I know the submission title matches the title of the Reddit post, but both titles are misleading—Google didn't mention uBO by name, they just confirmed that all Manifest v2 extensions will be disabled.
If A=B and B=C, then yadda yadda.
Plus, for me at least, there are plenty of other extensions I'd like to continue using, not just uBO :(
- Google blocks uBlock Origin
- Google EOLs manifest v2 extensions
So whether a consequence of #2 is #1 doesn’t change the fact that #1 and #2 as headlines mean different things and imply very different ideas around the scope and intention of the action.
People are talking about it because of the effects on uBlock origin. Nobody at large cares that Google is finally pulling the plug on v2 extensions.
So long as you treat the Reddit thread as a primary source which in this case it's clearly not.
Like, if a headline says "McDonald's Announces It Will Stop Serving McNuggets to Donald Trump", and the story was actually that McDonald's was discontinuing McNuggets altogether (and therefore also to Trump), would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?
Chrome wants to get ad revenue on YouTube, but those ads are blocked. Now, it after many years finally decides Manifest v2 has to go? Suspicious.
If most people thinks that McDonald's actual motive is to starve Trump, then it would be fair to post a headline like that too.
The latter because McDonalds managers have been publicly discussing how and why they should stop serving nuggets to Trump in order to better protect their customers
uBO lite will still be available but it will be very nerfed.
Hopefully people move to Firefox, but I'm not so optimistic. It took a huge campaign to get people to move from IE6 to Firefox, and I'm not certain it can be replicated with Chrome.
And the biggest user of traffic modification? You got it, it's all sorts of adblocks. They are literally not trying to hide it. Or they should probably also limit apis that are able to peeking the traffics.
This means uBlock won't be as effective because once web request is done\page\script is loaded - it is impossible to stop it from loading other scripts.
Also it limits how many or what urls can be filtered at all if I'm not mistaken.
I'd imagine that people don't vet extensions nearly as much as they should for the access they give them to all their web browser traffic. Not to mention an extension that is okay now may not be once sold to someone else (for those extension developers not as honorable as those of uBlock Origin and hoverzoom).
I feel the same. It's crazy what kind of extensions people just use, there is one called Snov or something, to add a pixel in emails... it's like dude, you gave this random company access to read your emails... idk.
which yeah... UBO but still that's open source at least. An extension you can view the source sure.
> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
Almost no-one cares about the terms "Manifest v2 extensions" - because almost no one recognizes them for what they really are. Most people can understand it by its effect - that it will disable UBO. Only sneaky people will insist on using the technically correct, but obscure term in a PUBLIC announcement - clearly the aim is to make sure that the public overlooks the announcement.