9 ms·

Chrome Canary just killed uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions

119 points by abixb 2y ago

Arnt 2y ago
I have heard that the real underlying problem concerned resource usage (ten thousand regexp matches etc). But only now do I wonder why the browser's reaction is to remove an API instead of to limit the amount of CPU extensions can use.
- grobbyy 2y ago
  The browsing experience is dramatically faster with uBlock. The thousands of regexps don't come close to the CPU or memory load of ads. A 386 could handle a regexp fine. Compare that to audio or video decoding for ads. Not the same ballpark by orders of magnitude. It's dead because Google makes money from ads. I shifted to Firefox ages ago.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    I traced the CPU usage on my wife's laptop many years ago. That wasn't a fast machine, but it wasn't a 386 either. The ad blockers were her performance problems, alone. If the browser maintainers have seen a couple of machines with similar problems and maintainers of regexp-using add blockers simply insisted that their code was fast, "a 386 could handle" etc, I can easily see how the browser maintainers might lose patience. Don't need to assume ill will.
    - grobbyy 2y ago
      My comment wasn't that every ad blocker was performant. My comment was about uBlock specifically. My comment wasn't that all algorithms are always efficient. It was that properly compiled regular expressions are. Extensions often lead to performance issues.
- Gigachad 2y ago
  uBlock is one of the good ones, but for the rest of extensions, the majority of them are literal malware. Usually originally developed by someone decent, and then sold off to someone else who uses them maliciously. It looks like the recent changes are all about slowly locking down what extensions can do because it’s currently a free for all where random anonymous extension owners have full access to everyone’s browsers.
  - ragnese 2y ago
    > It looks like the recent changes are all about slowly locking down what extensions can do because it’s currently a free for all where random anonymous extension owners have full access to everyone’s browsers. The major browser vendors already have extension "stores" that are supposed to be curated. I believe it's also true that installing an extension directly ("side-loading") is usually disabled by default (or just not an option at all). They've done their due diligence for our "safety". Now, it's just bullshit to prevent us from blocking ads, trackers, and spyware.
    - HumanOstrich 2y ago
      They aren't "curated" at all, and malware regularly slips through.
      - ragnese 2y ago
        Firefox's are, nominally, reviewed. I don't know if Chrome's are, but I would've assumed that they are- even if by some automated tool(s). Granted, I'm sure malware slips through. But, what security danger is there to a user if an extension blocks a network request? Manifest V3 eliminating the ability to block network requests is NOT for user security. The absolute best excuse they can come up with is that it has something to do with performance, but that's also bullshit because I'm 99% sure I can find plenty of ways to make a Manifest V3 extension waste CPU and/or memory.
        HumanOstrich 2y ago
- gorhill 2y ago
  No competent content blocker tests "ten thousand regexp matches" for each request URL to match, this is not how it works. To simplify, and speaking from uBO's perspective, consider that nine distinct tokens can be extracted from the URL in the address bar for the current webpage: https news ycombinator com reply id 41758007 goto item%3Fid%3D41757178%2341758007 To match such URL against the tens of thousand of filters, there is only a need to lookup filters for these nine tokens, and for most of these tokens there won't be any filters to test, such that in the end for any given URL only a few to no filters will end up being tested, and the majority of these filters are not regex-based, they are just plain string matching. This is the overall simplified explanation of how it really works, in reality it's a bit more complex because there are a lot of other optimizations on top of this. There is a built-in benchmark tool in uBO, accessible through the dashboard, _Support_ pane, _More_ button, _SNFE: Benchmark_ button[1]. When running the benchmark against a set of 230,364 URLs, I get an average of 11-12 µs per request to perform a match test against the default filter lists in uBO. * * * [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings#benchmarkdataseturl https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings#ben...
mrkramer 2y ago
That's good, at least more and more people will move away from Chrome.
- beardyw 2y ago
  In terms of HN probably. In terms of all users, probably very few
  - squigz 2y ago
    A few at a time is all it takes.
- toastercat 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wutwutwat 2y ago
    Ublock doesn’t work for YouTube ads and never has. When I access a site I’m downloading some markup. I’m free to render that markup in any way I desire. It’s my machine. My software. My experience. Nothing else should be able to dictate that to me. Ads are harmful. They are used to spy on and build profiles of people across the internet, gaining knowledge along the way that is intrusive, without consent from who it’s spying on. Sites are free to make money off their content. There are ways besides ads. Paywalls, subscriptions, donations, etc. Point is, they can make money in ways that doesn’t require telling their users how to do things on their own computers and doesn’t involve forcing malware and spyware onto their users. Nothing is being stolen. The html document was delivered on the public web internet with no restrictions. It was even delivered with the code to run ads. It was given to the world. How the world renders that document cannot somehow change that into a theft.
    - tredre3 2y ago
      > Ublock doesn’t work for YouTube ads and never has. ublock has always worked for YouTube ads, until the very recent crusade against adblocking.
Scotch3297 2y ago
So the ideal browser is a concept that is every day more and more elusive. For my private use, I am using an older Mac with some memory consumption issues, so until I upgrade, I am using safari because it's the most lightweight, and while the extension support is the smallest of all, at least for very major things you are still covered. For work, the Mac I am using is way more powerful, and yet I find strange issues. Vivaldi dies if I open more than 60-70 tabs at once but it doesn't even really matter, because all the Chromium based browsers that have said "don't worry, we will keep maintaining Manifest V2" feel like they are on a "danger zone" to me. And then, I try to use Firefox and while the extension support is the most complete, many times I am finding unresponsive pages (usually tools like Google Meet, which I need to use because of work) or even worse: profile files get messed up and I start getting an error "There was an error, that's all we know" every time I try to log into any service using Google SSO. So to summarize, at this rate I will have to migrate to Qutebrowser... or Lynx.
- imbnwa 2y ago
  >For work, the Mac I am using is way more powerful, and yet I find strange issues. Vivaldi dies if I open more than 60-70 tabs at once but it doesn't even really matter, because all the Chromium based browsers that have said "don't worry, we will keep maintaining Manifest V2" feel like they are on a "danger zone" to me. WRT ad blocking, any serious Chromium-based browser that has vowed continued V2 support already has a performant ad blocker in its native code to cover their ass on this point you're making here (see: Brave; though also Orion, of the ones that I know, which is a Webkit browser). Of course, effective dynamic ad blocking isn't the only thing lost with Manifest V3 but definitely the most noticeable.
- doublepg23 2y ago
  How old is the Mac? Does it have soldered RAM?
armitron 2y ago
Isn't Chromium open source? How hard would it be to fork and restore Manifest V2? I'd expect the functionality to be fairly isolated so that easily tracking upstream becomes manageable.
- nar001 2y ago
  I think you underestimate how complex browsers are, it's not as if it's just an isolated part of the browser, it's huge and full of moving parts, good luck maintaining your own fork of Chrome especially if you want to also get security updates.
- tredre3 2y ago
  Brave is a Chrominum fork that has pledged to keep supporting manifest V2 (at least partially) beyond the removal in 2025: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
  - brodock 2y ago
    They don't have a separate addon marketplace. The browser may still support the API but distributing the addon will be a problem. We need an altstore
  - arnaudsm 2y ago
    Brave's shady crypto strategies [1] and history of injecting headers and affiliate codes in your navigation [2] makes it an untrustworthy browser to me. [1] https://coinfomania.com/brave-browser-users-monthly-bat-rewards-using-solana/ https://coinfomania.com/brave-browser-users-monthly-bat-rewa... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Do you also say that about Firefox's shenanigans, like that one time when they shared the browsing history without user consent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz#Integration_with_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz#Integration_with_Firefox How about more recently, when they enabled “privacy-preserving attribution” without user consent? https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ It's like them, after all, they also include a unique ID with each download, that then they send in their opt-out telemetry. How about Firefox's sponsored links in the New Tab page? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy I am asking because this community has a serious double-standard. This isn't about any “shady crypto” or affiliate codes being inserted, issues which were promptly fixed. It's about something else entirely, and people are being disingenuous about it.
WCSTombs 2y ago
While I'm less than enthusiastic about Mozilla's recent entrance into the ad-tech industry, it's worth noting that uBlock Origin is not just still available on Firefox and by far its most popular browser extension, but it's also officially recommended. [1] IMO uBlock Origin has become an integral part of the Firefox experience. Chrome killed uBlock Origin? Firefox can't kill uBlock Origin. It can only kill Firefox. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=users
- Steven420 2y ago
  Unfortunately Mozilla seems to be working on that
  - timeon 2y ago
    Source?
    - dtmooreiv 2y ago
      Probably referring to this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
toastercat 2y ago
[flagged]
- jbverschoor 2y ago
  Except it doesn’t work like that. We pay for many things and after a while, ads creep in because of “growth” The solution unfortunately is ALWAYS freeloading (or piracy in music, movies and probably also software) At a certain point “they” go too far
- traitfield 2y ago
  If they can't handle not sending me garbage, then perish.
- redserk 2y ago
  This is a revisionist and blatant lie. I’ve been online longer than some on here have been alive and at no point was this ever true for any meaningful period of time. Adblocking the web has been available since the 90s in some form. Popup blockers and image blocking was not terribly uncommon. Some ISPs even tried blocking this at their level as a means to help make dialup feel faster! So please tell me, when was this “vibrant place”?
pentagrama 2y ago
I use Firefox so I'm fine. But what should I do with the not so tech savvy family members and friends that use Chrome and I installed Ublock origin? Install the lite version? Other alternative? I'm sorry to say that will be impossible to make them switch to Firefox.
- kuhsaft 2y ago
  AdGuard it works on every platform and works with MV3 better than uBlock Origin Lite. https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser-extension/overview.html https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser-extension/overview.ht... https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stand.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...
  - pentagrama 2y ago
    Thank you. Looks polished and trustworthy. Do you know if it has nagging with upsells to the paid products that they offer?
    - kuhsaft 2y ago
      Nope. Doesn't nag you to use their VPN or anything.
  - xz0r 2y ago
    If Adguard is able to work on MV3 why isn't uBlock able to ?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dizhn 2y ago
  Brave might be an option. They have their own ad blocking functionality and the full ublock origin (if that team keeps updating it for chromium) will keep working. People say they have done shady things in the past but the browser is open source so that doesn't effect MY decision to use it for the time being.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
justinclift 2y ago
It's super ironic that Google pushes this while literally under investigation in multiple jurisdictions about being a monopoly and abusing it's power. It seems like the leadership team literally either can't help themselves by maybe just not screwing over their users, or they reckon they're too big to really suffer any consequences. Maybe they're just content with the outcome either way, potential golden handshakes and all?
dotcoma 2y ago
Does anybody know if/how this will affect Chromium-based Iridium browser ? https://iridiumbrowser.de/ https://iridiumbrowser.de/
musicale 2y ago
No one could have predicted this.

119 points by abixb 2y ago

Arnt 2y ago

I have heard that the real underlying problem concerned resource usage (ten thousand regexp matches etc). But only now do I wonder why the browser's reaction is to remove an API instead of to limit the amount of CPU extensions can use.

grobbyy 2y ago
The browsing experience is dramatically faster with uBlock. The thousands of regexps don't come close to the CPU or memory load of ads. A 386 could handle a regexp fine. Compare that to audio or video decoding for ads. Not the same ballpark by orders of magnitude. It's dead because Google makes money from ads. I shifted to Firefox ages ago.
- Arnt 2y ago
  I traced the CPU usage on my wife's laptop many years ago. That wasn't a fast machine, but it wasn't a 386 either. The ad blockers were her performance problems, alone. If the browser maintainers have seen a couple of machines with similar problems and maintainers of regexp-using add blockers simply insisted that their code was fast, "a 386 could handle" etc, I can easily see how the browser maintainers might lose patience. Don't need to assume ill will.
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    My comment wasn't that every ad blocker was performant. My comment was about uBlock specifically. My comment wasn't that all algorithms are always efficient. It was that properly compiled regular expressions are. Extensions often lead to performance issues.
Gigachad 2y ago
uBlock is one of the good ones, but for the rest of extensions, the majority of them are literal malware. Usually originally developed by someone decent, and then sold off to someone else who uses them maliciously. It looks like the recent changes are all about slowly locking down what extensions can do because it’s currently a free for all where random anonymous extension owners have full access to everyone’s browsers.
- ragnese 2y ago
  > It looks like the recent changes are all about slowly locking down what extensions can do because it’s currently a free for all where random anonymous extension owners have full access to everyone’s browsers. The major browser vendors already have extension "stores" that are supposed to be curated. I believe it's also true that installing an extension directly ("side-loading") is usually disabled by default (or just not an option at all). They've done their due diligence for our "safety". Now, it's just bullshit to prevent us from blocking ads, trackers, and spyware.
  - HumanOstrich 2y ago
    They aren't "curated" at all, and malware regularly slips through.
    - ragnese 2y ago
      Firefox's are, nominally, reviewed. I don't know if Chrome's are, but I would've assumed that they are- even if by some automated tool(s). Granted, I'm sure malware slips through. But, what security danger is there to a user if an extension blocks a network request? Manifest V3 eliminating the ability to block network requests is NOT for user security. The absolute best excuse they can come up with is that it has something to do with performance, but that's also bullshit because I'm 99% sure I can find plenty of ways to make a Manifest V3 extension waste CPU and/or memory.
      - HumanOstrich 2y ago
gorhill 2y ago
No competent content blocker tests "ten thousand regexp matches" for each request URL to match, this is not how it works. To simplify, and speaking from uBO's perspective, consider that nine distinct tokens can be extracted from the URL in the address bar for the current webpage: https news ycombinator com reply id 41758007 goto item%3Fid%3D41757178%2341758007 To match such URL against the tens of thousand of filters, there is only a need to lookup filters for these nine tokens, and for most of these tokens there won't be any filters to test, such that in the end for any given URL only a few to no filters will end up being tested, and the majority of these filters are not regex-based, they are just plain string matching. This is the overall simplified explanation of how it really works, in reality it's a bit more complex because there are a lot of other optimizations on top of this. There is a built-in benchmark tool in uBO, accessible through the dashboard, _Support_ pane, _More_ button, _SNFE: Benchmark_ button[1]. When running the benchmark against a set of 230,364 URLs, I get an average of 11-12 µs per request to perform a match test against the default filter lists in uBO. * * * [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings#benchmarkdataseturl https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings#ben...

mrkramer 2y ago

That's good, at least more and more people will move away from Chrome.

beardyw 2y ago
In terms of HN probably. In terms of all users, probably very few
- squigz 2y ago
  A few at a time is all it takes.
toastercat 2y ago
[flagged]
- wutwutwat 2y ago
  Ublock doesn’t work for YouTube ads and never has. When I access a site I’m downloading some markup. I’m free to render that markup in any way I desire. It’s my machine. My software. My experience. Nothing else should be able to dictate that to me. Ads are harmful. They are used to spy on and build profiles of people across the internet, gaining knowledge along the way that is intrusive, without consent from who it’s spying on. Sites are free to make money off their content. There are ways besides ads. Paywalls, subscriptions, donations, etc. Point is, they can make money in ways that doesn’t require telling their users how to do things on their own computers and doesn’t involve forcing malware and spyware onto their users. Nothing is being stolen. The html document was delivered on the public web internet with no restrictions. It was even delivered with the code to run ads. It was given to the world. How the world renders that document cannot somehow change that into a theft.
  - tredre3 2y ago
    > Ublock doesn’t work for YouTube ads and never has. ublock has always worked for YouTube ads, until the very recent crusade against adblocking.

Scotch3297 2y ago

So the ideal browser is a concept that is every day more and more elusive. For my private use, I am using an older Mac with some memory consumption issues, so until I upgrade, I am using safari because it's the most lightweight, and while the extension support is the smallest of all, at least for very major things you are still covered. For work, the Mac I am using is way more powerful, and yet I find strange issues. Vivaldi dies if I open more than 60-70 tabs at once but it doesn't even really matter, because all the Chromium based browsers that have said "don't worry, we will keep maintaining Manifest V2" feel like they are on a "danger zone" to me. And then, I try to use Firefox and while the extension support is the most complete, many times I am finding unresponsive pages (usually tools like Google Meet, which I need to use because of work) or even worse: profile files get messed up and I start getting an error "There was an error, that's all we know" every time I try to log into any service using Google SSO. So to summarize, at this rate I will have to migrate to Qutebrowser... or Lynx.

imbnwa 2y ago
>For work, the Mac I am using is way more powerful, and yet I find strange issues. Vivaldi dies if I open more than 60-70 tabs at once but it doesn't even really matter, because all the Chromium based browsers that have said "don't worry, we will keep maintaining Manifest V2" feel like they are on a "danger zone" to me. WRT ad blocking, any serious Chromium-based browser that has vowed continued V2 support already has a performant ad blocker in its native code to cover their ass on this point you're making here (see: Brave; though also Orion, of the ones that I know, which is a Webkit browser). Of course, effective dynamic ad blocking isn't the only thing lost with Manifest V3 but definitely the most noticeable.
doublepg23 2y ago
How old is the Mac? Does it have soldered RAM?

armitron 2y ago

Isn't Chromium open source? How hard would it be to fork and restore Manifest V2? I'd expect the functionality to be fairly isolated so that easily tracking upstream becomes manageable.

nar001 2y ago
I think you underestimate how complex browsers are, it's not as if it's just an isolated part of the browser, it's huge and full of moving parts, good luck maintaining your own fork of Chrome especially if you want to also get security updates.
tredre3 2y ago
Brave is a Chrominum fork that has pledged to keep supporting manifest V2 (at least partially) beyond the removal in 2025: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- brodock 2y ago
  They don't have a separate addon marketplace. The browser may still support the API but distributing the addon will be a problem. We need an altstore
- arnaudsm 2y ago
  Brave's shady crypto strategies [1] and history of injecting headers and affiliate codes in your navigation [2] makes it an untrustworthy browser to me. [1] https://coinfomania.com/brave-browser-users-monthly-bat-rewards-using-solana/ https://coinfomania.com/brave-browser-users-monthly-bat-rewa... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...
  - bad_user 2y ago
    Do you also say that about Firefox's shenanigans, like that one time when they shared the browsing history without user consent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz#Integration_with_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz#Integration_with_Firefox How about more recently, when they enabled “privacy-preserving attribution” without user consent? https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ It's like them, after all, they also include a unique ID with each download, that then they send in their opt-out telemetry. How about Firefox's sponsored links in the New Tab page? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy I am asking because this community has a serious double-standard. This isn't about any “shady crypto” or affiliate codes being inserted, issues which were promptly fixed. It's about something else entirely, and people are being disingenuous about it.

WCSTombs 2y ago

While I'm less than enthusiastic about Mozilla's recent entrance into the ad-tech industry, it's worth noting that uBlock Origin is not just still available on Firefox and by far its most popular browser extension, but it's also officially recommended. [1] IMO uBlock Origin has become an integral part of the Firefox experience. Chrome killed uBlock Origin? Firefox can't kill uBlock Origin. It can only kill Firefox. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=users

Steven420 2y ago
Unfortunately Mozilla seems to be working on that
- timeon 2y ago
  Source?
  - dtmooreiv 2y ago
    Probably referring to this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

toastercat 2y ago

[flagged]

jbverschoor 2y ago
Except it doesn’t work like that. We pay for many things and after a while, ads creep in because of “growth” The solution unfortunately is ALWAYS freeloading (or piracy in music, movies and probably also software) At a certain point “they” go too far
traitfield 2y ago
If they can't handle not sending me garbage, then perish.
redserk 2y ago
This is a revisionist and blatant lie. I’ve been online longer than some on here have been alive and at no point was this ever true for any meaningful period of time. Adblocking the web has been available since the 90s in some form. Popup blockers and image blocking was not terribly uncommon. Some ISPs even tried blocking this at their level as a means to help make dialup feel faster! So please tell me, when was this “vibrant place”?

pentagrama 2y ago

I use Firefox so I'm fine. But what should I do with the not so tech savvy family members and friends that use Chrome and I installed Ublock origin? Install the lite version? Other alternative? I'm sorry to say that will be impossible to make them switch to Firefox.

kuhsaft 2y ago
AdGuard it works on every platform and works with MV3 better than uBlock Origin Lite. https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser-extension/overview.html https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser-extension/overview.ht... https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stand.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...
- pentagrama 2y ago
  Thank you. Looks polished and trustworthy. Do you know if it has nagging with upsells to the paid products that they offer?
  - kuhsaft 2y ago
    Nope. Doesn't nag you to use their VPN or anything.
- xz0r 2y ago
  If Adguard is able to work on MV3 why isn't uBlock able to ?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dizhn 2y ago
Brave might be an option. They have their own ad blocking functionality and the full ublock origin (if that team keeps updating it for chromium) will keep working. People say they have done shady things in the past but the browser is open source so that doesn't effect MY decision to use it for the time being.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

justinclift 2y ago

It's super ironic that Google pushes this while literally under investigation in multiple jurisdictions about being a monopoly and abusing it's power. It seems like the leadership team literally either can't help themselves by maybe just not screwing over their users, or they reckon they're too big to really suffer any consequences. Maybe they're just content with the outcome either way, potential golden handshakes and all?

dotcoma 2y ago

Does anybody know if/how this will affect Chromium-based Iridium browser ? https://iridiumbrowser.de/ https://iridiumbrowser.de/

musicale 2y ago

No one could have predicted this.