Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin
windowscentral.com
windowscentral.com
https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV...
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin.
If the plug has already been pulled then this works, I've had this set in my registry for a while and uBO is still chugging along as per normal.
RIP Chrome, 2008-2024.
There was a Firefox that came bundled with Adblock at one point for Android, but since then Adblock has gotten in bed with advertisers. I'm not sure what's available these days for Android.
That restriction has since been removed, however installing from local storage is limited to nightly.
Whoever keeps full-strength ad blocking working is going to be my browser provider. I don't mind paying. Heck, maybe we can just crowdfund someone to operate a minimal fork of Chromium that just keeps Manifest V2 running.
I can't emphasize enough how little brand loyalty I have for any browser that breaks ad blocking. They may as well be removing the back button, it's that boneheaded of a feature removal.
But they have built-in crypto ads too that so far you can disable.
If you want to go back to the "original Opera", that is now Vivaldi.
Vivaldi already has a built-in adblocker in place, so Vivaldi ad-blocking doesn't depend on V2 being available.
This said, V2 shouldn't be removed at all because this will stifle the extension ecosystem. I predict that extensions will stagnate. Just because some ad-obsessed company killed V2 to stop an extension threatening their revenue.
I think the problem is. What if Chromium won't have code supporting V2 anymore? This means, it is just impossible to run V2 extensions because V2 is not only turned off but completely removed.
Vivaldi seems to have decided that they will provide a built-in feature for advanced ad blocking and Edge seems to be undecided yet.
[0]: https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/98631/manifest-v3-update-viv...
[1]: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/edge-developer/blob/main/mi...
This said, I see three more ways for free (like gratis) services (at least free for users):
1. Government-funded services. If some online services are deemed to be very important for public wellbeing, the government might decide to pay for a service or to run it themselves. One example is public databases like a list of medication covered by health insurance.
2. Non-profits. They can live off voluntary donations from users, governments, and companies.
3. Hobbyist-supported services. People work pro bono to support a service and some hobbyists even pay for third-party services (like hosting).
These are not sharply discerned categories. A service might nominally be run by a non-profit, but the non-profit is staffed by hobbyists and the government might pay for hosting and other costs. Such a service would be a government-funded hobbyist service run by a non-profit.
further in my humble poor opinion; If the only way to secure funding/guarantee your product/job/life is by having completely irrelevant, predatory ads hosted in your space, maybe you should go int oa different field, or not expect to make money off of a niche hobby application.
Hosting a website, app, service, (if not a paid service), should be "cost of doing business". Or "cost of maintaining a hobby which I'm broadcasting." It is a great disservice to our children that the "default" in life is "you will pay for this ,and you will watch brain rot ads"
In theory Chrome users should be able to just keep using old versions or edit the source to remove the offending changes and re-compile. In practice, Google's version of "open source" offers little control to end users. The program is far too large and complex.
It seems likely the remedy sought for Google's antitrust violations will affect Chrome in some way, not to mention affecting Google's continued support of Mozilla. It is unclear what the future of web browsers may look like.
(180 points, 12 days ago, 45 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
(99 points, 3 days ago, 102 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220764
To me, the biggest issue is filter lists can only be updated when the extension updates and Google controls the update cadence. YouTube ad blocking, for instance, requires frequent filter list updates (or did a few months ago, I'm not sure where things stand now).
TL;DR: In order to detect ad blocks sites create "bait" URL's that look like ads, but are purely there to detect if ad blockers block them. The only reason to do that is to punish the user for using a ad blocker, perhaps by nagging them, perhaps by refusing to display or load the content entirely. UBO responded by making bait URL's appear to work by redirecting them to local resources. Sites responded to that by putting required content behind bait URL's. So UBO now uses a number of dynamic heuristics it uses to detect what is bait and what isn't. Those heuristics aren't possible in V3.
My guess is UBO ability to change it's behaviour for every site based on what the site did created never ending war between ad blocker detectors and UBO. Engaging in that war too much effort for a lot of web sites to engage in, which is why you don't see too many ad blocker detectors. With advent of V3 this dynamic will change, as UBOL will have one hand tied behind it's back. My prediction is once V3 comes in, a lot more sites will start demanding you disable UBOL - but they won't notice the presence of UBO.
> It's very possible that the sites you visit do not require any of the filtering capabilities specific to uBO, in which case you won't see a difference.
The best way to find that out would be to try uBO lite. I personally haven't noticed any difference, but my browsing, in terms of variety of sites I visit, is fairly limited compared to many folks.
Edit: another thing is if you are happy with adblocking on Safari, you won't notice much difference with uBO lite, since Safari only supports effectively the same API as MV3. uBO has never been available on Safari since Safari 13, because Safari already did the equivalent of MV3 in 2019 with their version 13 release.
Most of the "new tab" ads are pictures, and any branding is generally way down the bottom, a screen's depth away from the navbar where my attention goes.
I'm relatively militantly anti-advertising and I barely notice it (but maybe I'm losing my edge - no pun intended).
If that's where Internet advertising settles, then I might actually be OK with that. And there's plenty that I'm a long way from OK with.
I've had numerous performance and memory issues with Firefox but from my testing over the years it's the closest to Chrome/Chromium you can get.
Also Firefox gets new features fairly regularly. It's still an "innovative" browser, as opposed to Chromium which is mostly stagnant. Vertical tabs are pretty cool.
Personally, I just got to like Firefox over time.
It is more true to my ideals.
installed a vpn with a running service without telling its window users in an update. also made it reinstall every update until they got called out and users kept complainiong. i mean they did eventually..
if you use brave search without the brave browser they would turn on on the send analytics option back on no matter what you do. ofc this was in secret like after you reopened the browser etc. every other setting would save.
the most popular privacy browser comparing site is owned by a brave employee. it was almost impossible to find this disclosure but they since have made it a bit more easier to spot. still the way they do tests is pretty sus. like testing out the box when they know they have a blocker and certain important settings on
etc etc. i mean i guess its not so surprising their job is hiding thing.
i used to use brave. even when i switched off i used brave search default. but the fact i couldnt turn off analytics, or more so they fact they made it look like i could turn it off made me never lose the last amount of respect i had for those guys. i mean i dont even care about privacy anymore really, i use edge. its just the shadiness that turns me off
>I see [ads] when I open a new, fresh tab
These two things don't seem to go together. I open a new tab >100 times a day. I'm not willing to even see recent sites there, let alone ads! My Firefox new tab page is literally blank.
There's no movement or sound, and it doesn't get in the way when all I'm doing is creating a new tab to then chuck a URL into the navbar and load up the page.
Brave is essentially un-googled chromium with ublock built-in. It's available on windows, Linux, osx, and android. I can't imagine how a reasonable person could consider it "adware."
It, literally, doesn't. I'm baffled by your misapprehension - brave exists to block ads.
> New tab takeovers:
> Striking, high-definition images that are featured in the Brave new tab image rotation. Advertisers have the opportunity to feature their brand prominently in this coveted space in front of millions of consumers. Designed for high-impact branding and awareness campaigns.
So, the browser.
It's surreal that you don't know how your own browser works, and yet you think you're in a position to explain how browsers work.
> You can set your homepage to a URL.
And if you don't, the browser shows you a screen, which is not a webpage, but a screen served from within the browser, which is true in every modern browser. On your favorite browser, that screen contains ads, and you have to configure your browser to stop showing you ads.
What part of the phrase "New Tab Takeover" do you not understand?
If you want to use an adware browser that you have to configure to get rid of the ads, and that gets their money from advertisers so they serve them and not you, nobody can stop you. But it's a bit silly to argue that's not what's happening when Brave themselves are advertising this as a service to their users (advertisers--you're not a user, you're the product).
It's clear you're not going to face reality, and nobody else is reading this at this point, so I won't be responding further.
> New tab takeovers:
> Striking, high-definition images that are featured in the Brave new tab image rotation. Advertisers have the opportunity to feature their brand prominently in this coveted space in front of millions of consumers. Designed for high-impact branding and awareness campaigns.
So, the browser.
3-5% perhaps.
"Chrome is used by 3.45 billion internet users. That's up from 2.74 billion in 2019. Chrome has a worldwide browser market share of 63.87%."
https://backlinko.com/chrome-users
"Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin"
Source: the very article.
Even in the Google Chrome "niche", does 30 million out of 3.45 billion sound like 30-50% to you?
The overwhelmingly vast majority of human beings using web browsers are not using ad blockers. They wouldn't know how and it wouldn't occur to them in the first place.
I'm sure anybody would find it just as weird after they experienced an ad blocker for a short while, they just lack that initial impulse or idea that it's possible.
I used AdBlock Plus for a while because it looked like the more popular ad-blocker.
I only uninstalled AdBlock Plus because it keeps displaying a "upgrade to premium" popup.
uBO has been such an improvement that now I worry I lost some geek gred for ever using ABP.
how far will they go to "dont say Firefox"
https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/dangerous-chrome-extensions-8...
https://palant.info/2023/05/16/malicious-code-in-pdf-toolbox...
https://palant.info/2023/05/31/more-malicious-extensions-in-...
Besides, Google could still allow you to install Mv2 extensions in Developer mode. Just like with Apple's 30% app store tax, this is about making money not protecting users.
It affects extensions like uBos most, for sure, and for some of its core features it cannot even be worked around.
But it also hurts the "long tail" of the extension scene badly.
I have dozens of mature, not-really-need-to-frequently-update extensions that require (perhaps trivial) changes to fit Manifest V3. But god knows if the author is still around or bothered to update them. I'm sure some of them are not because I had to download the source code and install them manually.
It's basically python 2 to 3 transition but for Chrome WebExt, even if you ignore the new API restriction part.
---------------
On a broader note, I'm increasingly frustrated by the constant pressure on users to adapt their habits to software changes.
This isn't just about Chrome or browsers in general.
Every year, I find myself spending countless hours battling changes in Chrome, Firefox, Office, Windows, MacOS, not to mention various websites, just to restore functionalities or user experiences that were already there but have been altered or removed. This often involves tweaking hidden settings, using command line switches, or relying on third-party or self-made extensions and scripts. And it affects so-called 'power users' the most because they're typically the ones who use the software or service to its fullest.
I consider myself someone who is open to change. For example, when they move the search button for the umpteenth time (I'm looking at you, Google Play Store), it's annoying, but I can adapt.
However, the removal of a feature is something you can't simply "adapt" to. It leads to a tangible loss of productivity, and it's even more frustrating when a feature that was previously available is suddenly gone.
"uBlock Origin fans can rest at ease since a new and improved version is already available — uBlock Origin Lite. It's worth noting that while the new app ships with similar features to the original version, including core ad-blocking features, it doesn't support dynamic filters for blocking scriptlet injection. The Lite version's capabilities are relatively limited due to its compliance with the Manifest V3 framework threshold."
According to Google's lens, the Internet has been improved by Manifest V3.
User Hostility has been strongly improved.
The on-going rate of enshittification-of-all-the-things has been improved by Google's actions for a number of years.
- Sent from my Firefox
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
I don't know what to say but to encourage everyone to make some noise. Please let your representative know about this. Hopefully we can still put a stop to this before it's too late.
Ffs, even the FBI recommends using an ad blocker.
But it also works as a joke (short for suspicious or suspect) and a reference to memes from the game Among Us.
I had never seen it before that.
It’s used wrong in the title, but that’s because it’s an accident. The headline was cut off:
“…over 30 million Chrome users sus_ceptible to intrusive ads”
Underscore to make the cut obvious.
character limit, as others said.
Source: http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/suss
I liked Google a lot more before they removed the "Don't be evil" from their motto and embraced the dark side to become utter scumbags.
If chrome was not driven to protect ad money for Google ads, then this wouldn’t have happened.
In particular, I recently ran into a very long-running issue where Chrom[ium] attempts to auto-fill inappropriate shit (like names from saved credit cards) into utterly unrelated form fields.
This has been going on for many years now [0], because maintainers insist their browser must ignore standards like autocomplete="off" [1] and use some "crowdsourced" remote-server fuzzy-recognition bullshit, and when their AI system is terribly wrong there's way for pages to opt-out.
This is especially aggravating for any developers who cannot meet WCAG accessibility guidelines that might be required of them by contract or law, and people have submitted a litany of other problematic examples [2] to no effect.
_____________
[0] https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40093420
[1] https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:com...
[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Attributes...
The issue is that Chrome is randomly/unpreventably suggesting all sorts of data even when field is for a medical patient's name rather than doctor using it, or when it's a generic chat-message field, and it does all that when the user has never used the form or even visited the domain before.
Informing all customers that it's out of our hands and can only be stopped by disabling their personal Chrome settings is... Not practical.
I moved from Chrome to Firefox 4 years ago over months; give it a shot - maybe move your social media browsing there.
Not sure why people think Mozilla is different. It is financially dependent on Google.
Need a smaller, simpler browser that anyone can compile. Then it does not matter what these companies do. Source code can be edited by its users to meet their requirements.