5 ms·

> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective I thought I knew that. Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome,

> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective I thought I knew that. Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox... ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. And at the same time, loading pages feels a little faster, though I haven't measured it. Which has now got me wondering -- what if Manifest v3 really was about security and performance all along? Because if Google was using it to kill adblockers, they've made approximately 0% progress towards that goal as far as I can tell. If they really wanted to kill adblockers, they'd just, you know, kill adblockers. But they didn't at all.

moi2388 2y ago
It makes things a bit more annoying? But in v3 you can still do everything you need to do to block ads
flohofwoe 2y ago
> ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. When I tried UBO Lite recently it couldn't block YouTube ads, not sure if that's impossible with Manifest V3, or if UBO Lite just isn't updated regularly like UBO to defeat the YouTube anti-ad-blocking updates. Update: looks like it's fixed now, not bad :)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Youtube's adblocker-evasion and adblocker's youtube ad blocking has been a cat-and-mouse game since time immemorial.
surajrmal 2y ago
People seem to see what they want. And many seem to be blinded by Google hate and must find ways to be unhappy with all decisions they make. Google has publicly delayed v2 depreciation to ensure ad blockers worked well under v3.
Spunkie 2y ago
This is just because Google was especially insidious about how they crippled ad blockers in v3. Adblockers do multiple things: 1. Visibly block ads from the user 2. Block the user tracking that's attached to those ads 3. Protect the user from malware 4. Save bandwidth and cpu cycles by not loading all that junk 5. Allow control to users over how a webpage is displayed to them Arguably uBlock Origin Lite can only accomplish some of #1 and a sprinkle of #2 now. And even those abilities are compromised by artificially low limits imposed by chrome in v3 that will eventually allow ad networks to overwhelm those limits and get ads through to users. Google is 100% boiling the frog here and you/the average user is left in the pot unaware.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I don't think any of that is accurate though. Manifest v3 blocks user tracking -- if the request is blocked, any tracking attached to it is blocked. I'm sure it's not 100% perfect, but it's certainly working well enough in practice. And what malware are you talking about? If a request is blocked, it's blocked. It doesn't matter if it's an ad or malware. Manifest v3 is better at #4, because the junk isn't loaded, and the blocking is more efficient in terms of CPU. And then #5 I don't know what you're talking about. I use Stylus and Tampermonkey to customize webpages and they continue to work great. So I just don't see the evidence that "Google is 100% boiling the frog here". That's what everyone was saying, but now that Manifest v3 has come out, I just see adblocking that continues to work and uses less CPU to do it. I see a lot of fearmongering around Google, but now that the results are in with Manifest v3... they just don't seem true. You're making all these claims, but I just don't see the evidence now that we're seeing how it works in practice.
  - Spunkie 2y ago
    Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything? These limits are easy targets for ad networks to overwhelm or outmaneuver. That's what everyone was saying Everyone was saying that the new API is less capable than the old API at blocking things. DeclarativeNetRequest IS less capable; that's just a fact. No one was saying that adblockers would literally stop working, so it's beyond disingenuous to dismiss people's issues with these changes by just saying 'works for me'. What evidence would you actually accept anyway? Do you need a leaked internal document from Google saying literally 'devs, go neuter adblockers' before you believe Google might have bad intentions surrounding people's ability to block ads and tracking? If security and performance were the actual driving forces of DeclarativeNetRequest, then they would have simply added it in addition to the existing webRequest block functionality. uBlock Origin and most extensions would have happily moved the majority of their rules to the static list if it meant better performance and privacy while keeping around the webRequest blocks for the things that actually need it. Google has gone from having only one nuclear-level option for influencing adblockers (aka delisting) to now having its boot softly pressed against their necks and plenty of levers to pull. And you want me to look at that and go, 'There's no direct evidence of malicious intention there... so perfectly normal and/or acceptable behavior by the world's biggest ad company'?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eikenberry 2y ago
If I remember right then the difference is more about ad-tracking/privacy than blocking. V2 allowed UBO to find and intercept the calls to the ad servers before the calls were made. Where V3+UBL still makes the calls it just doesn't display the results. So while you might not see the ads, the ads see you.
- kuhsaft 2y ago
  On the contrary, MV2 used onBeforeRequest which let extensions see what requests you were making. They could then take that data and use it for malicious purposes. MV3 doesn’t allow extensions to know what requests are being made, so extensions can’t use your data maliciously. Requests to ads that are blocked are blocked. I think you’re thinking of Privacy-preserving ad measurement which is an option in Firefox and Safari. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...
  - GeoAtreides 2y ago
    but op wasn't talking about what extensions are seeing, but what the ad servers do. You haven't address their point at all
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    Doesn't onBeforeRequest still exist in Manifest v3? The thing that's been removed is the ability to block on it, not the ability to register handlers for requests.
    - kuhsaft 2y ago
      It still exists, but now “ad blockers” can’t use the blocking API to record and forward metrics on hits. Ad blockers don’t even need the webRequest and webRequestBlocking permissions anymore. Now, if an ad blocker has webRequest permissions it’s a red flag. For example https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/content-filtering#adapt_rules_based_on_observed_requests https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept... uses webRequest to send telemetry back to some remote server.
immibis 2y ago
The same Google that's currently in legal hot water for always hiding its true motivations so effectively that even lawyers can't get any relevant documents?
BiteCode_dev 2y ago
Haven'y tested, is it blocking youtube ads?

moi2388 2y ago

It makes things a bit more annoying? But in v3 you can still do everything you need to do to block ads

flohofwoe 2y ago

> ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. When I tried UBO Lite recently it couldn't block YouTube ads, not sure if that's impossible with Manifest V3, or if UBO Lite just isn't updated regularly like UBO to defeat the YouTube anti-ad-blocking updates. Update: looks like it's fixed now, not bad :)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Youtube's adblocker-evasion and adblocker's youtube ad blocking has been a cat-and-mouse game since time immemorial.

surajrmal 2y ago

People seem to see what they want. And many seem to be blinded by Google hate and must find ways to be unhappy with all decisions they make. Google has publicly delayed v2 depreciation to ensure ad blockers worked well under v3.

Spunkie 2y ago

This is just because Google was especially insidious about how they crippled ad blockers in v3. Adblockers do multiple things: 1. Visibly block ads from the user 2. Block the user tracking that's attached to those ads 3. Protect the user from malware 4. Save bandwidth and cpu cycles by not loading all that junk 5. Allow control to users over how a webpage is displayed to them Arguably uBlock Origin Lite can only accomplish some of #1 and a sprinkle of #2 now. And even those abilities are compromised by artificially low limits imposed by chrome in v3 that will eventually allow ad networks to overwhelm those limits and get ads through to users. Google is 100% boiling the frog here and you/the average user is left in the pot unaware.

crazygringo 2y ago
I don't think any of that is accurate though. Manifest v3 blocks user tracking -- if the request is blocked, any tracking attached to it is blocked. I'm sure it's not 100% perfect, but it's certainly working well enough in practice. And what malware are you talking about? If a request is blocked, it's blocked. It doesn't matter if it's an ad or malware. Manifest v3 is better at #4, because the junk isn't loaded, and the blocking is more efficient in terms of CPU. And then #5 I don't know what you're talking about. I use Stylus and Tampermonkey to customize webpages and they continue to work great. So I just don't see the evidence that "Google is 100% boiling the frog here". That's what everyone was saying, but now that Manifest v3 has come out, I just see adblocking that continues to work and uses less CPU to do it. I see a lot of fearmongering around Google, but now that the results are in with Manifest v3... they just don't seem true. You're making all these claims, but I just don't see the evidence now that we're seeing how it works in practice.
- Spunkie 2y ago
  Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything? These limits are easy targets for ad networks to overwhelm or outmaneuver. That's what everyone was saying Everyone was saying that the new API is less capable than the old API at blocking things. DeclarativeNetRequest IS less capable; that's just a fact. No one was saying that adblockers would literally stop working, so it's beyond disingenuous to dismiss people's issues with these changes by just saying 'works for me'. What evidence would you actually accept anyway? Do you need a leaked internal document from Google saying literally 'devs, go neuter adblockers' before you believe Google might have bad intentions surrounding people's ability to block ads and tracking? If security and performance were the actual driving forces of DeclarativeNetRequest, then they would have simply added it in addition to the existing webRequest block functionality. uBlock Origin and most extensions would have happily moved the majority of their rules to the static list if it meant better performance and privacy while keeping around the webRequest blocks for the things that actually need it. Google has gone from having only one nuclear-level option for influencing adblockers (aka delisting) to now having its boot softly pressed against their necks and plenty of levers to pull. And you want me to look at that and go, 'There's no direct evidence of malicious intention there... so perfectly normal and/or acceptable behavior by the world's biggest ad company'?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eikenberry 2y ago

If I remember right then the difference is more about ad-tracking/privacy than blocking. V2 allowed UBO to find and intercept the calls to the ad servers before the calls were made. Where V3+UBL still makes the calls it just doesn't display the results. So while you might not see the ads, the ads see you.

kuhsaft 2y ago
On the contrary, MV2 used onBeforeRequest which let extensions see what requests you were making. They could then take that data and use it for malicious purposes. MV3 doesn’t allow extensions to know what requests are being made, so extensions can’t use your data maliciously. Requests to ads that are blocked are blocked. I think you’re thinking of Privacy-preserving ad measurement which is an option in Firefox and Safari. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  but op wasn't talking about what extensions are seeing, but what the ad servers do. You haven't address their point at all
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Doesn't onBeforeRequest still exist in Manifest v3? The thing that's been removed is the ability to block on it, not the ability to register handlers for requests.
  - kuhsaft 2y ago
    It still exists, but now “ad blockers” can’t use the blocking API to record and forward metrics on hits. Ad blockers don’t even need the webRequest and webRequestBlocking permissions anymore. Now, if an ad blocker has webRequest permissions it’s a red flag. For example https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/content-filtering#adapt_rules_based_on_observed_requests https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept... uses webRequest to send telemetry back to some remote server.

immibis 2y ago

The same Google that's currently in legal hot water for always hiding its true motivations so effectively that even lawyers can't get any relevant documents?

BiteCode_dev 2y ago

Haven'y tested, is it blocking youtube ads?