Live data from Hacker News

Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

9to5google.com

241–250 of 400 posts

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#241
post #57

Use Firefox. It's an excellent browser and needs your support.

Firefox might need my support, but Mozilla does not.

So you can just use Firefox and turn off all the Mozilla-related junk you don't like. Best of both worlds.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#242
post #233

And I won't even notice. Firefox is probably the most divisive topic on this website. Mozilla gets ripped to shreds any time they're discussed, but they keep the open internet alive. I don't see how any self-respecting Hacker could choose anything else. I'm a big fan of critique, critiquing the scaffolding of our lives is the best thing we can do. That said...... we have nearly lost the browser wars and if we do it w…

There is a reason Mozilla is getting ripped to shreds. I’m using Brave and I’d rather people support a degoogled fork of chromium that supports ublock origin, than keeping Mozilla on life support. And if you don’t like Brave just fork it again.

There's a reason Brave sucks too. From dabbling into cryptocurrency to charging $60 for Brave origins, it's also a dubious proposal.

Edit: Someone on Reddit compiled a list of various fuckups. https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_b...

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Google doing "everything they can to sabotage you"? MV2's deprecation timeline was set in 2021, slipping further repeatedly. This is after they had already started the plan in 2018. It's been nearly a decade.

Boiling you slowly still means they're boiling you. They don't boil you fast, because they can't: you would balk at that. In other words, taken together, they do all they can to boil you on that issue and kill ad-blockers.

I feel like you can justify literally anything as "doing everything they can" if "they did it fast" and "they did it over the course of a decade, replaced the API, the API still supports ad blockers, etc" are treated the same way.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave has an interesting approach where they have added core support for four key MV2 extensions to the core of the browser engine, bypassing MV3 entirely. > Update: As of v1.81, we host the following Manifest V2 (MV2) extensions on Brave’s backend: AdGuard, uBO, uMatrix, NoScript. These extensions operate independently from the equivalent versions that are currently present on the Chrome Web Store, and have to be do…

I just don’t see this being sustainable long term when you’re upstream is doing everything they can to sabotage you. This is a huge maintenance burden for Brave and eventually there might be a breaking change introduced by Google that just makes this approach no longer tenable. Mozilla is extremely friendly to content blockers, and does everything they can to make sure they are well supported as first class citizens.

I think maintaining the MV2 paths would be a huge maintenance burden, but this approach, being scoped to only four plugins that are widely used, seems to be much more tractable. I'd put on about the same level of effort as maintaining their own ad blocking engine.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sadly, Firefox on iOS is the only browser that doesn't have a the possibility to run an Adblocker. Safari can run uBlock Origin. Brave had one built-in. Hell, even Edge has Adblock Plus. Does Mozilla have a contract with Google to not build one in as part of the search contract?

What? https://www.firefox.com/en-US/mobile/focus/ The only thing I use Firefox on iOS for *is* its ad blocker.

Focus does not sync with Firefox desktop, and the sync part is the reason I want to use the SAME one on desktop and mobile.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Origin Lite _can_ be beat by advertisers rotating the URLs they serve ads from. That doesn't mean advertisers are actively bypassing Lite, but they could

This can be mitigated by implementing real time updates of filter lists.

it's already implemented... in MV2.

MV3 specifically forbids remotely hosted 'code', which apparently filter lists are.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#248
post #233

And I won't even notice. Firefox is probably the most divisive topic on this website. Mozilla gets ripped to shreds any time they're discussed, but they keep the open internet alive. I don't see how any self-respecting Hacker could choose anything else. I'm a big fan of critique, critiquing the scaffolding of our lives is the best thing we can do. That said...... we have nearly lost the browser wars and if we do it w…

There is a reason Mozilla is getting ripped to shreds. I’m using Brave and I’d rather people support a degoogled fork of chromium that supports ublock origin, than keeping Mozilla on life support. And if you don’t like Brave just fork it again.

You mean the same Brave that's only going to offer "limited MV2 support" for five hand chosen extensions because they aren't able of truly keeping it alive? https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/#which-mv2-...

Anything Chromium based is tainted. They will not be able to keep out all of Google's shitty decisions because they are not building a browser, they are building a skin on top of somebody else's browser.

Re: Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

#249
post #45

Googler, opinions are my own. My understanding is they're doing this in the name of security, though it obviously has some benefit to ads. this policy more closely aligns with what Safari does today. And it prevents add-ons from scraping information since they have to put in the block list ahead of time. I've been using manifest v3 version of Adblock and it's worked just fine for me. But obviously is not perfect, but…

Correct. They indeed do this in the name of security as announcing they do it for profit would probably be bad PR.
Post reply on HN