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

Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 250 posts

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#101

Post by type0 »

derefr wrote: post #15

Two 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 Mani…

> 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

I don't see why Google would ever allow it, unless some new regulation from EU or other gov. bodies mandate it.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#102

Post by StableAlkyne »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #11

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome

The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do.

The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a browser is just the thing their OS exists to run for them.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#103

Post by belltaco »

shadowgovt wrote: post #51
zlg_codes wrote: post #26

Watch the already limited traffic I send to Google servers go even lower. I am not entangled in their mess. None of the faangs can touch me because I wasn't stupid enough to put my entire digital life in the hands of a company. I'm looking ten or more years in the future, though. By that time, the Firefox/Chrome duopoly will be broken by alternatives that don't compromise between the user and business models.

Email still working for you without a FAANG host?

Outlook.com isn't FAANG.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#104

Post by derefr »

type0 wrote: post #101
derefr wrote: post #15

Two 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 Mani…

> 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 I don't see why Google would ever allow it, unless some new regulation from EU or other gov. bodies mandate it.

Does Google have veto power over what goes into Chromium?

I had always assumed the relationship between Chromium and Google was akin to the relationship between Webkit and Apple, or between any ASF-donated project and its corporate originator: a community-owned (and several-major-corporate-stakeholders sponsored) open-source project upstream, with a corporate closed-source "living patchset" project sitting downstream of it; where the corporate devs try to push as much as possible upstream, to keep the patchset they must maintain downstream as thin as possible; but where it isn't up to the corporate devs whether the upstream "steering committee" accepts the corporate work upstream.

But I guess this isn't true; per Wikipedia:

> However, in terms of governance, the Chromium projects are not independent entities; Google retains firm control of them.

Which is just bizarre to me, given the following sentence on that page:

> The Chromium browser codebase is widely used, so others have made important contributions, most notably Microsoft, Igalia, Yandex, Intel, Samsung, LG, Opera, Vivaldi Technologies, and Brave. Some employees of these companies also have @chromium.org email addresses.

You'd think these other companies wouldn't stand for Google having unilateral control over a project they're so dependent on! But I guess, as large corporations, they can always express their true concerns through more... corporate politick-y means.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#105

Post by timetraveller26 »

sharps1 wrote: post #95
derefr wrote: post #15

Two 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 Mani…

Edge is following chromes lead. Vivaldi and Brave are going to maintain the code so at least uBlock Origin can work. Nobody knows how this will play out as the forks won’t want to stray faraway from the chromium code as that would add a lot of overhead. I tried a bunch of the forks, didn’t like Vivaldi, don’t like some of Braves crap, and won’t use the Chinese browser Opera. Ended up moving our family back to Firefox…

You should check https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox and Firefox Container Manager extension :)

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#106

Post by grayhatter »

layer8 wrote: post #22
derefr wrote: post #15

Two 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 Mani…

One reason Google wants to remove V2 support is to make implementation changes that V2 currently prevents. This means that a Chromium fork that preserves V2 support will likely have to diverge further and further from Chromium over time (or rather, Chromium will diverge).

[citation needed]

I've heard this said a few times but no one has ever supplied any reputable source other than fanciful speculation. It's become such a meme at this point that I'm pretty sure it's just harmful disinformation.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#107

Post by jillesvangurp »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #3

Most of the Internet is almost unusable without ad blockers. I suspect this will be good for Firefox.

IE being very advertising friendly and user hostile was the original reason for Firefox to emerge and Chrome to be created. Both blocked popups and provided more user control. Both had extensions. And ad blocking quickly became a popular application of extensions. I've not used a browser without an ad blocker for probably close to seventeen years or so. Why would I opt in to ads?

IE did not survive the competition. And Google did well with chrome. But technically it's weird that they continue to convince people that use operating systems that come with a different browser to install Chrome. Firefox has the same challenge.

It seems that Google has gotten a bit too used to that being a thing that users are eager to do. The more ads that slip through the defenses, the more market share they'll loose to other browsers. This is a classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Their ad revenue (i.e. most of their revenue) is largely dependent on Chrome being something users want to use. More ads means less users. And as MS has demonstrated with IE, having a leading position is no guarantee whatsoever of keeping that. Even their position as the dominant fork of Chromium is not guaranteed. If people get annoyed enough, they might just fork and cut loose. Happened before when Google forked Apple's webkit. Which in turn was a fork of khtml. Not saying that's likely to happen soon but it's always an option.

Anyway, I'm happy using Firefox. No ads for me. Also not on Youtube.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#108

Post by okdood64 »

belltaco wrote: post #100
stainablesteel wrote: post #45

in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.

> EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers When did that happen? Link?

It didn’t.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#109

Post by wzdd »

derefr wrote: post #89

I'd like clarification on something. I've spent an hour or two trying to figure this out to no avail, so I suspect many other people might be wondering the same thing I am. Examining the Manifest V3 changes more closely ( https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o... ), and comparing/contrasting to what uBlock Origin themselves say about it ( https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/117499585442…

AIUI it's because declarativeNetRequest only allows a small number of dynamic rules (5000). See https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla... . Most of the popular filter lists are much larger than that. For example, EasyList is about 70k rules. So even if you offered an option to download a list, you wouldn't be able to add most lists dynamically.

Also note that the site you linked is for UBlock, which is a different extension from UBlock Origin. If you're interested in what the UBO developer thinks the differences are, the UBlock Origin Lite (UBlock Origin for MV3) page has a write-up: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#110

Post by grayhatter »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #102
stephc_int13 wrote: post #11

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a br…

> Technically inclined users don't need Chrome

You're right, but you're forgetting, Chrome needs technically inclined users. Yes there's always people without enough awareness to be satisfied with the walled garden, but Firefox used to be popular because it was user, and importantly power user friendly.

Something will usurp that thrown, the power users will switch and then so will everybody else

Post reply on HN