Live data from Hacker News

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

291–300 of 779 posts

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#291
Quote from the linked design doc:

The current webRequest API allows extensions to intercept network requests in order to modify, redirect, or block them. It is frequently used by content blockers. Currently, with the webRequest permission, an extension can delay a request for an arbitrary amount of time, since Chrome needs to wait for the result from the extension in order to continue processing the request. The basic flow is that when a network request begins, Chrome sends information about it to interested extensions, and the extensions respond with which action to take. This begins in the browser process, involves a process hop to the extension's renderer process, where the extension then performs arbitrary (and potentially very slow) JavaScript, and returns the result back to the browser process. This can have a significant effect on every single network request, even those that are not modified, redirected, or blocked by the extension (since Chrome needs to dispatch the event to the extension to determine the result).

Google has noticed (as have I) that a typical chrome instance is significantly slowed down by things like adblock plus, because it turns out running every URL through a million regex's uses a massive amount of CPU and really slows down loading. As web pages get bigger and have more resources, it isn't going to scale.

This has been going on a long time, and there are totally ways to improve performance, but typically ad-blocker authors don't have a commercial incentive to make their software super performant, so as far as I know, none have even implemented basic performance features like prefix trees, bloom filters or hashed lookups.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#294
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm invested in the Google ecosystem, and have recently got myself a Pixel Slate that I carry everywhere as my primary computing/ media device (no more separate laptop and tablet). It would now be silly of me to use Firefox in place of Chrome. Moreover I have got nothing to hide, so all these privacy-fears don't concern me; in fact I often feel like they are being overblown.

Moreover I have got nothing to hide That's not your call to make.

what?

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Google, an ad company, not interfere with an ad blocker? No one has to use Chrome and Google doesn't have to allow ad blockers.

ruthless pursuit of profit risks alienation of its customers? good point though. I'd be shocked if >10% of Chrome users use uBlock Origin, in which case it's probably worth it (for their shareholders). Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us

> Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us

Exactly, we are the product they are selling

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#296

Could someone please help explain the technical details of this? From what I can gather from the chrome.webRequest and chrome.declarativeNetRequest documentation, it looks like this change would make it difficult to have long lists of blocked hosts, or perhaps to update such lists automatically. Obviously there is a conflict of interest here for Google, but it looks like there are at least a few non-bogus justificati…

There's a couple of different issues with the proposed API:

* There's a limit of 30k blocked rules, which isn't enough to fully block every ad (for example, EasyList alone is 87k filters right now).

* The declarativeNetRequest API only supports a limited set of filter options. Currently, uBlock supports a bunch of additional options that give you more fine-grained control over what is blocked [0]; most of that wouldn't be possible in the new API.

* AFAICT, the ruleset can't be updated dynamically, which would prevent uBlock's dynamic filtering [1] mode from working.

Google's argument is that doing this improves performance (because it doesn't require communicating with the extension), and that it improves privacy. The privacy issue does have some merit - uBlock's author seems to be trustworthy, but other extensions might not be - but the performance argument in particular seems really shaky. uBlock's benchmarks [2] show that it takes around 0.1ms to decide whether to allow a network request. The only way it could noticeably impact performance is if the overhead of communicating with the extension process is really high, and that sounds like something Google should fix rather than eliminating it.

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-effic...

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's totally fine, but it's still disingenuous to claim that Firefox is the only other browser out there.

Chrome------------------64.15% Internet Explorer--------10.83% Firefox-------------------9.89% Edge---------------------4.30% Safari--------------------3.80% Opera--------------------1.58% Safari will survive since Apple is their patron. Obviously Internet Explorer is only a lumbering undead husk at this point, and it's pretty shameful that it's still outgunning Firefox by a small amount. Even more sad that it's got…

Your numbers are off by a bit.

I work for a website with around 1.2 billion annual pageviews. Mobile Safari is about 55%, Chrome (mobile & desktop) 35% and everything else gets the leftovers. Samsung browser is growing fast while IE, Edge, macOS Safari and Firefox are rounding errors.

Kindle browser does better than IE. It’s amazing how far and hard it's fallen.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#298
post #235
post #195

If uBlock stops working... I stop using Chrome. Simple as that.

Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.

Network level ad-blocking doesn't work very well.

Privoxy (and Proxomitron before it) were doing it 20 years ago, but never caught on because they're a PITA to setup and can't handle inline adverts. Pi-hole is new, but it's even more work to setup, and suffers the same limitations.

And as ad-blocking has become more popular the problems only gotten worse. It's unusual that I see any ads any more, but when I do it's always in an inline div or span with a "random" id or class name, essentially invisible to pi-hole.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#299

Used to love google, for many many years. Slowly starting to despise them, though. It's different for everyone, but for me it started with this gmail redesign that made the product so slow it's almost worthless to me. And worst of all is I feel like there isn't even a good competing service to switch to. And now Chrome...

I blame the CEO. Is it a coincidence that all the best Google products peaked in 2012-2016?

They literally removed the don't be evil motto as the reason for their conduct.

People will say that they still have, but that's just a stupid line at the end. They used to have a whole preface dedicated to it and have the code of conduct based around it.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't threaten, don't wait, do it now.

Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I value the extension very highly, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of Firefox at all. Leadership, code, marketing, UI, etc. I'll probably move to Safari
Post reply on HN