4 ms·

Bad headline. Popular ad blockers have already switched to MV3, and MV2 has already been disabled for all users.

by Legend2440 4mo ago

nicce 4mo ago
Most would not consider MV3 versions as ”adblockers” anymore.
- spankalee 4mo ago
  Yeah, I think calling the Mv3 versions "secure adblockers" would be more accurate.
  - WesolyKubeczek 4mo ago
    Secure for whom?
    - spankalee 4mo ago
      Browser users. Pre Mv3 extensions were a huge vector for malware. My in-laws were hit by that.
      - jdiff 4mo ago
        You can write malicious MV3 extensions. The changes' stated reason was performance, not security.
  - curt15 4mo ago
    How about "nerfed adblockers"? Do any of the MV3 versions replicate the full power of ublock origin on Firefox? (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...)
  - pluralmonad 4mo ago
    To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.
- Legend2440 4mo ago
  I'm still not seeing any ads. Works fine for me.
- fg137 4mo ago
  Most (real world, not HN) users don't really notice any difference between MV2 and MV3 based extensions.
  - vachina 4mo ago
    MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.
    - keldaris 4mo ago
      Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
    - novafunc 4mo ago
      I just tested Chromium with uBlock Origin Lite (default settings, aka "Optimal") and had no issue blocking YouTube ads.
    - yaro330 4mo ago
      You say that like MV2 version didn't need extensive workarounds to block YT ads.
      - maleldil 4mo ago
        MV2 makes those workarounds possible in the first place, which MV3 doesn't.
    - TiredOfLife 4mo ago
      It does.
- tartoran 4mo ago
  Do they block ads though? I am now only using Firefox because I can install Ublock origin and that works out for me.
  - zdragnar 4mo ago
    uBO lite blocks between most and all of the ads, at least on the sites I browse. I honestly didn't notice a difference switching over. I'm actually more curious to hear what sites it doesn't do a good job on.
  - dunham 4mo ago
    ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off. For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox. So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons: - Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this. - Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.) - Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it). - I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.
_flux 4mo ago
I was under the impression MV3 is stricly less capable in terms of blocking ability than MV2?
- maxloh 4mo ago
  Yeah. MV3 is 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. There is a limit on how large the list can be, depending on the browser.
  - GrinningFool 4mo ago
    I also thought under MV3 you could block ads, but not the tracking that they do.
  - SadErn 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - jdiff 4mo ago
    JavaScript really isn't that slow. JIT compilation can wind up faster than AOT compilation. And much of the APIs called by JavaScript is natively-implemented browser code. JavaScript is faster than C# yet people implement games in C# (not the engine cores, but that's a very similar situation to JS) and don't bat an eye.
    - bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
      > JavaScript is faster than C# Apples to oranges, scripts need an entire browser/Interpeter framework underneath it to even function
      - jdiff 4mo ago
        See the mentioned game engine reference which closely parallels this.
mrinterweb 4mo ago
MV3 is not an improvement over MV2 for the purposes of ad blocking.
Havoc 4mo ago
The headline is correct. The popular ones like uBO are 100% dead on Chrome thanks to googles coercion. They didn't just "switch". They had to fundamentally change how they block ads and the new version the adtech company forced upon everyone...drumroll...is less effective at blocking ads. What a coincidence! Per uBlock: >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
- skybrian 4mo ago
  uBlock Origin Light is still pretty good though. Maybe it's good enough for most people?
  - Havoc 4mo ago
    That presumably was the point. Move the goal post but only incrementally and so much that people will tolerate it
    - dbbk 4mo ago
      I think you are overthinking it. If Chrome actually wanted to ban ad blockers they could just do it.

Bad headline. Popular ad blockers have already switched to MV3, and MV2 has already been disabled for all users.

nicce 4mo ago

Most would not consider MV3 versions as ”adblockers” anymore.

spankalee 4mo ago
Yeah, I think calling the Mv3 versions "secure adblockers" would be more accurate.
- WesolyKubeczek 4mo ago
  Secure for whom?
  - spankalee 4mo ago
    Browser users. Pre Mv3 extensions were a huge vector for malware. My in-laws were hit by that.
    - jdiff 4mo ago
      You can write malicious MV3 extensions. The changes' stated reason was performance, not security.
- curt15 4mo ago
  How about "nerfed adblockers"? Do any of the MV3 versions replicate the full power of ublock origin on Firefox? (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...)
- pluralmonad 4mo ago
  To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.
Legend2440 4mo ago
I'm still not seeing any ads. Works fine for me.
fg137 4mo ago
Most (real world, not HN) users don't really notice any difference between MV2 and MV3 based extensions.
- vachina 4mo ago
  MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.
  - keldaris 4mo ago
    Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
  - novafunc 4mo ago
    I just tested Chromium with uBlock Origin Lite (default settings, aka "Optimal") and had no issue blocking YouTube ads.
  - yaro330 4mo ago
    You say that like MV2 version didn't need extensive workarounds to block YT ads.
    - maleldil 4mo ago
      MV2 makes those workarounds possible in the first place, which MV3 doesn't.
  - TiredOfLife 4mo ago
    It does.
tartoran 4mo ago
Do they block ads though? I am now only using Firefox because I can install Ublock origin and that works out for me.
- zdragnar 4mo ago
  uBO lite blocks between most and all of the ads, at least on the sites I browse. I honestly didn't notice a difference switching over. I'm actually more curious to hear what sites it doesn't do a good job on.
- dunham 4mo ago
  ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off. For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox. So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons: - Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this. - Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.) - Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it). - I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.

_flux 4mo ago

I was under the impression MV3 is stricly less capable in terms of blocking ability than MV2?

maxloh 4mo ago
Yeah. MV3 is 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. There is a limit on how large the list can be, depending on the browser.
- GrinningFool 4mo ago
  I also thought under MV3 you could block ads, but not the tracking that they do.
- SadErn 4mo ago
  [dead]
- jdiff 4mo ago
  JavaScript really isn't that slow. JIT compilation can wind up faster than AOT compilation. And much of the APIs called by JavaScript is natively-implemented browser code. JavaScript is faster than C# yet people implement games in C# (not the engine cores, but that's a very similar situation to JS) and don't bat an eye.
  - bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
    > JavaScript is faster than C# Apples to oranges, scripts need an entire browser/Interpeter framework underneath it to even function
    - jdiff 4mo ago
      See the mentioned game engine reference which closely parallels this.

mrinterweb 4mo ago

MV3 is not an improvement over MV2 for the purposes of ad blocking.

Havoc 4mo ago

The headline is correct. The popular ones like uBO are 100% dead on Chrome thanks to googles coercion. They didn't just "switch". They had to fundamentally change how they block ads and the new version the adtech company forced upon everyone...drumroll...is less effective at blocking ads. What a coincidence! Per uBlock: >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

skybrian 4mo ago
uBlock Origin Light is still pretty good though. Maybe it's good enough for most people?
- Havoc 4mo ago
  That presumably was the point. Move the goal post but only incrementally and so much that people will tolerate it
  - dbbk 4mo ago
    I think you are overthinking it. If Chrome actually wanted to ban ad blockers they could just do it.