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

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 779 posts

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

#81

Post by lern_too_spel »

pdimitar wrote: post #63
lern_too_spel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "system wide adblock" on iOS has the same restrictions as this new Chrome extension system. It does not support the extension API that uBlock Origin uses. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...

Not versed in the technical details but 1Blocker X for iOS Safari has prevented practically 99.9% of all ads I used to see in an unmodded Android Chrome before. I've only seen 2 websites have some form of ads in the last 14 months.

Then Chromium's Manifest v3 is for you. Most of the other people commenting here want something more powerful.

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

#82

Post by pdimitar »

whatever_dude wrote: post #34
gerdesj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too.

Same. I've already been on the fence but this would be the last straw.

I've been a double user of Chrome and Firefox for the last several months. Firefox irks me in some ways still but I've gradually grown accustomed to it. It's also much more customizable.

Indeed, if Chrome breaks uBlock Origin and uMatrix, I am just ditching it and will only use it for testing.

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

#83

Post by abtinf »

scrollaway wrote: post #42

Please don't editorialize :| Suggested title: Chromium Extension Manifest v3 change would break uMatrix/uBlock Mods?

The current title ("Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin") is more reflective of linked comment.

The essential quote from the linked comment is this: "If this ...[change to chromium is implemented]... [it] essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist."

"can no longer exist" is much closer to "disable" than "break".

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

#84

Post by scrollaway »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #9

Acquire, Embrace, Extinguish I think we're at Stage 3.

That's not the correct quip (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish); and even if it were, it doesn't make any more sense in this context than your version does.

Even in the most skeptical reading of the situation, Google never "embraced" adblockers, they allowed them. You'll note there's no extensions on Chrome for Android for example.

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

#85

Post by throwaway180118 »

sstangl wrote: post #38
aerovistae wrote: post #14

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 switched back to Thunderbird and have been content ever since. IMAP works fine.

Are you using GMail, or have you found another email host too?

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

#86

Post by jay_kyburz »

devoply wrote: post #64
sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

It fast. That most important thing.

Firefox on Windows is no slower as far as I can tell, and renders fonts better.

Firefox on Mac is noticeably slower.

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

#87

Post by lightedman »

metalliqaz wrote: post #54
swypych wrote: post #37

You can read the spec here "In Manifest V3, we want activeTab-style host permissions to be the default, with a number of extra options. Instead of being granted access to all URLs on installation, extensions will be unable to request , and instead the user can choose to invoke the extension on certain websites, like they would with activeTab. Additional settings will be available to the user post-installation, to all…

Is that for security?

No, it is so they can load stuff early enough in the data stream so that their ads load before the ad blocker can do its job.

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

#88

Post by ceejayoz »

followbl wrote: post #46

Has anyone considered they are trying to do something good here? Publishers are dying left and right...ads support a lot of good businesses!

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but browsing on my mobile device (where I don't have a good ad blocker) is regularly interrupted by redirects to malicious sites ("you're a winner!") that are clearly injected by ads.

I'll happily whitelist any ads from a network that bans scripting in the ads they accept.

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

#89

Post by coolreader18 »

If they go through with this, they would lose a fair portion of their users, even non-fossy ones. I've seen memes on popular reddit subreddits like /r/me_irl and /r/teenagers about adblockers (e.g. "you can't stop me" "I know, but he can") and I would hope that this would maybe be a breaking point for those people - they'd google "adblock not working chrome", find an article that prescribes switching browsers (probably or hopefully firefox or some non-chromium browser), and chrome would lose around 5-10% of its share. Hopefully it will at least wake people up to the monopoly google has by exclusively controlling the most popular browser.

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

#90

Post by darkpuma »

jenscow wrote: post #32

Not sure if they're purposefully blocking uBO. Those who are effected will either move to Firefox (and encourage their friends to), or just use another content-blocking technique (eg, DNS). For the few extra ad clicks they'll gain, it's just not worth the upset.

Their captcha is deliberately vindictive against users who don't have google accounts, use firefox and use uBO. For instance, the tile "fade in" lasting several seconds that plays absolutely no role in making the captcha difficult for ML to solve, existing only to punish real humans who don't comply with Google's surveillance system.

So in light of that, I see no reason to not assume malice in this case too.

Post reply on HN