14 ms·

Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

429 points by d3Xt3r 5mo ago

ggm 5mo ago
Does Brave track or does Brave fork on this?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- eran- 5mo ago
  It seems as if they will track it (https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/), with an exception for a selected few extensions (AdGuard AdBlocker, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix).
  - ggm 5mo ago
    The few exceptions being the ones we want. So.. a good outcome.
    - pseudalopex 5mo ago
      We want forks or better extensions impossible?
      - ggm 5mo ago
        If they were willing to make exceptions then I would hope the list isn't closed. I view this as the best of the possible worlds not the best of all imaginable worlds. Perhaps good was overkill. Less bad?
        pseudalopex 5mo ago
        They would add the most popular fork if uBlock Origin was abandoned is plausible. They would add a no reputation developer's proof of concept is unlikely I think.
- charcircuit 5mo ago
  I've found Brave's built in ad blocking to be good enough on its own.
dotcoma 5mo ago
Why are people on HN still using Chrome? (or Edge, or Opera…)
- partiallypro 5mo ago
  That's pretty irrelevant isn't it? Shouldn't all users demand privacy, especially from ads?
  - dotcoma 5mo ago
    All users should demand privacy, but they don’t. Take a look at Firefox’s market share, or Brave’s etc.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this? Gecko, WebKit and—hopefully—Ladybird are the true alternatives. I used to think this was too extreme. But the ad vendor dragging ad blockers out of the engine flipped my view.
      - dotcoma 5mo ago
        Brave, like Vivaldi, I think, have developed their own ad blocker. No idea if they will fight to keep UBlock Origin accessible or not. I think and certainly hope that Helium will fight the good fight.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      - pseudalopex 5mo ago
        > Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this? They said they could offer limited MV2 support even after it’s fully removed from the upstream Chromium codebase.[1] [1] https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
      - riffraff 5mo ago
rwmj 5mo ago
Surprised they still have this page on their site: > https://about.google/company-info/philosophy/ https://about.google/company-info/philosophy/ > 1. Focus on the user and all else will follow. > 6. You can make money without doing evil.
- userbinator 5mo ago
  Archive it before they memoryhole it.
  - pndy 5mo ago
    Yeah I'd expect someone here will note it and page will get a "deserved" update
- throwawayqqq11 5mo ago
  Google only moves fast and breaks things that matter. Their sunsetting of manifest v2 appears fast to me and updating some corporate philosophy has apparently no business impact.
- geysersam 5mo ago
  Hah > 6. You can make money without doing evil implies that they're doing it for fun then I guess?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
    Or obligation.
  - kibibu 5mo ago
    Technically, you can make money without doing evil.
    - mrandish 5mo ago
      I heard they actually changed to this wording from the original, which for a long time was "Don't be evil." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
itskamran 5mo ago
This feels more like a gradual tightening of extension APIs under Manifest V3 than a sudden “kill switch.” uBlock isn’t going away, but its capabilities are definitely being reshaped...
- qilo 5mo ago
  It is a "kill switch" - uBlock Origin will no longer work in Chrome 151 (July 28, 2026).
  - noir_lord 5mo ago
    I'm far more faithful to Ublock Origin than I am any specific browser. Sadly I don't think that's the general case, I've been on FF for decades but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
      >but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point. One wouldn't need to be loyal to UBO... a simple with-and-without comparison would be enough for anyone with a functioning brainstem.
- Chu4eeno 5mo ago
  It's all an excuse to try to neuter adblockers. The push for killing MV2 was suspiciously accelerated at the same time that youtube started implementing much more invasive anti-adblock techniques that really needed a full content blocker support (at least until people found new clever workarounds). Especially since they put no effort into removing even extensions they know are malicious (and who work very well within the MV3 restrictions): https://palant.info/2025/01/20/malicious-extensions-circumvent-googles-remote-code-ban/ https://palant.info/2025/01/20/malicious-extensions-circumve...
grishka 5mo ago
I wonder what will Vivaldi do. They say that their built-in content blocker is "good enough" that you supposedly don't need uBO (I very much disagree) but they also keep MV2 extensions working to this day.
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  Vivaldi said We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium.[1] They kept it before now because it was little effort. [1] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-future-proofed-with-its-built-in-functionality/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...
- maxloh 5mo ago
  They can only support MV2 extensions as long as Google continues to maintain them. Their tech stack is heavily JavaScript-focused, as their entire UI is written in JavaScript.
  - zamadatix 5mo ago
    How is it half of HN is convinced Firefox can compete with Chrome in its entirety and the other half is convinced nobody can possibly maintain a single additional API version on Chromium?
    - maxloh 5mo ago
      It's about the tech stack, IMO. Chromium is a moving target to maintain compatibility with, which is difficult for a team that doesn't have much C++ experience. As a counter example, Brave is heavily invested in C++ and Rust, and I believe they could handle that work much better.
      - grishka 5mo ago
        Can't Chromium-based browser developers work together to fork the entire thing? Ideally becoming independent of Google altogether.
userbinator 5mo ago
IMHO it's quite brave that a Google employee working in that area would let his real name be published, and an illuminating view of how they (don't) think.
bronlund 5mo ago
People still using that POS? :)
damnitbuilds 5mo ago
Boycott evil companies.
chinathrow 5mo ago
Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!
- perks_12 5mo ago
  Was that the year they fired the Rust team to focus on paying their executives?
  - 28304283409234 5mo ago
    Let's not exchange crap behaviour. I think google would win hands down. Firefox at least has adblocking.
    - Freak_NL 5mo ago
      The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response. That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).
      - pjc50 5mo ago
        It's remarkable how often this happens, isn't it? One incident of someone not living up to standards is suddenly an opportunity to abandon standards and go with known bad actors. It's like people giving up on the MSM and immediately latching onto propaganda Youtubers instead.
        dualvariable 5mo ago
        People latch onto consistency and hypocrisy as their filters. The problem is that anyone trying to actually be better is usually inconsistent and hypocritical at some level as in that "you criticize society, yet you participate in it" comic. If you attempt to filter out all traces of hypocrisy from your trusted sources, you wind up listening to the absolute worst people. The people trying to do better are usually the ones struggling with conflicts and inconsistencies.
geysersam 5mo ago
Finally Firefox will get a 30% usage share!
- rwmj 5mo ago
  I'm confident that Mozilla corporate will find some way to self-sabotage before that happens.
  - cryo32 5mo ago
    That is my fear. Or get distracted on some ancillary product that takes resources away from FF development. Just keep making a browser that isn’t shit. That’s your only job!
- shellwizard 5mo ago
  Normies don't care much about ads, trackers and all that nuisance. I find it astonishing when you see them dodging all that crap while browsing the Internet
HerbManic 5mo ago
Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it. I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.
- nishanmiranda 5mo ago
  Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
  - palmotea 5mo ago
    > Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future? Because pretty much all their revenue comes from Google.
    - Brybry 5mo ago
      I think Google will try to annoy Firefox users into using Chrome instead via things like needless captchas.
      - rvz 5mo ago
        They will do both. Firefox has zero leverage to do anything and is on life support with Google's money.
      - anonymousiam 5mo ago
        All the more reason to keep using Firefox. Donate if you can! https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/ https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/
        ninalanyon 5mo ago
        Last I heard was that there is no way to be sure that donations to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox.
Balinares 5mo ago
AdGuard MV3 works fine. Still switch to FF if you can, more diversity in the ecosystem benefits everyone.
- renegat0x0 5mo ago
  wasn't mv3 a dumbed down version? So it "does not work just fine" as some ads slip through?
  - charcircuit 5mo ago
    What ads are slipping through?
    - HDBaseT 5mo ago
      YouTube Ads.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - maxloh 5mo ago
    MV3 is actually a faster but less capable version. With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.
totetsu 5mo ago
uBo is the only reason I find browsing the web at all tolerable anymore. As a test I turned it off to view this article and almost crashed my browser with a dozen auto play video ads This would mean I would find the energy to get over anything that is holding me on chrome, like saved passwords etc.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  It's quite possible that we're just not meant to view the web. Those companies that even maintain websites might intend for us to really view things on their phone app. The garbage you see on the website is then not just some parasitic draining of your spiritual health, but a disincentive designed to convince you to stop using the web altogether.
  - gblargg 5mo ago
    Like Home Depot not showing the item location in store from the website, only the app.
    - sseagull 5mo ago
      I only use the Home Depot website, and it shows the location for me. Maybe it’s regional or something
      - EasyMark 5mo ago
        Yeah not sure what they're talking about, that's how I do it too
        gblargg 5mo ago
        I just tested and apparently their site is extremely flaky. I tried for several minutes to get info but nothing except one time (changing store location, refreshing). Then it started working fine for a while, updating when I changed location. I cleared cookies out each time and that didn't cause/fix it. So it's not intentional to push you to the app, just a shit site (not just because of this issue, but its extreme slowness on mobile).
topsykrates 5mo ago
I have been using UBlock Origin Lite on Chrome for a while, and while it's not perfect and needs a bit of manual tweaking here and there, it's been mostly good for me
TiredOfLife 5mo ago
uBlock Origin lite exists. And in couple years usage I see no difference from non lite version.
- michaelmrose 5mo ago
  The author of both appears to disagree.
  - tredre3 5mo ago
    His opinion is irrelevant. User experience is all that matters. As a developer I've often built "inferior" versions of products for specific user groups. The product worked perfectly for those users, they saw no difference. Yet, when asked, I'd maintain that it's inferior because <technical reasons>. And you know what? We are both right.
    - pseudalopex 5mo ago
      The author of both extensions stated facts of user experience.[1] This included some users would not notice a difference. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
    - michaelmrose 5mo ago
      You are saying that the author's opinion doesn't matter your singular experience is the only reasonable benchmark which seems less defensible. For practical quality we should also consider future resistance against anti adblocking something that the author is able to do unlike a user who just notices it hasn't failed yet. Consider manifest v3 has a fixed block list that can only be updated with the extension and only with permission of the browser.
nullbio 5mo ago
The only reason I use Chrome is because its dev tools are better, and for whatever reason, webgl wigs out on Ubuntu 26.04 in Firefox. It's mostly the lag issue though...
Ecko123 5mo ago
[dead]
jon_adler 5mo ago
Yet another reason to also perform ad blocking at the network level (e.g. DNS). I’ve found AdGuard Home very easy to maintain. Using Firefox and Orion browsers too.
- Markoff 5mo ago
  Actually the main killer feature of UbO for me is cosmetic filtering with element picker, if I wanted just any ad blocker I could use various browsers with built-in adblockers supporting lists. So much for blocking at network level.
danslo 5mo ago
>from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version In what way? I've never noticed a difference.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  The uBlock Origin Lite FAQ said In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details).[1] [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
Stevvo 5mo ago
uBlock Origin Lite gives an identical browsing experience, ad-free. What is all the fuss about?
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  Your comment was redundant.[1] And contradicted in the uBlock Origin Lite FAQ.[2] And in the article. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48472424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48472424 [2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ) https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
RockstarSprain 5mo ago
AdGuard works fine for me, on YouTube as well.
m-schuetz 5mo ago
I hope not, I switched from chrome to edge so I can continue using ublock origin.
fab13n 5mo ago
Being the maintainer of such a big open-source application as Chrome used to grant dictatorial power: maintaining a fork represented too much work. It only happened in the most awful situations, such as Oracle acquiring OpenOffice. But that was before LLM-driven development, I think that now the game has changed, and maybe Google hasn't got the leverage it thinks it has.
- tentacleuno 5mo ago
  A browser engine maintained by AI with less human oversight sounds like a recipe for disaster.
derideor 5mo ago
So, what's next? Will Chrome ship with hard coded DNS, so that DNS based adblockers will stop working as well? Where (and when) does my rights what to display on my devices end?
- somat 5mo ago
  Ship has already sailed, it's called DoH. Please note, that it is to make your DNS safer and has absolutely nothing to do with removing your ability to resolve DNS in whatever way you want to(cough adblock cough).
  - derideor 5mo ago
    I guess I just missed that?! I'm running a mix of Adguard and nextdns blockers on some of my mobile devices, and both are apparently handling the DoH issue for you; by just blanket blocking the resolvers and/or ports, to force a fallback.... I need a Beer.
    - account42 5mo ago
      Don't worry. Once their telemetry shows that DoH is working for enough users they'll push to remove the fallback for security reasons.
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 5mo ago
    How does DoH remove any capabilities of what the resolver can respond to queries with? I block ads via a DoH resolver.
    - somat 5mo ago
      DoH is intended to be indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic, if the application specifies a specific DoH server a DNS based ad block will not work. Right now The ad companies have not really figured this out and DoH largely works like port 53 DNS did. But give it a few years. They will up their game and our ability to mitm our own dns queries will vanish. I will miss it.
rvz 5mo ago
Totally not a monopoly on the browser space /s
sunaookami 5mo ago
I hope Firefox never drops MV2. I have a lot of other extensions that use it other than uBlock. Can't believe Google really went through with it. We are truly in the end times of "personal" computing, very sad to see :/
- Sayrus 5mo ago
  MV3 itself isn't what breaks uBlock Origin, it is the bundled removal of capabilities that Chrome decided to do. Firefox MV3 supports full WebRequest "scopes" while Chrome only supports declarativeNetRequest.
  - Hoodedcrow 4mo ago
    I know Chrome has some additional limitations, and in a vacuum MV3 doesn't break UBO as hard - but is blocking of the "Element picker" part of that or inherent to MV3? I rely on that a lot.
spwa4 5mo ago
"removing Effectively-dead code" nice euphemism for directly killing a feature people desperately want ...
Havoc 5mo ago
Adtech company insists on ramming more unwanted ads down your throat
zuzululu 5mo ago
Google : "You will own nothing and like manifest v3" smiling smugly from planet firefox
JamesTRexx 5mo ago
Just about obligatory mention of Pale Moon here. Have had a relatively clean internet experience for years with the old Firefox uBlock extension in combination with eMatrix. *Includes a disclaimer because I don't use Youtube and other assorted "social" media websites. Only need Firefox ESR for a handful of websites giving me no option when specifying a Linux/Mozilla user agent instead of the native one for those doesn't work.
jameson 5mo ago
Moved to Firefox. Thank you Firefox.
curiousgal 5mo ago
> Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns. You know what else is a security concern? Ads. The amount of mental gymnastics is insane. It's honestly insulting.
apimade 5mo ago
So, consider this a layman explanation of why this change is bad from someone who spends their time securing end-users. This change is good for the majority of users, but is actually bad for large enterprise customers and highly-regulated customers. It puts more control and onus of responsibility on to Google, rather than the end-user. So, we will expect to see better enforcement of controls from Google for the lowest-hanging-fruit that some aspects of MV2 exposed. What's that, you say? MV2 changes? Well there's 3 things. 1. Remote code execution. The ability for someone to just yeet commands into your browser. A little harder to do directly.. Still very possible, just with extra steps. 2. Removing the ability for extensions to access network requests directly, which is what adblockers often relied on. It also means malicious extensions could snoop on your requests. They still can, just with extra steps. 3. Background persistence, an extension could stay alive, maintain state, run timers, keep connections open, and coordinate across tabs. So this shuts off the "background persistence" piece -- but helps with ensuring better isolation. Still possible, but now requires yeeting your data to an external provider instead of keeping the state contained locally. Those 3 changes are incredibly powerful, and will impact many, many Enterprise security tools. Tools that now instead will result in products like "Island Browser", and "Enterprise Chrome" being rolled out to supplement the functionality that MV2 gave us. This change goes against the US and Australian government's hardening advice, and reduces the overall efficacy of security controls we're able to implement within our web browsers natively. CISA's own guidance on this is pretty straightforward (aptly named Securing Web Browsers and Defending Against Malvertising for Federal Agencies): https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/CISA%20CEG%20Securing%20Web%20Browsers%20And%20Defending%20Against%20Malvertising.pdf https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/CISA%20CEG%... Here's the Australian Government's control relating to it: > Control: ISM-1485; Revision: 1; Updated: Sep-21; Applicable: NC, OS, P, S, TS; Essential 8: ML1, ML2, ML3 > Web browsers do not process web advertisements from the internet. And if you're wondering about what incentives there are that led to this change, you can read this letter written to the Chairman of the FTC by a US Senator back in 2020. This letter is linked to from the same CISA document I shared earlier. You should read it in full, and consider what incentives the Senator was referring to -- and how they also apply in this scenario. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/011420%20Wyden%20Ad%20Blocking%20Letter%20to%20FTC.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/011420%20Wyden%20... Those Enterprise Chrome products I mentioned earlier? Chrome's change has now put some of this functionality which was previously possible with an extension, behind the Enterprise Chrome Premium SKU: https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-premium/#:~:text=Malware%20deep%20scanning,incidents%20for%20investigation. https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...
austin-cheney 5mo ago
The solution then is to run the equivalent of a PiHole on your private network and then configure your portable devices to always use that PiHole as their DNS service via self hosted VPN
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  DNS ad blocking is useful. It does not replace browser ad blocking.
- nizbit 5mo ago
  Pihole is great for DNS filtering but doesn’t hide elements, no filtering and script blocking.
zerr 5mo ago
Chrome: uBlock Origin is dead. Any other browser with uBlock Origin: Chrome is dead.
AltruisticGapHN 5mo ago
uBlock Origin Lite works just as well. I don't see any ads anywhere. My experience has not changed one yota. People just like to rage against Google. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/... It's even available on iOS, I have it running in Safari
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  uBlock Origin Lite's author disagreed.[1] [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
  - AltruisticGapHN 5mo ago
    I've never had to configure anything in uBO, it works great out of the box. Therefore uBOL experience is practically the same. I haven't seen a single ads in months of browsing.
    - pseudalopex 5mo ago
      The author said clearly this was site dependent.
orwin 5mo ago
Opera was a strong contender to become my main browser (luckily firefox copied the most useful feature, it's vpn), if ublock is deactivated, I will let it go without a second look.
- sourcegrift 5mo ago
  Since when does firefox have vpn,?
  - orwin 5mo ago
    A week or two?
lelanthran 5mo ago
Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere. I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details". I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox - online shopping, social media, banking, custom line-of-business internal apps, ERP apps... you name it. And, TBH, if I did, I'd just visit that one site with Chrome, and still use FF daily.
- vintagedave 5mo ago
  For me it's speed. I used FireFox for the same reasons, for years. Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact. I kept reading posts about how the FireFox team was increasing performance, yet it never seemed to really impact it. Maybe because I often have several windows with a dozen tabs each (yes, one of those people.) These days I have given up, and I haven't tried it for about two years now, maybe more. Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post? It still lives on the Dock, next to Safari and Chrome. I can't bear to remove the icon. And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy. At this point, I'd pay for a non-Chromium, highly performant, privacy-first browser.
  - moebrowne 5mo ago
    > Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react Are you opening "several windows with a dozen tabs each" in Chrome? If not, then it's hardly a fair comparison.
    - vintagedave 5mo ago
      Absolutely. In fact I find I can use Chrome more heavily.
  - lelanthran 5mo ago
metalman 5mo ago
It looks like crunch time is here. Personaly I have never watched add's on the net, by useing alternative browsers for 99% of my time, doing things like downloading a browser to do online banking, and then uninstalling it. Even as a child I didn't like advertisements, and have never owned a TV, for the simple reason that NO advertisement has ever shown me something I wanted, and could have. I have learned to let the net do it's thing, and provide me with work making things that people want, or show a lead to a product if I search (think~tractor part) but the rest is alien and very unpleasant for me to encounter. Here is the guy who builds the browser I use https://www.stoutner.com/about/ https://www.stoutner.com/about/ git https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserAndroid.git;a=summary https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserAndroid.git;a=s... download https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-android/changelog/ https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-android/changelog/
Devasta 5mo ago
Clamping down on adblocking was always the plan and anyone who suggested differently was knowingly lying.
kmfrk 5mo ago
The year is 2030. Content's been blocked by age verification and overreach, but the ads still remain.
TomMasz 5mo ago
The university I work at is heavily dependent on Google and its products, so I use Vivaldi for work. Otherwise, it's Firefox. I've been using it since the beginning and see no reason to change. If a site doesn't work with it, than I don't visit that site.
kahf56 5mo ago
Could brave browser continue their add block rampage?
z3ratul163071 5mo ago
thank god for firefox
fallbackboy 5mo ago
I would recommend folks check out Helium (https://helium.computer https://helium.computer) it’s fast, basically just ungoogled chromium, and has full support for ublock origin.
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  > full support for ublock origin This meant they added to Blink all the Gecko features uBlock Origin used?[1] Or they said they could maintain MV2 after Google removed it fully? Or they supported it so far? They said We'll keep support for MV2 extensions for as long as possible. But other developers said this and meant they would support MV2 until Google removed it. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
  - fallbackboy 5mo ago
    They bundle uBlock Origin into their Chromium fork, I expect that if it became too difficult to support the APIs needed on MV2, they'd integrate the features more directly into the browser.
bodash 5mo ago
My browser combo: Firefox Developer Edition + uBo + Privacy Badger + Facebook Containers One time setup, it’s synced to Mozilla account for later reinstalls
- sourcegrift 5mo ago
  Caution?: mozilla sync doesn't guarantee storage space? They claim you need another instance running?
ajkjk 5mo ago
If I stop having a way to block ads I will stop using the internet. They are so evil.
mindcrash 5mo ago
Ungoogled Chromium (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/) will 99.9% likely patch MV2 back in if they remove it (as there's already support and they will never remove it) and Ungoogled Chromium based Helium (https://helium.computer/ https://helium.computer/) even ships with uBlock Origin by default. And then there's still Firefox and all of its forks. Best of luck to Big Tech as people will move on elsewhere.
yannicklesuisse 5mo ago
PM of Orion here. Orion (https://orionbrowser.com https://orionbrowser.com) is a WebKit-based browser for Mac, Linux, iPadOS and iOS that supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions natively ⟩ including uBlock Origin. We have no plans to drop extension support. Content blocking is a feature, not a loophole, and we think users should have full control over what runs in their browser.
- coffe2mug 5mo ago
  Linux? I can't find it in the downloads.
- hamburgererror 5mo ago
  I will consider Orion only when it is open source.
  - maxloh 5mo ago
    Yeah. At least Chromium is open source.
  - yannicklesuisse 5mo ago
    We get this question a lot. Our CEO is clear about this: Our guiding principle isn’t about licensing models ... it’s about interoperability. The original Unix philosophy (McIlroy, Ritchie, Thompson) says nothing about source code licensing. It’s about programs that do one thing well and work together through universal interfaces. Open source is a distribution and licensing model; conflating it with software openness misrepresents those core tenets. Orion supports Chrome extensions, Firefox extensions, and standard web APIs — that’s interoperability in practice. That being said, the future is not written ;)
    - stonogo 5mo ago
      Applying the 'one thing well' bumper sticker to a web browser, which does a million things in a mediocre fashion, is a bizarre take. Not only is that whole comparison inapplicable, it's orthagonal to the point. You can do 'one thing well' and open source the code too, but you're not, and this post does not explain why.
ChoGGi 5mo ago
"We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately)." Poor little Google doesn't have the resources to support mv2.
- Henchman21 5mo ago
  > we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately I bet they ain’t found shit, or even looked. There was a time I would read that charitably because it was Google, but that time has long passed. That reads like a lie to justify their actions.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
js2 5mo ago
I use uBO lite with Safari on macOS/iOS and maybe I just don't know what I'm (not?) missing, but it seems fine? I rarely see ads. Is uBO lite for Chrome that much worse than uBO?
sourcegrift 5mo ago
Mitchell baker dropped the ball (or was compromised) in that she did not ship firefox with an adblocker when they had the chance to stifle google
KronisLV 5mo ago
Switched back over to Firefox a few weeks ago, it's as pleasant as I remember it being. Unfortunately sometimes my Intel Arc B580 has a driver quirk where all the windows freeze and unlike Chromium based browsers I can't open Task Manager and kill the GPU Process and have it restart and have everything keep working, but rather have to kill the whole browser and restart it and hope the tabs load back correctly - thankfully haven't had many issues with losing those (only once or twice in the past year, but those were fucking annoying). Either way, I explored both Edge as my daily driver for a year or so and also Safari on my Mac - both are actually fine as far as the user experience is concerned, but in the end I still come back to Firefox. It's a browser, it doesn't feel user hostile, it does its job well enough. Also personally I like its devtools more.
atesti 5mo ago
Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
- scary-size 5mo ago
  I thought the AdGuard folks were looking doing just that!
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- varenc 5mo ago
  partially, but it couldn't replicate all functionally. A lot of uBO rules apply to elements on the DOM. Like hiding a div with ID "#ads". That div often isn't sent as pure HTML, but is instead added to the page via JS code executing. At the MITM-level you won't be able to have rules that apply to the rendered DOM. That said, selector based ad-blocking is still supported in MV3. So might be possible to get most of the functionality with both a MITM-level blocker and an MV3 selector based blocker.
protoster 5mo ago
I expected some kind of fallout from Google nuking uBo. I've heard pretty much nothing so far.
- hightrix 5mo ago
  I'm only one person but that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I no longer use any google software/services other than gmail and even that is just a spam folder at this point. That change came after Google's changes around MV3 were released. I actively campaign against using Google anything at my job as well.
  - jesuslop 5mo ago
    Yep the MV3 thing was my ticket out also here. And some benchmarks about firefox better memory usage. All their parlance about they "protecting us" is patronizing.
RobotToaster 5mo ago
I wonder if Edge will follow suit, it will be an odd world if MS ends up being the good guy for once.
- protoster 5mo ago
  >Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Microsoft Edge could soon follow suit too. Although it is not specified, Edge began disabling uBlock Origin back in February Cmon, it's in the article.
  - RobotToaster 5mo ago
    I read the article. "could soon" is meaningless Yes they disabled the extension at one point if you had it installed, but it was 2 clicks to re-enable it. The edge extension store shows 14m active edge ublock origin users.
nipperkinfeet 5mo ago
I am using the AdGuard for Windows method. Everything is filtered at network level using a local proxy. I don't need to waste my time anymore worrying about which browser ruins their extension API by following Google's nonsense.
Henchman21 5mo ago
“Don’t be evil”
Obscurity4340 5mo ago
This headline ("looking to") seems to soften the previous headlines I've seen about this. Is this a proclamation or a public negotiation???
Liskni_si 5mo ago
What about this (actively maintained) fork of uBO that polyfills some MV2 APIs to make uBO work as an MV3 extension: https://github.com/r58playz/uBlock-mv3 https://github.com/r58playz/uBlock-mv3 Anyone tried that?
mDyJzDPmBdG 5mo ago
[dead]
pjjpo 4mo ago
Completely irrelevant news - switched to Zen Browser last year and never looking back. (Cheeky phrasing, of course this is an anecdote. But for anyone the news is relevant to, definitely recommend a try!)
hkchad 4mo ago
I dropped Chrome about 2 years ago. FireFox does everything I need it to do and more.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

429 points by d3Xt3r 5mo ago

ggm 5mo ago

Does Brave track or does Brave fork on this?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
eran- 5mo ago
It seems as if they will track it (https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/), with an exception for a selected few extensions (AdGuard AdBlocker, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix).
- ggm 5mo ago
  The few exceptions being the ones we want. So.. a good outcome.
  - pseudalopex 5mo ago
    We want forks or better extensions impossible?
    - ggm 5mo ago
      If they were willing to make exceptions then I would hope the list isn't closed. I view this as the best of the possible worlds not the best of all imaginable worlds. Perhaps good was overkill. Less bad?
      - pseudalopex 5mo ago
        They would add the most popular fork if uBlock Origin was abandoned is plausible. They would add a no reputation developer's proof of concept is unlikely I think.
charcircuit 5mo ago
I've found Brave's built in ad blocking to be good enough on its own.

dotcoma 5mo ago

Why are people on HN still using Chrome? (or Edge, or Opera…)

partiallypro 5mo ago
That's pretty irrelevant isn't it? Shouldn't all users demand privacy, especially from ads?
- dotcoma 5mo ago
  All users should demand privacy, but they don’t. Take a look at Firefox’s market share, or Brave’s etc.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this? Gecko, WebKit and—hopefully—Ladybird are the true alternatives. I used to think this was too extreme. But the ad vendor dragging ad blockers out of the engine flipped my view.
    - dotcoma 5mo ago
      Brave, like Vivaldi, I think, have developed their own ad blocker. No idea if they will fight to keep UBlock Origin accessible or not. I think and certainly hope that Helium will fight the good fight.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - pseudalopex 5mo ago
      > Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this? They said they could offer limited MV2 support even after it’s fully removed from the upstream Chromium codebase.[1] [1] https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
    - riffraff 5mo ago

rwmj 5mo ago

Surprised they still have this page on their site: > https://about.google/company-info/philosophy/ https://about.google/company-info/philosophy/ > 1. Focus on the user and all else will follow. > 6. You can make money without doing evil.

userbinator 5mo ago
Archive it before they memoryhole it.
- pndy 5mo ago
  Yeah I'd expect someone here will note it and page will get a "deserved" update
throwawayqqq11 5mo ago
Google only moves fast and breaks things that matter. Their sunsetting of manifest v2 appears fast to me and updating some corporate philosophy has apparently no business impact.
geysersam 5mo ago
Hah > 6. You can make money without doing evil implies that they're doing it for fun then I guess?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  Or obligation.
- kibibu 5mo ago
  Technically, you can make money without doing evil.
  - mrandish 5mo ago
    I heard they actually changed to this wording from the original, which for a long time was "Don't be evil." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

itskamran 5mo ago

This feels more like a gradual tightening of extension APIs under Manifest V3 than a sudden “kill switch.” uBlock isn’t going away, but its capabilities are definitely being reshaped...

qilo 5mo ago
It is a "kill switch" - uBlock Origin will no longer work in Chrome 151 (July 28, 2026).
- noir_lord 5mo ago
  I'm far more faithful to Ublock Origin than I am any specific browser. Sadly I don't think that's the general case, I've been on FF for decades but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
    >but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point. One wouldn't need to be loyal to UBO... a simple with-and-without comparison would be enough for anyone with a functioning brainstem.
Chu4eeno 5mo ago
It's all an excuse to try to neuter adblockers. The push for killing MV2 was suspiciously accelerated at the same time that youtube started implementing much more invasive anti-adblock techniques that really needed a full content blocker support (at least until people found new clever workarounds). Especially since they put no effort into removing even extensions they know are malicious (and who work very well within the MV3 restrictions): https://palant.info/2025/01/20/malicious-extensions-circumvent-googles-remote-code-ban/ https://palant.info/2025/01/20/malicious-extensions-circumve...

grishka 5mo ago

I wonder what will Vivaldi do. They say that their built-in content blocker is "good enough" that you supposedly don't need uBO (I very much disagree) but they also keep MV2 extensions working to this day.

pseudalopex 5mo ago
Vivaldi said We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium.[1] They kept it before now because it was little effort. [1] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-future-proofed-with-its-built-in-functionality/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...
maxloh 5mo ago
They can only support MV2 extensions as long as Google continues to maintain them. Their tech stack is heavily JavaScript-focused, as their entire UI is written in JavaScript.
- zamadatix 5mo ago
  How is it half of HN is convinced Firefox can compete with Chrome in its entirety and the other half is convinced nobody can possibly maintain a single additional API version on Chromium?
  - maxloh 5mo ago
    It's about the tech stack, IMO. Chromium is a moving target to maintain compatibility with, which is difficult for a team that doesn't have much C++ experience. As a counter example, Brave is heavily invested in C++ and Rust, and I believe they could handle that work much better.
    - grishka 5mo ago
      Can't Chromium-based browser developers work together to fork the entire thing? Ideally becoming independent of Google altogether.

userbinator 5mo ago

IMHO it's quite brave that a Google employee working in that area would let his real name be published, and an illuminating view of how they (don't) think.

bronlund 5mo ago

People still using that POS? :)

damnitbuilds 5mo ago

Boycott evil companies.

chinathrow 5mo ago

Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!

perks_12 5mo ago
Was that the year they fired the Rust team to focus on paying their executives?
- 28304283409234 5mo ago
  Let's not exchange crap behaviour. I think google would win hands down. Firefox at least has adblocking.
  - Freak_NL 5mo ago
    The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response. That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).
    - pjc50 5mo ago
      It's remarkable how often this happens, isn't it? One incident of someone not living up to standards is suddenly an opportunity to abandon standards and go with known bad actors. It's like people giving up on the MSM and immediately latching onto propaganda Youtubers instead.
      - dualvariable 5mo ago
        People latch onto consistency and hypocrisy as their filters. The problem is that anyone trying to actually be better is usually inconsistent and hypocritical at some level as in that "you criticize society, yet you participate in it" comic. If you attempt to filter out all traces of hypocrisy from your trusted sources, you wind up listening to the absolute worst people. The people trying to do better are usually the ones struggling with conflicts and inconsistencies.

geysersam 5mo ago

Finally Firefox will get a 30% usage share!

rwmj 5mo ago
I'm confident that Mozilla corporate will find some way to self-sabotage before that happens.
- cryo32 5mo ago
  That is my fear. Or get distracted on some ancillary product that takes resources away from FF development. Just keep making a browser that isn’t shit. That’s your only job!
shellwizard 5mo ago
Normies don't care much about ads, trackers and all that nuisance. I find it astonishing when you see them dodging all that crap while browsing the Internet

HerbManic 5mo ago

Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it. I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.

nishanmiranda 5mo ago
Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
- palmotea 5mo ago
  > Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future? Because pretty much all their revenue comes from Google.
  - Brybry 5mo ago
    I think Google will try to annoy Firefox users into using Chrome instead via things like needless captchas.
    - rvz 5mo ago
      They will do both. Firefox has zero leverage to do anything and is on life support with Google's money.
    - anonymousiam 5mo ago
      All the more reason to keep using Firefox. Donate if you can! https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/ https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/
      - ninalanyon 5mo ago
        Last I heard was that there is no way to be sure that donations to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox.

Balinares 5mo ago

AdGuard MV3 works fine. Still switch to FF if you can, more diversity in the ecosystem benefits everyone.

renegat0x0 5mo ago
wasn't mv3 a dumbed down version? So it "does not work just fine" as some ads slip through?
- charcircuit 5mo ago
  What ads are slipping through?
  - HDBaseT 5mo ago
    YouTube Ads.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- maxloh 5mo ago
  MV3 is actually a faster but less capable version. With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.

totetsu 5mo ago

uBo is the only reason I find browsing the web at all tolerable anymore. As a test I turned it off to view this article and almost crashed my browser with a dozen auto play video ads This would mean I would find the energy to get over anything that is holding me on chrome, like saved passwords etc.

NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
It's quite possible that we're just not meant to view the web. Those companies that even maintain websites might intend for us to really view things on their phone app. The garbage you see on the website is then not just some parasitic draining of your spiritual health, but a disincentive designed to convince you to stop using the web altogether.
- gblargg 5mo ago
  Like Home Depot not showing the item location in store from the website, only the app.
  - sseagull 5mo ago
    I only use the Home Depot website, and it shows the location for me. Maybe it’s regional or something
    - EasyMark 5mo ago
      Yeah not sure what they're talking about, that's how I do it too
      - gblargg 5mo ago
        I just tested and apparently their site is extremely flaky. I tried for several minutes to get info but nothing except one time (changing store location, refreshing). Then it started working fine for a while, updating when I changed location. I cleared cookies out each time and that didn't cause/fix it. So it's not intentional to push you to the app, just a shit site (not just because of this issue, but its extreme slowness on mobile).

topsykrates 5mo ago

I have been using UBlock Origin Lite on Chrome for a while, and while it's not perfect and needs a bit of manual tweaking here and there, it's been mostly good for me

TiredOfLife 5mo ago

uBlock Origin lite exists. And in couple years usage I see no difference from non lite version.

michaelmrose 5mo ago
The author of both appears to disagree.
- tredre3 5mo ago
  His opinion is irrelevant. User experience is all that matters. As a developer I've often built "inferior" versions of products for specific user groups. The product worked perfectly for those users, they saw no difference. Yet, when asked, I'd maintain that it's inferior because <technical reasons>. And you know what? We are both right.
  - pseudalopex 5mo ago
    The author of both extensions stated facts of user experience.[1] This included some users would not notice a difference. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
  - michaelmrose 5mo ago
    You are saying that the author's opinion doesn't matter your singular experience is the only reasonable benchmark which seems less defensible. For practical quality we should also consider future resistance against anti adblocking something that the author is able to do unlike a user who just notices it hasn't failed yet. Consider manifest v3 has a fixed block list that can only be updated with the extension and only with permission of the browser.

nullbio 5mo ago

The only reason I use Chrome is because its dev tools are better, and for whatever reason, webgl wigs out on Ubuntu 26.04 in Firefox. It's mostly the lag issue though...

Ecko123 5mo ago

[dead]

jon_adler 5mo ago

Yet another reason to also perform ad blocking at the network level (e.g. DNS). I’ve found AdGuard Home very easy to maintain. Using Firefox and Orion browsers too.

Markoff 5mo ago
Actually the main killer feature of UbO for me is cosmetic filtering with element picker, if I wanted just any ad blocker I could use various browsers with built-in adblockers supporting lists. So much for blocking at network level.

danslo 5mo ago

>from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version In what way? I've never noticed a difference.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
pseudalopex 5mo ago
The uBlock Origin Lite FAQ said In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details).[1] [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Stevvo 5mo ago

uBlock Origin Lite gives an identical browsing experience, ad-free. What is all the fuss about?

pseudalopex 5mo ago
Your comment was redundant.[1] And contradicted in the uBlock Origin Lite FAQ.[2] And in the article. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48472424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48472424 [2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ) https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

RockstarSprain 5mo ago

AdGuard works fine for me, on YouTube as well.

m-schuetz 5mo ago

I hope not, I switched from chrome to edge so I can continue using ublock origin.

fab13n 5mo ago

Being the maintainer of such a big open-source application as Chrome used to grant dictatorial power: maintaining a fork represented too much work. It only happened in the most awful situations, such as Oracle acquiring OpenOffice. But that was before LLM-driven development, I think that now the game has changed, and maybe Google hasn't got the leverage it thinks it has.

tentacleuno 5mo ago
A browser engine maintained by AI with less human oversight sounds like a recipe for disaster.

derideor 5mo ago

So, what's next? Will Chrome ship with hard coded DNS, so that DNS based adblockers will stop working as well? Where (and when) does my rights what to display on my devices end?

somat 5mo ago
Ship has already sailed, it's called DoH. Please note, that it is to make your DNS safer and has absolutely nothing to do with removing your ability to resolve DNS in whatever way you want to(cough adblock cough).
- derideor 5mo ago
  I guess I just missed that?! I'm running a mix of Adguard and nextdns blockers on some of my mobile devices, and both are apparently handling the DoH issue for you; by just blanket blocking the resolvers and/or ports, to force a fallback.... I need a Beer.
  - account42 5mo ago
    Don't worry. Once their telemetry shows that DoH is working for enough users they'll push to remove the fallback for security reasons.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 5mo ago
  How does DoH remove any capabilities of what the resolver can respond to queries with? I block ads via a DoH resolver.
  - somat 5mo ago
    DoH is intended to be indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic, if the application specifies a specific DoH server a DNS based ad block will not work. Right now The ad companies have not really figured this out and DoH largely works like port 53 DNS did. But give it a few years. They will up their game and our ability to mitm our own dns queries will vanish. I will miss it.

rvz 5mo ago

Totally not a monopoly on the browser space /s

sunaookami 5mo ago

I hope Firefox never drops MV2. I have a lot of other extensions that use it other than uBlock. Can't believe Google really went through with it. We are truly in the end times of "personal" computing, very sad to see :/

Sayrus 5mo ago
MV3 itself isn't what breaks uBlock Origin, it is the bundled removal of capabilities that Chrome decided to do. Firefox MV3 supports full WebRequest "scopes" while Chrome only supports declarativeNetRequest.
- Hoodedcrow 4mo ago
  I know Chrome has some additional limitations, and in a vacuum MV3 doesn't break UBO as hard - but is blocking of the "Element picker" part of that or inherent to MV3? I rely on that a lot.

spwa4 5mo ago

"removing Effectively-dead code" nice euphemism for directly killing a feature people desperately want ...

Havoc 5mo ago

Adtech company insists on ramming more unwanted ads down your throat

zuzululu 5mo ago

Google : "You will own nothing and like manifest v3" smiling smugly from planet firefox

JamesTRexx 5mo ago

Just about obligatory mention of Pale Moon here. Have had a relatively clean internet experience for years with the old Firefox uBlock extension in combination with eMatrix. *Includes a disclaimer because I don't use Youtube and other assorted "social" media websites. Only need Firefox ESR for a handful of websites giving me no option when specifying a Linux/Mozilla user agent instead of the native one for those doesn't work.

jameson 5mo ago

Moved to Firefox. Thank you Firefox.

curiousgal 5mo ago

> Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns. You know what else is a security concern? Ads. The amount of mental gymnastics is insane. It's honestly insulting.

apimade 5mo ago

So, consider this a layman explanation of why this change is bad from someone who spends their time securing end-users. This change is good for the majority of users, but is actually bad for large enterprise customers and highly-regulated customers. It puts more control and onus of responsibility on to Google, rather than the end-user. So, we will expect to see better enforcement of controls from Google for the lowest-hanging-fruit that some aspects of MV2 exposed. What's that, you say? MV2 changes? Well there's 3 things. 1. Remote code execution. The ability for someone to just yeet commands into your browser. A little harder to do directly.. Still very possible, just with extra steps. 2. Removing the ability for extensions to access network requests directly, which is what adblockers often relied on. It also means malicious extensions could snoop on your requests. They still can, just with extra steps. 3. Background persistence, an extension could stay alive, maintain state, run timers, keep connections open, and coordinate across tabs. So this shuts off the "background persistence" piece -- but helps with ensuring better isolation. Still possible, but now requires yeeting your data to an external provider instead of keeping the state contained locally. Those 3 changes are incredibly powerful, and will impact many, many Enterprise security tools. Tools that now instead will result in products like "Island Browser", and "Enterprise Chrome" being rolled out to supplement the functionality that MV2 gave us. This change goes against the US and Australian government's hardening advice, and reduces the overall efficacy of security controls we're able to implement within our web browsers natively. CISA's own guidance on this is pretty straightforward (aptly named Securing Web Browsers and Defending Against Malvertising for Federal Agencies): https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/CISA%20CEG%20Securing%20Web%20Browsers%20And%20Defending%20Against%20Malvertising.pdf https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/CISA%20CEG%... Here's the Australian Government's control relating to it: > Control: ISM-1485; Revision: 1; Updated: Sep-21; Applicable: NC, OS, P, S, TS; Essential 8: ML1, ML2, ML3 > Web browsers do not process web advertisements from the internet. And if you're wondering about what incentives there are that led to this change, you can read this letter written to the Chairman of the FTC by a US Senator back in 2020. This letter is linked to from the same CISA document I shared earlier. You should read it in full, and consider what incentives the Senator was referring to -- and how they also apply in this scenario. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/011420%20Wyden%20Ad%20Blocking%20Letter%20to%20FTC.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/011420%20Wyden%20... Those Enterprise Chrome products I mentioned earlier? Chrome's change has now put some of this functionality which was previously possible with an extension, behind the Enterprise Chrome Premium SKU: https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-premium/#:~:text=Malware%20deep%20scanning,incidents%20for%20investigation. https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...

austin-cheney 5mo ago

The solution then is to run the equivalent of a PiHole on your private network and then configure your portable devices to always use that PiHole as their DNS service via self hosted VPN

pseudalopex 5mo ago
DNS ad blocking is useful. It does not replace browser ad blocking.
nizbit 5mo ago
Pihole is great for DNS filtering but doesn’t hide elements, no filtering and script blocking.

zerr 5mo ago

Chrome: uBlock Origin is dead. Any other browser with uBlock Origin: Chrome is dead.

AltruisticGapHN 5mo ago

uBlock Origin Lite works just as well. I don't see any ads anywhere. My experience has not changed one yota. People just like to rage against Google. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/... It's even available on iOS, I have it running in Safari

pseudalopex 5mo ago
uBlock Origin Lite's author disagreed.[1] [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- AltruisticGapHN 5mo ago
  I've never had to configure anything in uBO, it works great out of the box. Therefore uBOL experience is practically the same. I haven't seen a single ads in months of browsing.
  - pseudalopex 5mo ago
    The author said clearly this was site dependent.

orwin 5mo ago

Opera was a strong contender to become my main browser (luckily firefox copied the most useful feature, it's vpn), if ublock is deactivated, I will let it go without a second look.

sourcegrift 5mo ago
Since when does firefox have vpn,?
- orwin 5mo ago
  A week or two?

lelanthran 5mo ago

Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere. I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details". I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox - online shopping, social media, banking, custom line-of-business internal apps, ERP apps... you name it. And, TBH, if I did, I'd just visit that one site with Chrome, and still use FF daily.

vintagedave 5mo ago
For me it's speed. I used FireFox for the same reasons, for years. Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact. I kept reading posts about how the FireFox team was increasing performance, yet it never seemed to really impact it. Maybe because I often have several windows with a dozen tabs each (yes, one of those people.) These days I have given up, and I haven't tried it for about two years now, maybe more. Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post? It still lives on the Dock, next to Safari and Chrome. I can't bear to remove the icon. And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy. At this point, I'd pay for a non-Chromium, highly performant, privacy-first browser.
- moebrowne 5mo ago
  > Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react Are you opening "several windows with a dozen tabs each" in Chrome? If not, then it's hardly a fair comparison.
  - vintagedave 5mo ago
    Absolutely. In fact I find I can use Chrome more heavily.
- lelanthran 5mo ago

metalman 5mo ago

It looks like crunch time is here. Personaly I have never watched add's on the net, by useing alternative browsers for 99% of my time, doing things like downloading a browser to do online banking, and then uninstalling it. Even as a child I didn't like advertisements, and have never owned a TV, for the simple reason that NO advertisement has ever shown me something I wanted, and could have. I have learned to let the net do it's thing, and provide me with work making things that people want, or show a lead to a product if I search (think~tractor part) but the rest is alien and very unpleasant for me to encounter. Here is the guy who builds the browser I use https://www.stoutner.com/about/ https://www.stoutner.com/about/ git https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserAndroid.git;a=summary https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserAndroid.git;a=s... download https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-android/changelog/ https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-android/changelog/

Devasta 5mo ago

Clamping down on adblocking was always the plan and anyone who suggested differently was knowingly lying.

kmfrk 5mo ago

The year is 2030. Content's been blocked by age verification and overreach, but the ads still remain.

TomMasz 5mo ago

The university I work at is heavily dependent on Google and its products, so I use Vivaldi for work. Otherwise, it's Firefox. I've been using it since the beginning and see no reason to change. If a site doesn't work with it, than I don't visit that site.

kahf56 5mo ago

Could brave browser continue their add block rampage?

z3ratul163071 5mo ago

thank god for firefox

fallbackboy 5mo ago

I would recommend folks check out Helium (https://helium.computer https://helium.computer) it’s fast, basically just ungoogled chromium, and has full support for ublock origin.

pseudalopex 5mo ago
> full support for ublock origin This meant they added to Blink all the Gecko features uBlock Origin used?[1] Or they said they could maintain MV2 after Google removed it fully? Or they supported it so far? They said We'll keep support for MV2 extensions for as long as possible. But other developers said this and meant they would support MV2 until Google removed it. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
- fallbackboy 5mo ago
  They bundle uBlock Origin into their Chromium fork, I expect that if it became too difficult to support the APIs needed on MV2, they'd integrate the features more directly into the browser.

bodash 5mo ago

My browser combo: Firefox Developer Edition + uBo + Privacy Badger + Facebook Containers One time setup, it’s synced to Mozilla account for later reinstalls

sourcegrift 5mo ago
Caution?: mozilla sync doesn't guarantee storage space? They claim you need another instance running?

ajkjk 5mo ago

If I stop having a way to block ads I will stop using the internet. They are so evil.

mindcrash 5mo ago

Ungoogled Chromium (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/) will 99.9% likely patch MV2 back in if they remove it (as there's already support and they will never remove it) and Ungoogled Chromium based Helium (https://helium.computer/ https://helium.computer/) even ships with uBlock Origin by default. And then there's still Firefox and all of its forks. Best of luck to Big Tech as people will move on elsewhere.

yannicklesuisse 5mo ago

PM of Orion here. Orion (https://orionbrowser.com https://orionbrowser.com) is a WebKit-based browser for Mac, Linux, iPadOS and iOS that supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions natively ⟩ including uBlock Origin. We have no plans to drop extension support. Content blocking is a feature, not a loophole, and we think users should have full control over what runs in their browser.

coffe2mug 5mo ago
Linux? I can't find it in the downloads.
hamburgererror 5mo ago
I will consider Orion only when it is open source.
- maxloh 5mo ago
  Yeah. At least Chromium is open source.
- yannicklesuisse 5mo ago
  We get this question a lot. Our CEO is clear about this: Our guiding principle isn’t about licensing models ... it’s about interoperability. The original Unix philosophy (McIlroy, Ritchie, Thompson) says nothing about source code licensing. It’s about programs that do one thing well and work together through universal interfaces. Open source is a distribution and licensing model; conflating it with software openness misrepresents those core tenets. Orion supports Chrome extensions, Firefox extensions, and standard web APIs — that’s interoperability in practice. That being said, the future is not written ;)
  - stonogo 5mo ago
    Applying the 'one thing well' bumper sticker to a web browser, which does a million things in a mediocre fashion, is a bizarre take. Not only is that whole comparison inapplicable, it's orthagonal to the point. You can do 'one thing well' and open source the code too, but you're not, and this post does not explain why.

ChoGGi 5mo ago

"We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately)." Poor little Google doesn't have the resources to support mv2.

Henchman21 5mo ago
> we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately I bet they ain’t found shit, or even looked. There was a time I would read that charitably because it was Google, but that time has long passed. That reads like a lie to justify their actions.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

js2 5mo ago

I use uBO lite with Safari on macOS/iOS and maybe I just don't know what I'm (not?) missing, but it seems fine? I rarely see ads. Is uBO lite for Chrome that much worse than uBO?

sourcegrift 5mo ago

Mitchell baker dropped the ball (or was compromised) in that she did not ship firefox with an adblocker when they had the chance to stifle google

KronisLV 5mo ago

Switched back over to Firefox a few weeks ago, it's as pleasant as I remember it being. Unfortunately sometimes my Intel Arc B580 has a driver quirk where all the windows freeze and unlike Chromium based browsers I can't open Task Manager and kill the GPU Process and have it restart and have everything keep working, but rather have to kill the whole browser and restart it and hope the tabs load back correctly - thankfully haven't had many issues with losing those (only once or twice in the past year, but those were fucking annoying). Either way, I explored both Edge as my daily driver for a year or so and also Safari on my Mac - both are actually fine as far as the user experience is concerned, but in the end I still come back to Firefox. It's a browser, it doesn't feel user hostile, it does its job well enough. Also personally I like its devtools more.

atesti 5mo ago

Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?

scary-size 5mo ago
I thought the AdGuard folks were looking doing just that!
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
varenc 5mo ago
partially, but it couldn't replicate all functionally. A lot of uBO rules apply to elements on the DOM. Like hiding a div with ID "#ads". That div often isn't sent as pure HTML, but is instead added to the page via JS code executing. At the MITM-level you won't be able to have rules that apply to the rendered DOM. That said, selector based ad-blocking is still supported in MV3. So might be possible to get most of the functionality with both a MITM-level blocker and an MV3 selector based blocker.

protoster 5mo ago

I expected some kind of fallout from Google nuking uBo. I've heard pretty much nothing so far.

hightrix 5mo ago
I'm only one person but that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I no longer use any google software/services other than gmail and even that is just a spam folder at this point. That change came after Google's changes around MV3 were released. I actively campaign against using Google anything at my job as well.
- jesuslop 5mo ago
  Yep the MV3 thing was my ticket out also here. And some benchmarks about firefox better memory usage. All their parlance about they "protecting us" is patronizing.

RobotToaster 5mo ago

I wonder if Edge will follow suit, it will be an odd world if MS ends up being the good guy for once.

protoster 5mo ago
>Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Microsoft Edge could soon follow suit too. Although it is not specified, Edge began disabling uBlock Origin back in February Cmon, it's in the article.
- RobotToaster 5mo ago
  I read the article. "could soon" is meaningless Yes they disabled the extension at one point if you had it installed, but it was 2 clicks to re-enable it. The edge extension store shows 14m active edge ublock origin users.

nipperkinfeet 5mo ago

I am using the AdGuard for Windows method. Everything is filtered at network level using a local proxy. I don't need to waste my time anymore worrying about which browser ruins their extension API by following Google's nonsense.

Henchman21 5mo ago

“Don’t be evil”

Obscurity4340 5mo ago

This headline ("looking to") seems to soften the previous headlines I've seen about this. Is this a proclamation or a public negotiation???

Liskni_si 5mo ago

What about this (actively maintained) fork of uBO that polyfills some MV2 APIs to make uBO work as an MV3 extension: https://github.com/r58playz/uBlock-mv3 https://github.com/r58playz/uBlock-mv3 Anyone tried that?

mDyJzDPmBdG 5mo ago

[dead]

pjjpo 4mo ago

Completely irrelevant news - switched to Zen Browser last year and never looking back. (Cheeky phrasing, of course this is an anecdote. But for anyone the news is relevant to, definitely recommend a try!)

hkchad 4mo ago

I dropped Chrome about 2 years ago. FireFox does everything I need it to do and more.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]