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

About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 179 posts

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#141

Post by tim333 »

hosteur wrote: post #139
tim333 wrote: post #133

While I was reading this I had an update and Chrome turned off uBlock origin and bypass paywalls. I was able to to go to manage extensions and turn them on but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. By the way does anyone know if you can just turn off updates on Chrome and have it keep working in its present state?

> but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?

I quite like Chrome but I have both open on the laptop so I guess it's not a huge deal.

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#142

Post by hosteur »

tim333 wrote: post #141
hosteur wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox. It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?

I quite like Chrome but I have both open on the laptop so I guess it's not a huge deal.

I fear it will become a huge deal. At some point, Google and/or cloudflare might decide that Firefox is not allowed. This decision becomes harder to make the more people are using Firefox.

In a way, every time a Firefox user-agent string is logged it is a sort of vote for a more open web.

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#144

Post by moho »

deanc wrote: post #37
a1371 wrote: post #12

Right now uBlock Origin Lite is "featured" on Chrome web store and so far navigation has been ok in the "complete" mode. Funnily enough, it made me review the block lists of the extension and I realized that I could select more of them. Too early to jump to conclusions.

The main issue is going to be around the corner. As more and more people use CNAME cloaking to do server-side tracking using GTM (etc.), it will be a cat and mouse game to block it (and other networks). uBlock Lite cannot uncloak these CNAMES and you're going to see a pretty bad experience in due course.

uBO never had the ability to do CNAME decloaking in Chrome though, the required API (browser.dns/chrome.dns) wasn't there even in MV2. It was always a Gecko-only feature (and a big one!). IIRC Brave rolled its own CNAME decloaking mechanism in its Shields blocker, without exposing a chrome.dns API.

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#145

Post by bookofjoe »

yuvalr1 wrote: post #72
cpach wrote: post #18

I tried uBlock Origin Lite for a very short time. Then I realized that in Lite, the user can’t add custom rules[0]. That’s when I had enough. So now I’m using Firefox instead, where I can use uBlock Origin. [0] See https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ubloc...

I simply cannot give up the option of zapping distractions off of my screen. I really cannot understand how people can use Youtube or even a Youtube embedded video without zapping away the distractions. There is no way I'm coming back to Chrome if they don't support manifest V2. It's Firefox for me.

And yet 99% of YouTube's users use it as is.

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#146

Post by [deleted] »

bookofjoe wrote: post #145
yuvalr1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply cannot give up the option of zapping distractions off of my screen. I really cannot understand how people can use Youtube or even a Youtube embedded video without zapping away the distractions. There is no way I'm coming back to Chrome if they don't support manifest V2. It's Firefox for me.

And yet 99% of YouTube's users use it as is.

[deleted]

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#147

Post by snapplebobapple »

bookofjoe wrote: post #145
yuvalr1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply cannot give up the option of zapping distractions off of my screen. I really cannot understand how people can use Youtube or even a Youtube embedded video without zapping away the distractions. There is no way I'm coming back to Chrome if they don't support manifest V2. It's Firefox for me.

And yet 99% of YouTube's users use it as is.

This comment reminds me of this George Carlin bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN1Q5SjbeI

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#148

Post by whstl »

philistine wrote: post #120
whstl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blocking is the one thing that pushed me over the edge to move to Firefox from Safari. I already knew the same change was coming to Chrome so I went directly to Firefox. I will burn my computer to the ground before I watch any kind of intrusive non-contextual advertisement online.

1Blocker on Safari is an excellent experience, and available for iPhone as well where it can remove ads from inside other apps. Letterboxd for example.

Ah, I will check 1Blocker later, I clearly missed it! Thanks for the recommendation.

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#149

Post by zb3 »

elvircrn wrote: post #70
zb3 wrote: post #24

The solution on linux should be to install system-wide "policy" extensions - they support webRequestBlocking. Possibly via system package manager.

How would one go about doing this?

For UBO, first they'd need to implement MV3 while still keeping webRequestBlocking.. it seems that there's currently no information about this, so I asked them: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/35...

In general it involves setting ExtensionInstallForcelist, but I haven't tried it in practice yet, it's a concept..

Re: About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)

#150

Post by skinkestek »

bad_user wrote: post #127
skinkestek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best thing we can do to influence it is probably to use and fund forks such as LibreWolf, hoping that they are in a position to continue development once Google decides to tell the manager of Mozilla to finally destroy it completely. (Yes, that is a joke I hope, but if I compare what I think a puppet controlled by Google would do to destroy the Mozilla brand to what Mozillas CEO has been doing, I think there is a lot…

Thinking that funding forks, like LibreWolf, would save said forks from dying if Mozilla goes under, is naive. The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Estimates for Chrome range from 1 to 2 billion $ per year. In other words, take the donations of something like Wikimedia, which is arguably very successful in asking for donations, and you'd still be very short on the money needed to fund a…

> The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year.

Half a billion, IIRC, is what Mozilla gets from Google every year. This is AFAIK mostly not spent on developing the browser.

To add insult to injury AFAIK it arrives through Mozilla corporation (which develops the browser) and is then funneled through to the foundation to be spent on "initiatives".

Post reply on HN