4 ms·

What's the reasoning behind this? Anyone working at Google care to share with us?

tw04 2y ago
The claim is for security. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the fact it primarily affects ad blockers was a happy little accident or intentional on Google’s part.
- cptskippy 2y ago
  Their revenue streams are now secure.
  - hbn 2y ago
    The bag is secured
rsanheim 2y ago
The days of Google engaging with the tech community, or even pretending to try and explain their decisions when it comes to Chrome, SEO, or search quality are long, long gone. There really is no need for an explanation here, its all laid out: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings tells you everything you need to know.
paxys 2y ago
The reasoning is that Google, an advertising company, wants to show you ads
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
adrr 2y ago
Security. Extensions can't pull it remote scripts and execute them on a web page. Everything has to be in the extension so you know exactly what it is doing. All the browsers will switch to manifest v3, they all testing it now including Firefox.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  That's Google's fake reason, but it's obvious that their real reason was that Manifest v2 let ad blockers work too well.
  - adrr 2y ago
    Why is Firefox switching to it? https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/manifest-v3-migration-guide/ https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/manifest...
    - pacifika 2y ago
      That page only says they are supporting it, not dropping support for it?
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      Adding support for Manifest v3 is fine and not an issue for ad blockers. The issue for ad blockers is removing support for Manifest v2, which AFAIK Firefox has no plans to do.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Their crippling of ad blockers goes well beyond merely preventing ad blockers from downloading dynamic rulesets. The changes cannot all be justified by security.
cptskippy 2y ago
They sell ads, uBlock is an Ad Blocker. Does it need anymore explanation? They will give you all manner of justification for their actions but when it comes down to it, uBlock interferes with their ability to monetize you and they want it gone. This abusive relationship people have with Chrome is reminiscent of MAGA folks.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  Thats why the v3 uBlock Origin lite is a recomended extension in chrome store.
  - cptskippy 2y ago
    Lite uses Manifest v3 and this is limited in what it can do, and how quickly it can adapt. It's like saying a swimmer can still compete with a boat anchor tied around their neck in a new pool that's 12 ft deep. As soon as this controversy is over and UBO is gone, the arms race against Lite will start and it will lose.
joquarky 2y ago
You can infer the reasoning by considering that Doubleclick took on the name Google a while ago.

tw04 2y ago

The claim is for security. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the fact it primarily affects ad blockers was a happy little accident or intentional on Google’s part.

cptskippy 2y ago
Their revenue streams are now secure.
- hbn 2y ago
  The bag is secured

rsanheim 2y ago

The days of Google engaging with the tech community, or even pretending to try and explain their decisions when it comes to Chrome, SEO, or search quality are long, long gone. There really is no need for an explanation here, its all laid out: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/googl/earnings tells you everything you need to know.

paxys 2y ago

The reasoning is that Google, an advertising company, wants to show you ads

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

adrr 2y ago

Security. Extensions can't pull it remote scripts and execute them on a web page. Everything has to be in the extension so you know exactly what it is doing. All the browsers will switch to manifest v3, they all testing it now including Firefox.

josephcsible 2y ago
That's Google's fake reason, but it's obvious that their real reason was that Manifest v2 let ad blockers work too well.
- adrr 2y ago
  Why is Firefox switching to it? https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/manifest-v3-migration-guide/ https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/manifest...
  - pacifika 2y ago
    That page only says they are supporting it, not dropping support for it?
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    Adding support for Manifest v3 is fine and not an issue for ad blockers. The issue for ad blockers is removing support for Manifest v2, which AFAIK Firefox has no plans to do.
wtallis 2y ago
Their crippling of ad blockers goes well beyond merely preventing ad blockers from downloading dynamic rulesets. The changes cannot all be justified by security.

cptskippy 2y ago

They sell ads, uBlock is an Ad Blocker. Does it need anymore explanation? They will give you all manner of justification for their actions but when it comes down to it, uBlock interferes with their ability to monetize you and they want it gone. This abusive relationship people have with Chrome is reminiscent of MAGA folks.

TiredOfLife 2y ago
Thats why the v3 uBlock Origin lite is a recomended extension in chrome store.
- cptskippy 2y ago
  Lite uses Manifest v3 and this is limited in what it can do, and how quickly it can adapt. It's like saying a swimmer can still compete with a boat anchor tied around their neck in a new pool that's 12 ft deep. As soon as this controversy is over and UBO is gone, the arms race against Lite will start and it will lose.

joquarky 2y ago

You can infer the reasoning by considering that Doubleclick took on the name Google a while ago.