 30–50% of people use ad blockers. The average person is a lot less technically savvy than you realise.
- ergonaught 2y agoThere is zero possibility that 30-50% of people use ad blockers. 3-5% perhaps.
- JimDabell 2y agoEvery source I’ve found puts it in that range. Are you basing your percentage on something concrete?
- ergonaught 2y agoYou mean besides logic, number literacy, and understanding what actual normal human beings do? "Chrome is used by 3.45 billion internet users. That's up from 2.74 billion in 2019. Chrome has a worldwide browser market share of 63.87%." https://backlinko.com/chrome-users https://backlinko.com/chrome-users "Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin" Source: the very article. Even in the Google Chrome "niche", does 30 million out of 3.45 billion sound like 30-50% to you? The overwhelmingly vast majority of human beings using web browsers are not using ad blockers. They wouldn't know how and it wouldn't occur to them in the first place.
- zamadatix 2y agoThat stat would still leave ~ 1 billion Chrome users which use ad blockers but aren't using big names like uBlock or Adblock. Seems off by an order of magnitude.
- 2y ago
- bearjaws 2y agoGlad I've been using Firefox for the last 4 years since Manifest v3 was more formally announced.
- throwadobe 2y agoIf you haven't made the switch to Firefox, now is the time. There's no reason to keep supporting Google through Chrome. There hasn't been one in years.
- tapoxi 2y agoChrome is faster for me, and I like tab grouping. uBlock Origin Lite is still supported. It theoretically has less features but I haven't noticed what they are.
- morserer 2y agoFirefox has multiple tab grouping extensions. And Mozilla independently checks the code of its top 3rd-party add-ons for safety.
- tapoxi 2y agoThey can't interact with the top tab bar after Mozilla switched to Webextension, so you're usually left with an awkward, secondary panel.
- dredmorbius 2y agoThe top tab bar in Firefox can be disabled: <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1417387 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1417387>
- NoGravitas 2y agoIt will pretty soon be possible to turn off top tabs in Firefox without this kind of userChrome jiggery-pokery. The sidebar API has been updated in Firefox Nightly 131, and it provides a side tab bar, and the ability to disable the top tab bar. Existing sidebar tab extensions will be able to update to this API.
- 2y ago
- akira2501 2y agoRealistically, on a bog standard installation of uBlock Origin, how different will my experience be with the v3 compatible uBlock Origin Lite? I'm not sure if I'm even using any of the "advanced" features or not.
- eco 2y agoThere's a FAQ that explains things: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ) https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... To me, the biggest issue is filter lists can only be updated when the extension updates and Google controls the update cadence. YouTube ad blocking, for instance, requires frequent filter list updates (or did a few months ago, I'm not sure where things stand now).
- pennybanks 2y agoyoutube premium is worth if you use it as much as i do. well at the very least im willing to pay for it since i use it everyday.
- Timshel 2y agoIssue is to have to give additionnal identifying information to the biggest ad company in the world ...
- rstuart4133 2y agoThis seems to be a significant problem: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/493#issuecomment-1824861867 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/493#issuecomment... TL;DR: In order to detect ad blocks sites create "bait" URL's that look like ads, but are purely there to detect if ad blockers block them. The only reason to do that is to punish the user for using a ad blocker, perhaps by nagging them, perhaps by refusing to display or load the content entirely. UBO responded by making bait URL's appear to work by redirecting them to local resources. Sites responded to that by putting required content behind bait URL's. So UBO now uses a number of dynamic heuristics it uses to detect what is bait and what isn't. Those heuristics aren't possible in V3. My guess is UBO ability to change it's behaviour for every site based on what the site did created never ending war between ad blocker detectors and UBO. Engaging in that war too much effort for a lot of web sites to engage in, which is why you don't see too many ad blocker detectors. With advent of V3 this dynamic will change, as UBOL will have one hand tied behind it's back. My prediction is once V3 comes in, a lot more sites will start demanding you disable UBOL - but they won't notice the presence of UBO.
- tedunangst 2y agoWhat does sus mean?
- weikju 2y ago> Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin, leaving over 30 million Chrome users susceptible to intrusive ads character limit, as others said.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rafaelgoncalves 2y agosuspect, but susceptible on this case
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jjtheblunt 2y agoSusceptible? The usage looks unusual to me as a native speaker
- forbiddenlake 2y agoIt's probably the HN character limit cutting off the title. But it also works as a joke (short for suspicious or suspect) and a reference to memes from the game Among Us.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 2y agoNormally “suspicious” or “suspect”. If you click through though you’ll see that here it means SUS as in Single UNIX Specification.
- philipov 2y agoif you're sus, you might be the imposter.
- rafaelgoncalves 2y agoyeah, this was expected when they nerfed uBlock (and various other extensions) with the manifest v3. Using another alternatives is the way now for me too, like other comments, using Firefox.
- zamadatix 2y agoFor those that, for whatever your reason, haven't already migrated over to something else by now it might save you a bit of effort to flip the flag described here https://support.umbrella.com/hc/en-us/articles/21106444957332-Take-Action-Now-Enable-the-ExtensionManifestV2Availability-Policy-for-Both-Umbrella-Chromebook-Client-Cisco-Security-for-Chromebook-Client-Formerly-SWG-Umbrella-Chromebook-Client https://support.umbrella.com/hc/en-us/articles/2110644495733... and see what the best options look like in 2025 after forks and the like have had a chance to prove out their stances a bit and the Firefox's funding situation after the Google search deal ruling looks clearer.
- defrost 2y agoApparently users with the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be spared until June 2025. https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV... https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/mv2-deprecation-timeline https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin. If the plug has already been pulled then this works, I've had this set in my registry for a while and uBO is still chugging along as per normal.
- StimDeck 2y agoBrowser extensions are probably the most convenient option, especially for the layman, but there is always DNS-based blocking and/or local proxies like privoxy.
- thrdbndndn 2y agoI kinda hate the focus on (well-deserved) uBo but not the whole Manifest V3 bullshit itself. It affects extensions like uBos most, for sure, and for some of its core features it cannot even be worked around. But it also hurts the "long tail" of the extension scene badly. I have dozens of mature, not-really-need-to-frequently-update extensions that require (perhaps trivial) changes to fit Manifest V3. But god knows if the author is still around or bothered to update them. I'm sure some of them are not because I had to download the source code and install them manually. It's basically python 2 to 3 transition but for Chrome WebExt, even if you ignore the new API restriction part. --------------- On a broader note, I'm increasingly frustrated by the constant pressure on users to adapt their habits to software changes. This isn't just about Chrome or browsers in general. Every year, I find myself spending countless hours battling changes in Chrome, Firefox, Office, Windows, MacOS, not to mention various websites, just to restore functionalities or user experiences that were already there but have been altered or removed. This often involves tweaking hidden settings, using command line switches, or relying on third-party or self-made extensions and scripts. And it affects so-called 'power users' the most because they're typically the ones who use the software or service to its fullest. I consider myself someone who is open to change. For example, when they move the search button for the umpteenth time (I'm looking at you, Google Play Store), it's annoying, but I can adapt. However, the removal of a feature is something you can't simply "adapt" to. It leads to a tangible loss of productivity, and it's even more frustrating when a feature that was previously available is suddenly gone.
- uxjw 2y agoI’ve been using Brave since Google announced they were going to do this. Blocking is built in and they support ublock origin with manifest v2 “for now” https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- thesuitonym 2y agoPsst, Brave is adware
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoI've been using Brave for a good couple of years, and the only ads I see are when I open a new, fresh tab, and I don't find that it gets in my way at all. I open a new tab to immediately put an address into the navbar. Most of the "new tab" ads are pictures, and any branding is generally way down the bottom, a screen's depth away from the navbar where my attention goes. I'm relatively militantly anti-advertising and I barely notice it (but maybe I'm losing my edge - no pun intended).
- kerkeslager 2y agoWell, you just described the definition of adware--your defense of it is that it's easy-to-ignore adware?
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoI barely even notice it and it doesn't slow me down in any way. That works for me. If that's where Internet advertising settles, then I might actually be OK with that. And there's plenty that I'm a long way from OK with.
- kerkeslager 2y agoI mean, that's your prerogative, but why settle for ads at all? Especially from a browsers that blocks ads from advertisers who don't pay them?
- BenFranklin100 2y agoI have zero sympathy for any users affected by this, especially the Google apologists that haunt Hacker News. Everyone knows Google is first and foremost an ad company whose business model is based on building intrusive profiles of individual users that can be aggregated, sliced and diced, and sold to Google’s customers, aka advertisers. Go pull Google’s 10K and see how they make their money.
- drsh0 2y agoMethods to enforce ExtensionManifestV2Availability on Linux for Chromium (and variants) and Chrome: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/2977#discussioncomment-9521603 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/29...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Andrews54757 2y agoA while back I installed uBlock on my grandparents' computer to help them avoid scammy ads. This change will make it more difficult and dangerous, for elderly users to browse the internet. As a young nerd, I can switch to Firefox easily, but I can't imagine it will be easy for everyone. My experience from using Firefox is that it has its own quirks, and comes with its own learning curve. I don't know what to say but to encourage everyone to make some noise. Please let your representative know about this. Hopefully we can still put a stop to this before it's too late.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gnabgib 2y agoDiscussions: (180 points, 12 days ago, 45 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 (99 points, 3 days ago, 102 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220764
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220764
- aaomidi 2y agoHonestly, this is an argument for breaking Google apart. If chrome was not driven to protect ad money for Google ads, then this wouldn’t have happened.
- maxglute 2y agoI have like 20 extentions in the "may soon lo longer be supported" list, several without good alternatives, are they all getting the can soon or are adblockers being specifically targetted?
- nullfield 2y agoSeriously, if there’s any security risk here it’s Chrome. Ffs, even the FBI recommends using an ad blocker.
- jhanschoo 2y agoI have on my browser several multilingual dictionary extensions and others by small developers that I do not completely trust. I do not have the inclination to audit the code, and I want to keep the extensions updated. There is a very real possibility that the authors sell control over them to malicious actors. Manifest v3 deprecating remote-hosted code makes it more feasible to use such extensions without trusting these developers, only google's review process. For me this is more important than uBlock Origin being able to execute remote-hosted code for ad-blocking.
- Timshel 2y agoThe beauty is if the extension are updated and compatible with FF you can switch and enjoy your dictionary using v3 and keeping uBlock Origin.
- aembleton 2y agoI don't think there's anyway to tell FF to stop an extension from updating using remote files so malicious code could still be deployed after passing any moderation.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoThat is a made up threat with a lot of hypotheticals. A more straight forward consideration is not to have an ad company responsible to determine the capabilities of an ad blocker. Also because ad blockers are recommended to increase overall security.
- jhanschoo 2y agoI did a google search to respond to your comment because I was pretty sure that the threat was not a mere hypothetical. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/dangerous-chrome-extensions-87-million/48562/ https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/dangerous-chrome-extensions-8... https://palant.info/2023/05/16/malicious-code-in-pdf-toolbox-extension/ https://palant.info/2023/05/16/malicious-code-in-pdf-toolbox... https://palant.info/2023/05/31/more-malicious-extensions-in-chrome-web-store/ https://palant.info/2023/05/31/more-malicious-extensions-in-...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoMozilla can pull the plug, too. Unless one is using a Firefox derivative the risk is the same. Not sure why people think Mozilla is different. It is financially dependent on Google. Need a smaller, simpler browser that anyone can compile. Then it does not matter what these companies do. Source code can be edited by its users to meet their requirements.
- jareklupinski 2y ago> uBlock Origin will continue to work as usual across other browsers, including Microsoft Edge, Opera, and more. how far will they go to "dont say Firefox"
- silentguy 2y agoI think they meant the Chromium based browsers but they should have specified it for clarity.
- hkchad 2y agoHappy to have made the switch back to FF a few years ago, much nicer experience.
- NuSkooler 2y agoGood, here you go https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
- bastard_op 2y agoGoogle Chrome is the new IE6. I find increasingly website won't work in firefox, but will in chrome, which is exactly what you would see in the dark ages of the internet with organizations still actually using microsoft web servers and .net code (or activex) that only work in IE. With Google increasingly unfriendly attitude toward their users, I stopped using Chrome unless necessary (per previous comment) a good 6 years ago and never looked back. I liked Google a lot more before they removed the "Don't be evil" from their motto and embraced the dark side to become utter scumbags.
- stiltzkin 2y agoI remember I had good threads with people defending Chrome and calling Safari the new IE. The tribalism defending Chrome should stop.
- Kye 2y agoIt's a good thing I'm not petty enough to keep a record of all the prominent people who said the warnings were overblown. - Sent from my Firefox
- sizzle 2y agoSo what workarounds are there? Pi-hole still good to go?