Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

webiterate.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 648 posts

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#201

Post by taviso »

I think the new features in MV3 are great, and UBO lite is great. The initial versions of UBOl worked, but definitely lost some power user features. Those are basically all back, it now has full scriptlet support, custom dynamic filters work, element zapper is back and you can now have custom dnr rules. That's a very powerful feature that doesn't exist in UBO.

The big loss for me with the mv2 deprecation was uMatrix, so I made my own replacement. It's a prototype, but you can try it if you like: https://github.com/taviso/matrix3

I think the real question is how have Edge and Mozilla shipped WebExtension support on Android, but Google hasn't. If other competent vendors can ship it then there can't be a technical reason, it must be a policy decision. I'm more open to hearing conspiracy theories about that than MV3 :)

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#202

Post by jonas21 »

cedilla wrote: post #182
jonas21 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The webRequest extension API -- the one that uBlock Origin uses and was removed in Manifest v3 -- was not added until 2012. All of the things that made Chrome great for the web in 2010 are still there. It's strange how we can kind of misremember things to fit whatever narrative we currently believe.

It's only strange because you interpreted "Chrome made the web so much better for everyone" as "Chrome had a webRequest API", which is probably not what the original poster meant.

The article we're discussing is about how extensions that didn't upgrade to Manifest v3, including uBlock Origin, are now being removed from the Chrome web store.

uBlock Origin didn't migrate to v3 because they use the webRequest API and didn't want to switch to the less-powerful replacement, declarativeNetRequest (uBlock Origin Lite uses the new API and is available in the store).

Based on this context, it seems reasonable to assume that one of the reasons the person I replied to believes Chrome isn't making the web better any more is due to the removal of uBlock Origin. And this is due to the removal of the webRequest API.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#203

Post by andrewflnr »

soulofmischief wrote: post #163
coldpie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a glimpse of that antitrust future on the horizon with the previous admin. This spooked all the big tech weirdos so much that they put their weight behind the other guy and, well, they won. Antitrust is dead for another generation. Yay.

If only the DNC was interested in promoting candidates that work for the people and aren't just interested in lip service while mostly maintaining the status quo. Things could have been different. Imagine what 8 years of Bernie and a functioning Congress might have accomplished.

That "functioning Congress" requirement is doing a lot of the work in that claim, and no single election result would make that happen.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#204

Post by wtallis »

insanitybit wrote: post #181
wtallis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome's multiprocess sandboxing wasn't unambiguously good. It carried a steep cost in overhead. Back when Chrome was new, you could run Firefox with a decent selection of add-ons to get security benefits of similar magnitude through different mechanisms. The NoScript extension was at the forefront, providing a lot of functionality way beyond just blocking JavaScript per domain. And Firefox with extensions always had…

I doubt there are many things in this universe that are unambiguously good, but Chrome's sandboxing is certainly as close as anything. You can make your arguments about noscript if you'd like (I have a great respect for the project) but I think it was essentially irrelevant to user security at the time, real users were really harmed by malware that exploited Firefox, Java, and Flash, and Chrome killed every one of th…

I agree that on a large scale, Chrome made browsing safer for the general public at the time. But for me it made things slower, use more RAM, waste more bandwidth on ads, didn't provide meaningful security improvements, and was a big downgrade in privacy. The only time I've been successfully attacked through a browser was when a Chrome extension sold out and became adware. And Google is now deciding for a frighteningly large part of the public exactly how much security and privacy they should get.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#205

Post by 6510 »

gardnr wrote: post #7

I remember in 2010 when Chrome made the web so much better for everyone. All the early adopters were singing its praise and encouraging friends and family to use it. Now, I encourage people to use anything but Chrome. Firefox is really great these days.

It was astonishing how you fell for it back then.

In a company that size, you move around a few buttons and hundreds of millions come out. You delete some feature and poof BILLIONS are made. Who care if it upsets some % of the user base? It's billions with a B!

It was also astonishing to see HN cheer on the Great Firewall of the USA and make excuses for it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35408837

Here google has inserted it self between you and the www. It has ruled it self judge and executioner without any disclosure or accountability while simultaneously receiving your entire browser history in real time.

When they pull the plug on some website because they don't like the content it is immediately replaced by a scary red screen lying about malware that doesn't have a skip button. There use to be a button in the firefox settings to disable it but hey! Even when they reinstate it, say a week later, your website is pretty much officially dead already. Customers should take their business to someone who doesn't install malware on their computer.

If my business was to sell ads and I could simply disable your means to not view my ads I wouldn't be able to explain it to my investors. They would be like, Billions with a B! it would be hard for them to listen to the positive side of disabling my product. But lets take it to a vote...

A - Billions

B - not Billions

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#206

Post by redox99 »

wbl wrote: post #171
redox99 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox has 1.4 billion in reserves and no debt. If they stop paying tens of millions to their management, they could easily afford paying devs in perpetuity just from investing that money.

I don't think you get the compensation for devs capable of working on this stuff.

Only people who live in SF are capable of programming a browser?

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#207

Post by wtallis »

beloch wrote: post #174

Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. Then I'll get called over when the computer starts acting screwy. If Google, MS, etc. had ever gotten together and developed a way to filter malicious ads out of their own ad s…

Ad blocking has always been a safety issue.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#208

Post by btown »

ranger_danger wrote: post #24

ungoogled-chromium ( https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-por... ) still supports MV3/uBO and is de-Googled. However, this paper[1] suggests that uBO Lite (MV3) which is still supported in the latest Chrome/chromium browsers, works at least as well for almost all users as the original (MV2) uBO, and, in some cases even better than before... so it's really no cause for alarm IMO. [1] https://arxiv.…

This (whether MV3 blocking is sufficient) is the right question to ask, but also a premature answer.

Because here's the future: Google is already promoting that sites have their tag management (including ad network JS) resolve at the CDN level, with randomized custom-built URLs baked into your page source as served.

https://developers.google.com/tag-platform/tag-manager/gatew...

https://blog.cloudflare.com/google-tag-gateway-for-advertise...

In this context, the only thing that can sufficiently block ads as this is more broadly adopted, is dynamic code whose definitions and behaviors can be updated regularly. Because ad networks, including Google, will become increasingly creative (especially with the ability to use AI) in having a near-infinite set of embedding techniques.

And Google sits as both the beneficiary of unblockable ads, and (with MV3) the gatekeeper of timing for executable code updates for ad blocking extensions. Core to the MV3 model is that any use of dynamically loaded code not bundled with the extension (and subject to a mandatory review period for every update) is forbidden.

Google doesn't need to do something as drastic as disallow uBO and other extensions; they simply need to "boil the frog" over the course of years as more and more of their clients move to Tag Gateway and similar approaches, and give their ad implementation an increasing "head start" by delaying approval of uBO code updates that are trying to keep pace.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of permanent absence.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#209

Post by hungryhobbit »

philipallstar wrote: post #91
tempest_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in a tough place. They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome. The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. I am hoping the advent of LLMs allows more entrants into the space at a…

> They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) They don't need to. Chrome does extremely well on Windows without "owning the OS". > nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome Very few people go to that page anyway. > The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an a…

> They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.

QFT. The biggest impediment to Firefox's success is the Mozilla Org, which sees it as a cash cow to fund a zillion projects no one wants (sacrificing the future of the browser everyone wants).

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#210

Post by Night_Thastus »

gray_-_wolf wrote: post #77
tempest_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in a tough place. They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome. The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. I am hoping the advent of LLMs allows more entrants into the space at a…

> how to pay for that I would not mind to pay for the browser, but they will not let me.

You say that, but out of the remaining users of FF, I severely doubt even 1% would pay. Any attempt to paywall would kill whatever they have left.
Post reply on HN