8 ms·

uBlock Origin is no longer available on Chrome web store

• Sytten 2y ago
  Give me decent multi-profile support in firefox and I won't need a chromium browser anymore
  • pushupentry1219 2y ago
    Multi-profile support has been in FF since I started using it (at least 5 years ago?). The profile picker isn't as pretty as the Chrome window you get but its definitely there.
    • WCSTombs 2y ago
      I've also been using it for years, and it seems to work exactly how it should, but it does seem to be a bit of a "hidden feature" in my opinion. It wasn't super easy to figure out that the feature existed and how to use it.
      • notpushkin 2y ago
        There’s also containers, which probably covers 90% of use cases for profiles: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
    • devsda 2y ago
      FF profiles do work. The problem is discoverability and UX. I believe, in chrome profile management is another menu option. In FF you have to use about:profiles or start Firefox with a specific command line argument. Unless you know about it or are actively looking for the feature, there's no way to know. If you are coming from Chrome, this unfortunately leaves the impression that Firefox doesn't support profiles (a must have feature for some). It doesn't even hint or show up in settings search. It is as if they don't want anyone to use/know about profiles.
      • kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
        CEO doing her job, making sure they stay feature impoverished to keep the funds flowing.
    • trustinmenowpls 2y ago
      My biggest gripe with multi-profile support is that it mixes the taskbar icons in windows. There's a multi-step workaround that involves the registry and cloning programs files folders to fix this specific issue but you need to do it for each new profile and it breaks constantly with updates and doesn't work consistently even in between updates. Yes, containers solve some of the problems that chrome profiles attempt to solve but I still have a work profile and personal profile which I like to keep separate. Unless there's a way to create containers that also disable extensions in their context I will always need multiple profiles.
      • magicalhippo 2y ago
        > My biggest gripe with multi-profile support is that it mixes the taskbar icons in windows. edit: never mind, I wasn't awake, see reply. FWIW on Windows this works fine for me. I run two different profiles. I get two separate taskbar icon groupings, they stay together and collapses independently. Must admit I've not used multiple profiles on my KDE install yet.
        • mjevans 2y ago
          KDE Plasma (6) user - Firefox Multiple Profiles. It's been far too long since I set it up, so I forget if I had to duplicate the application, if you do mine uses these settings: Firefox Profile Manager firefox --new-instance --ProfileManager I prefer to NOT group windows so I can sort them manually, but also, offhand, because I believe it groups off of the executable name, not the profile. If you right click on the Icons-and-Text Task Manager Settings, the Behavior tab has TWO options for Group: behaviors [Do Not Group] (I prefer this anyway) or [By Program Name] which I take to mean the executable. I'm not sure if it follows symlinks, but if that's an issue you can probably make a script to hardlink instead. A couple firefox-profilename applications that point back to firefox should work. You can even make a custom version of the launcher that invokes with a specific profile ID rather than selecting one. As a further set of asides: Firefox please 1) It'd be nice if firefox renamed it's arguments list to prefix it with the selected profile ID as the first item. KDE Plasma please 2) It would be great if the grouping thing could be expanded to E.G. consume the program name + first two tokens of the arguments. Maybe with a customization per group. KDE mega _please_ 2.b) Or even just to call an external program with a window ID handle and have it write back a string that's used as the group 'name'.
  • wlesieutre 2y ago
    Run with -P flag Don’t know of a keyboard hotkey during launch for this, I keep a separate desktop shortcut to run w/ the profile manager. You can also make shortcuts to run with a specific profile. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/CommandLineOptions#-ProfileManager https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/CommandLineOptions#-Profile...
    • zczc 2y ago
      You can also manage profiles by typing about:profiles in address bar
  • paranoidrobot 2y ago
    Have you looked into Firefox Multi-Account Containers[1]? It met all my needs for multiple profiles. I use it to have multiple concurrent sessions for different sites (eg: one AWS account/role per container). [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
    • Yodel0914 2y ago
      Container tabs are the main think that keep me on FF (well LibreWolf) rather than switching to Brave. I find them indispensable.
    • normalaccess 2y ago
      This ^ Where I work we are required to have 2-3 Microsoft accounts for security separation. Account containers makes it possible to interact with virtually unlimited profiles all in the same browser window. No need for in-private browsing or multiple widows of chrome or edge, it just works. When you have it configured just right it's a thing of beauty.
  • eco 2y ago
    Mozilla announced a few months ago they were working on Tab Groups, Vertical Tabs, Profile Management. I don't know if it's related but seemed to coincide with getting a new CEO. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/here-s-what-we-re-working-on-in-firefox/td-p/57694 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/here-s-what-we-re...
  • knowitnone 2y ago
    nah, they are busy building screenshot, pocket, AI chatbot
• Canada 2y ago
  This link wants me to login.
• peutetre 2y ago
  It works better in Firefox anyway. Use Firefox and be happy: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
  • codevark 2y ago
    [dead]
  • neves 2y ago
    Another alternative is to use Brave Browser
    • ElectroNomad 2y ago
      Wdym? It’s also a chromium browser i.e. it’ll lose uBlock as well eventually
      • Scokee 2y ago
        Why do you think this would happen? Brave incorporates ublock as part of their Rust based adblocking library https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
        • josephcsible 2y ago
          Because eventually there will be enough changes to the upstream Chromium codebase that the only way to keep these extensions working would be to stop following upstream, which would mean massively increased development costs.
          • porridgeraisin 2y ago
            But they don't do adblocking with ublock, so it'll be safe
          • joecot 2y ago
• mh- 2y ago
  I see it, and it shows up as installable, at https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...
  • zuccs 2y ago
    Are you visiting not from Chrome?
    • mh- 2y ago
      No, I visited from a Chrome profile that doesn't have it installed.
  • WheatMillington 2y ago
    Do you see the message that it will soon be unavailable? It's installable for me, with the following warning: >This extension may soon no longer be supported because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions.
    • mh- 2y ago
      Yes, I see that message. It's been there for awhile I think.
• misonic 2y ago
  being redirected to submit a link...
  • brettwilcox 2y ago
    Same. Link needs to be updated - https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1fhsai3/rest_in_peace https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1fhsai3/rest_in_pea...
• denkmoon 2y ago
  and the reddit post is behind a login wall, ha ha. The enshittification continues.
  • shepherdjerred 2y ago
    Oh, wow, and this is for the old Reddit site, too.
  • rafram 2y ago
    This is just a broken link that leads to a post creation form. Can’t create posts unless you’re logged on.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• rirrirler 2y ago
  Link seems to be incorrect, should be: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/s/dGGy8PXAMG https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/s/dGGy8PXAMG (www.reddit.com, not old.reddit.com) Which is this now removed post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1fhsai3/rest_in_peace https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1fhsai3/rest_in_pea... That had the title "Rest in peace" and contained this image: https://i.redd.it/ng75ptntl2pd1.png https://i.redd.it/ng75ptntl2pd1.png Which is a screenshot of the uBlock Origin page in the Chrome Web Store, displaying the message "This extension is no longer available because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions.": https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...
  • thrdbndndn 2y ago
    Just to be clear: OP likely copied the this share link first and then manually replaced www. to old. . But shared link never worked with old. prefix so it broke. Reddit may or may not want to kill old.reddit but this isn't an example of it, inb4 people are going to take this opportunity to soapbox about it.
    • rirrirler 2y ago
      As I understand it, HN itself automatically rewrites www.reddit.com to old.reddit.com in submitted links. This works for direct links to posts and comments, but not share links (containing "/s/" in the path) like the one for this post.
      • thrdbndndn 2y ago
        Ah thanks, I had no idea HN processes links. Sorry for assuming it was the OP.
      • SSLy 2y ago
        the share /s/ links come from the new reddit, and are a sure way to spot someone using that interface instead of the proper one.
  • 2y ago
• btown 2y ago
  Are there any good solutions for reliably rolling out an pre-review/unreviewed Chrome extension to a team (other than controlling all their users' Chrome profiles with an enterprise deployment)? I found https://docs.plasmo.com/itero https://docs.plasmo.com/itero but haven't used it - it seems to provide a downloadable installer that installs and maintains an extension on testers' systems via policies. Unsure how well it works though, or if anyone's deployed it. There are so many things wrong with the state of affairs with the MV3 rollout that it's hard to know where to begin. If there's a silver lining here, perhaps it's that there will be renewed attention towards finding workarounds to the walled garden.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• tech234a 2y ago
  My guess is that the user took the screenshot from a Chrome Beta/Dev/Canary build which is following an accelerated timeline for disabling Manifest V2 extensions [1]. Also, note that there is an enterprise policy that can enable Manifest V2 extensions through June 2025 [2]. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/mv2-deprecation-timeline https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... [2]: https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV...
  • 0points 2y ago
    Still, time to swap brower rather than prolonging it.
    • knowitnone 2y ago
      I've used Firefox for the most part. Only use Chrome for dev. If Firefox has a better dev experience, I'm all in but not holding my breath.
      • zuhsetaqi 2y ago
        What are some dev features in chrome not present in ff? Just curious what I’m missing out
    • kyrra 2y ago
      It's called lying for clicks.
• danpalmer 2y ago
  uBlock Origin Lite is available here: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/... It does the same basic content blocking with no permissions required. Then you can opt-in sites for it to do more blocking, including I believe opt-ing in all sites for what appears to be the same blocking as regular uBlock Origin. Positive side: faster, fewer permissions by default, more control over permissions. Negatives: less blocked by default, requires opt-in for more blocking.
  • eco 2y ago
    Another negative is it can only update the filter rules with an extension update (which Google controls the speed of). As far as I know, it hasn't been a problem yet but the fact that YouTube ad blocking started requiring frequent filter list updates suggests Google will likely take advantage of this.
    • sunaookami 2y ago
      FYI Google recently introduced queue skipping when only the filter rules were updated. In theory, updates should then be available immediately: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/skip-review?hl=en https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/skip-review?hl=en
      • raxxorraxor 2y ago
        As long as Google wills it, but that isn't really something that improves my "security". This is also about not getting sucked into an unwanted environment managed by Google.
• thisisjaymehta 2y ago
  What is worst, mods deleting this reddit post or google blocking UBO?
  • haunter 2y ago
    Probably because it’s misleading? Still available https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...
  • undopamine 2y ago
    r/Piracy mods are compromised[1], one was recently caught accepting payments in exchange for hosting malicious sites on the megathread Victims' posts get downvoted to invisiblity because it's reddit. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1evqxed/delete_this_site_from_the_mega_thread_last_time_i/litj6v7/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1evqxed/delete_this...
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• lfmunoz4 2y ago
  not sure how ublock origin works but would it be possible to take the block list from ublock origin and block at router level?
  • duskwuff 2y ago
    No. A lot of uBlock's filters are applied based on properties of a request, or even of the context of that request. which aren't available outside the browser.
  • xenator 2y ago
    Nope. It also cut a lot of content based on CSS and HTML rules.
• grahamj 2y ago
  please stop using google anything
  • bamboozled 2y ago
    not using Youtube would put me back like 300 years.
• Dwedit 2y ago
  Checked Chrome Web Store using Brave, it's still there.
• daft_pink 2y ago
  on another note, they won’t let you into the reddit unless you are logged in, which I just realized by clicking on the link :(
• ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
  Just to be clear here, the FBI recommends adblock.
  • gertop 2y ago
    Just to be clear here, ad blocking is still possible on Chrome.
• seneca 2y ago
  Google is really an awful company at this point. We need to build some viable competitor to the anchors they still have. Firefox and Brave are fine as chrome alternatives. Google search is dying a slow death. We need a viable alternative to YouTube. I dread Google getting a new lease on life through Waymo.
  • DaoVeles 2y ago
    At this point? They have been for a very long time. We saw this first hand when they almost single-handedly crushed Windows phone by essentially keeping them out of their walled garden. That was back in about 2010. That was when I swore off them as much as possible. Not because "poor Microsoft is hurt" but because they showed the kind of power they could flex on others. I only use them for the occasional youtube video, nothing else.
    • bubblesnort 2y ago
      The Nokia Lumia was a terrible trainwreck. Microsoft could've done a better job, but they didn't. In hindsight, Nokia had just launched an incredible smartphone with a Debian-based OS and 2 years later they sealed a deal with Microsoft to make MS-Windows the new OS. Pretty good timing for Microsoft to kill off what they really hate. Especially considering that Ballmer was still their CEO at the time and he's known for saying "developers" a lot and calling Linux a cancer. The thing that made Google evil at that time for me is when they introduced Google+. Before they launched it, you could sign up with fake names and they didn't care. G+ changed that. Nowadays they're making it impossible to register without a valid cell phone number.
  • xtracto 2y ago
    I just paid for a subscription to phind.com it is extremely useful for most of my search needs. I don't use Google search at all I also have been using Edge as my main browser in Linux (it's vertical tabs have no match for my usecase) .
• pan69 2y ago
  I was browsing some website this morning and noticed it had "shit" plastered all over it. Turns out those where ads, something I hadn't seen like that in quite some time. Checking my Chrome extensions, uBlock origin is gone.
• treebeard901 2y ago
  Forcing advertisements on everyone is about so much more than money. It is about money too obviously. I just think the general public is unaware what ads and ad network control over your online experience actually can accomplish. After seeing aspects of it weaponized against me, the impact it has on someone unaware of the technology and psychology involved honestly seems like a danger to the public itself. This may sound extreme if you have not experienced it.
  • hereme888 2y ago
    Like CIA-funded propaganda for political outcomes?
  • chii 2y ago
    So what is the exact impact? I keep hearing claims that advertising is bad, but never an actual example of an impact - something concrete. Ads to me are merely a nuisance, and annoys me, rather than impact me in any dangerous way. Of course, i will do my utmost to remove it from my life, but i cannot see it be called a danger to the public. Calling it such will actually diminish the importance of other public dangers, such as lobbying, monopolistic corporations etc.
    • 28304283409234 2y ago
      You mean public harm other than tracking you across the entire web, profiling your personality, adservers getting hacked and serving malware, taking up cpu cycles and memory, stealing your attention which are experiences which are life?
    • wasteduniverse 2y ago
      [dead]
  • raxxorraxor 2y ago
    I remember people arguing that manifest v3 would be a security improvement. Disregarding reality, this is already quite subjective and depends if you trust sites more than your browser addons. Tracking doesn't seem to be a relevant threat to those that defend this "evolution". Also disregarded is the shitty situation of mobile OS that disempower otherwise quite powerful devices that Google would like to extend to web browsers. Yes, you can fully construct a hypothetical situation where manifest v3 can be an improvement. Just like chastity belts shield your from STDs. The same bunch of bullshit can be extended to ideas about "web integrity". I think it is time that people stop being idiots about it.
• notepad0x90 2y ago
  here is an idea: take the power away from google and browsers and let's go back to a desktop/native solution of intercepting all network traffic. Browsers can't resist that, because corporate networks need to do TLS inspection (sometimes, they are legally required to do so). Another idea is, for the filtering system to operate a shadow DOM or an entire browser (like a selenium driver) that renders everything unfiltered. But the browser the user is using only sees filtered content. That way, it would become significantly more difficult for advertisers to detect the AD is being blocked. This could be done in a local sandbox and optionally in a cloud sandbox. Outbound network requests from the user facing browser can be blocked or filtered. Or, just use Firefox. but I doubt Mozilla can resist doing the same thing, given the anti-trust issues Google is facing.
  • josephcsible 2y ago
    IMO, TLS inspection is an even bigger security risk than malware from ads is.
    • notepad0x90 2y ago
      even locally, in a sandbox, written in rust, audited, the whole security theatrics included?
• teo_zero 2y ago
  Apart from personal opinions, is there any evidence this is due to Google sabotaging uBlock rather than a legitimate technical concern (V2 vs V3 manifest)? Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality?
  • captainepoch 2y ago
    > Apart from personal opinions, is there any evidence this is due to Google sabotaging uBlock rather than a legitimate technical concern (V2 vs V3 manifest)? Google is an ads company. uBlock Origin is making them lose money... > Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality? No, that's why everyone is angry and a ton of people switching to Firefox, to keep using uBlock Origin as it is, since Firefox still respects the V2.
  • mappu 2y ago
    > Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality? Yes, with some minor caveats. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
  • chii 2y ago
    > Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality? no. V3 has some limitations on how many urls gets blocked, and has to be submitted ahead of time iirc. It is high time the tech commmunity strongly encourage their friends and family to switch to firefox enmass.
  • raxxorraxor 2y ago
    There is no technical improvement of V3. It is simply about shifting common capabilities of browsers away from you (aka the security threat) towards Google (that is an ultra safe ad supplier). And this is part of it. Maybe releasing manifest v4 with prominent forks would lessen this purely marketing move by Google.
• magicalhippo 2y ago
  In my view there has been enough successful attacks which used ad networks to launch the attacks that I consider ad blocking primarily as my first line of defense. For example, some years ago here in Norway a fairly popular site got their ad network exploited to serve an exploit which installed malware that hijacked the pages of the largest bank. When you think you sent money to your kids or paid a bill, you ended up sending the money somewhere else entirely. So for me, it just isn't worth the risk, and I won't surf without an ad blocker.
• hereme888 2y ago
  Given that Brave is chrome-based, and Brave won't stand for ad-blockers being disabled, I wonder what they're planning. I do find uBlock Origin to be better than Brave's built-in blocker.
  • pixxel 2y ago
    Is it not in their own interest to be the only ad blocker?
    • anderber 2y ago
      I'm not sure why it would be in their own interest to be the only ad blocker. What do they gain by not allowing other ad blockers?
      • Rayyanlefta 2y ago
        It elevates them into the "main protagonist", and I'm not necessarily against that, I just don't want ads shoved down my throat.
  • aembleton 2y ago
    I expect they'll adopt Manifest v3, and it'll mean the end of UBo, but they'll still have their own built in adblocker working. They'll just need to maintain that and where it fits in with the Chrome codebase.
    • bigtex 2y ago
      On Twitter they claimed they are still supporting v2. https://x.com/brave/status/1822690721020723700 https://x.com/brave/status/1822690721020723700
• owenpalmer 2y ago
  Firefox mobile allows you to install extensions, including uBlock Origin. I've been using it on my phone for the past few months and it's been great. Firefox in general is great.
• mfiro 2y ago
  I wonder how many will switch to Firefox after this action. But it may be a small number because I assume that not many people use adblockers and most of those who use them already had Firefox, but I may be wrong.
• sexy_seedbox 2y ago
  Surprising nobody has mentioned Zen Browser in this thread? https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/
  • zuhsetaqi 2y ago
    Does anyone else have everything zen renders being blurry?
• senozhatsky 2y ago
  I wish they offered a paid version of the browser that would have ublock enabled.
• solardev 2y ago
  What's a good alternative Blink or Webkit browser? Meaning not Firefox (too many issues in my experience, and built-in ads are annoying, and I don't trust Mozilla).
  • cueo 2y ago
    Orion[1] (by Kagi) is sweet (but not without its own issues). Based on Webkit, supports vertical tabs, etc. But the big one: allows side-loading Chrome / Firefox extensions! [1] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
    • solardev 2y ago
      Awesome, thank you! Once Manifest v3 is officially live, I'll probably end up ditching Chrome and Google Search altogether.
• bigtex 2y ago
  Brave still works with the older plugins.
• Meekro 2y ago
  Guys, this is (currently) not true. Please check for yourselves.