Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.
Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
11–20 of 250 posts
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#12I've used Chrome for a decade and there's no way I pick it up if they actually commit to this.
That said, they already announced plans to do this once and then backed down for a year due to pushback around MV3.
Guess we'll see what happens.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#13How many of these stories do we need on HN? This is like dupe # 100.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#14Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#15Two questions I haven't seen addressed by any coverage of this change:
1. Will the ultimate removal of Manifest V2 support affect other Chromium-based browsers, or only Chrome itself?
If the support for Manifest V2 isn't removed upstream in Chromium, but only disabled in Chrome, then I would expect that we will end up in a world where other browsers (e.g. Edge, Brave, Opera) continue to allow the installation of Manifest V2 extensions, esp. from their own first-party verified-extension hosting platforms. So even if the Chrome Web Store also ceases to host Manifest V2 extensions, users of these other Chromium-based browsers could still get uBlock Origin from "Edge Add-ons" or "Opera Addons" etc.
2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a PR to the upstream Chromium project, to introduce one or more Manifest V3 capabilities (new strings for the manifest.json "permissions" key) that, when added, would allow the extension to do all the stuff that Manifest V2 let extensions do by default, that uBO and others depend on: increased request-filter list size, async periodic network data-file updates, etc? Would such a PR have any chance of being accepted?
My own guess is that such a PR wouldn't be accepted, because I get the impression that the nominal goal of Manifest V3 is to allow V3 extensions to run under a streamlined extension "runtime" that has fewer hook-points into the browser runtime, and so fewer places where the browser runtime must call back to the extension runtime; where adding such capabilities would require adding all these additional hook-points and callbacks back in, which would defeat the purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong!
I would also guess that even if such a PR were accepted, Chrome would still disable the use of those capabilities downstream, and also reject any extension that used them from the Chrome Web Store. So at best, such a change would just mean that uBO and friends wouldn't be stuck as "legacy" Manifest V2 extensions, but could instead just be "modern" Manifest V3 extensions with a few capabilities that Chrome and only Chrome forcibly rejects.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#16Can we all finally make a concerted effort to switch back to Firefox? I get it, it was slow and bloated when Chrome initially came out and everyone switched. Well, it's not slow or bloated anymore and Chrome is now officially evil. It's time. Don't just switch your own browser. Switch the browsers of all the non-technical folks that come to you for questions.
Even better, can we all finally make a concerted effort and make a new browser better than Chrome and Firefox? We only let the net get jizzed on because we allow it to be. If Serenity can do it, imagine if all those who push repos to github collaborating together and actually making an open source project for all and everyone. Both browsers are old and have been abused.
It takes a special kind of hubris to think you're going to develop a browser better than Chrome and Firefox as an open source project.
Both Chromium and Firefox are already open source projects.
What is the magic sauce that's going to make this effort suddenly produce a perfect browser?
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#17I like using Chrome and even went back to it after trying FF and Brave 2-3 years ago. But this would really make me look for alternatives, even if those are inferior. It's not even about Youtube. I pay for Youtube Premium. But not being able to block third party cookies would be a deal breaker.
If even tech people (who could easily have multiple browsers around) prefer Chrome over Firefox for minor problems out of convenience, I don't see how Firefox is supposed to really notably gain any market share even if Google completely locks out ad blockers.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#18Can we all finally make a concerted effort to switch back to Firefox? I get it, it was slow and bloated when Chrome initially came out and everyone switched. Well, it's not slow or bloated anymore and Chrome is now officially evil. It's time. Don't just switch your own browser. Switch the browsers of all the non-technical folks that come to you for questions.
Even better, can we all finally make a concerted effort and make a new browser better than Chrome and Firefox? We only let the net get jizzed on because we allow it to be. If Serenity can do it, imagine if all those who push repos to github collaborating together and actually making an open source project for all and everyone. Both browsers are old and have been abused.
> If Serenity can do it
Microsoft, on the other hand, gave up on it.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Google has the money/power to put anti-adblocker technology inside chips. Needless to say, I'm not applauding any steps in this direction.
What, a browser chip?
Don't see why it couldn't happen. Offload data communications to it's own chip, one that connects to a StarNet. Locked down running a Java Virtual Machine presenting an optical browser to your eye retina's; surveillance controlled as it's hooked to your brains cortex via Elon's animal killing NutellaLink.
Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
#20I like using Chrome and even went back to it after trying FF and Brave 2-3 years ago. But this would really make me look for alternatives, even if those are inferior. It's not even about Youtube. I pay for Youtube Premium. But not being able to block third party cookies would be a deal breaker.
majority of the people will still use Chrome even if Google literally delists all blockers from the planet. One major reason being "browser migration". The guys on HN crying foul on most of these articles are a vocal minority. This s Google's version of "corner the market and raise the prices". They ll lost 2-5% market share at max