
Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin - Apylon777
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23
======
dragonwriter
The design doc — the part quoted in the note linked here even — explicitly
notes that it will probably be required to retain some degree of the existing
functionality slated for eventually removal until the new API and other
replacements cover all use cases; the response linked here appears to (not
improperly, in the context of making a case for why much of the functionality
is needed) ignoring that and treating the planned intent as removing all of
the existing WebRequest API functionality that is not observational for a hard
cutover to the new API which does not immediately supports large swath of
currently used functionality.

I think the response is appropriate, energetic advocacy, but the HN headline
is hyperbolic.

~~~
metalliqaz
But the design document only mentions retaining the old API for features that
aren't possible with the new API, such as onAuthRequired. So it would still
cripple uBlock

~~~
edwintorok
What if someone would create a pull request to implement unlock origin
natively inside chromium, instead of an extension. If such a PR met all
technical criteria, would Chromium project accept it?

~~~
berbec
No. Google would not include, as a built-in part of Chromium that is installed
by default, a feature to lower their ad revenue.

~~~
awirth
Doesn't Chromium already lower their revenue from other lacks of integration
that are included in Chrome?

~~~
berbec
Next to no one uses Chromium. The integrations usually start in Chrome,
leaving Chromium pure, allowing Opera etc to forge their own path. This is a
disturbing trend to change the course of the project, likely due to Edge being
based on Chromium.

~~~
jbigelow76
I bet a decent chunk of the MS engineers lobbied to adopt Gecko instead of
Chromium when they decided to move away from EdgeHtml. I wonder what the
reasoning was for not going that route, it seems like a huge miss and a total
acceptance of a browser monoculture.

~~~
ChrisSD
Gecko is deep in to a transitional phase. Once it comes out the other end it
may be simple to embed but it's currently far too early for that.

On the other hand Chromium is relatively simple to adapt with many real world
examples to learn from.

(Personally I think they should stick with EdgeHtml but it seems that ship has
sailed).

~~~
dralley
I wish they would have thrown in with the Servo project, but Chromium is ready
now and Servo isn't, so I'm sure that factored in.

~~~
fiddlerwoaroof
I wonder how quickly servo could become feature if a major player decided to
adopt it.

------
pleasecalllater
Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do
to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was
wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google
wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on
people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account
integration... the forced logging into the account... adding custom adblock
(which doesn't block most of the ads)... and now this: disabling adblockers.

I'm glad that I stopped using it.

~~~
endorphone
Recall that Chrome was made when IE still had a dominant marketshare.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Usage_Share_of_browsers_\(updated_August_2018\).png)

IE was stagnating, slow, and extremely vulnerable to malicious behaviors. The
net result was that the web became a very hostile place, while Microsoft was
pitching various "post web" strategies like WPF. Google had been a big
financial supporter of Firefox but not to a degree where they could direct the
project or push their own agenda. At the time many viewed Firefox as slow and
bloated.

So Google made their own thing, and it worked admirably and we might be in a
very different world if they didn't. They dramatically improved the state of
the art for JavaScript, added intrinsic hostile activity and site blocking,
started dramatically accelerating the adoption of technology improvements (by
implementing very early proposals, often to much consternation), etc.

The web was less dangerous. Google's cash cow was protected because there was
less of a draw to go to alternative platforms.

That, I think, was their primary intention and it was aligned interests with
users. Everyone is happy with the web.

And honestly I do think this ad blocking thing is a bit of "fake news" (e.g.
it is being grossly misreported). Google is proposing a solution that offers
more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has
done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design).

~~~
tyingq
_" Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension,
and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely
viewed as a great design)."_

It would only provide more privacy if ad block extensions go solely with
static lists of uris. If they want to retain features like right-click block,
or allowing users to customize the list, static blocks don't work.

These changes do nothing to inhibit the ability to log/store/etc requests
anywhere you want as an extension author. They are only removing the ability
to cancel in flight requests.

What's your source that the Safari ad blocking approach is viewed as a great
design? Everything I look at shows it was a regression in effectiveness.
Certainly the various adblock authors weren't thrilled. How well, for example,
does it work with YouTube ads?

------
metalliqaz
Another reason to be glad that Firefox is still standing.

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

~~~
QML
Firefox just doesn’t have enough advantages yet that would convince someone
comfortable with Chrome to switch over. While privacy is an ever growing
concern, it isn’t a strong enough feature for most people.

~~~
criddell
Plus Chrome just works better for a lot of sites. That might be because the
site isn't properly coded, but users don't care. They just want something that
works and more often than not, that's Chrome.

My main browser is Firefox, but I have to switch over to Chrome more often
than I would like. Electron is also based on Chromium, isn't it? IMHO, the
rise of Electron just reinforces Chromium's status and I think Microsoft is
going to accelerate that trend (I'm guessing MS adopted Chromium because of
Electron).

~~~
Solvitieg
I don't know about "a lot of sites". Very few, I'd say.

Other web developers may want to chime in but I rarely have cross-browser
problems between Firefox and Chrome. I can't recall the last one.

The only time I encounter a problem with Firefox is looking at people's
codepens where they're using webkit only prefixes or a draft API.

~~~
strokirk
Youtube runs noticably slower on Firefox for me, regularly climbing up to
30-40% cpu and activating the fan, while Chrome handles it with 15-20 cpu.

~~~
AsyncAwait
It's the same for Gmail, but this isn't Firefox at fault. It's Google doing
this on purpose by using the old, experimental, non-standard ShadowDOM V0 API,
which only Chrome supports, and then using that across its products to break
non-Chrome based browsers. Please don't reward them by using Chrome just
because of this. That only shows them that such abusive behavior works.

~~~
criddell
Enough people use Gmail and YouTube that maybe it would make sense for Firefox
to add support for ShadowDOM V0 API? It might not be a W3C standard, but if
Google uses it heavily then it's a defacto standard.

~~~
AsyncAwait
They could, except that would effectively show Google that it can dictate what
other browsers implement, alter its products on rapid basis to regularly break
them etc. and at that point there's almost no point to an alternative, since
we'd we're fully back in the IE era again, which is why I don't think it's a
good idea.

If one cannot avoid it, I think it's a better idea to create Chrome desktop
shortcuts for Gmail/YouTube and use Chrome exclusively for that, if you cannot
use a desktop email client for Gmail and VLC/mpv/youtube-dl for some reason.

~~~
criddell
Firefox doesn't have the market share to push back on Google. The best way for
Firefox to grow is to make the best browser from the user's perspective.

~~~
AsyncAwait
I get that, but this seems like controlled opposition.

Moreover, once you give in on this, what's Google going to do next? Use APIs
only in Chrome that Mozilla needs to implement only after they're made public
in Chrome by literally looking at the source code? There's always going to be
a lag if that's the dynamic, so there's always going to be the perception that
Firefox is behind.

Moreover if Firefox adopts it, it makes it more likely to be adopted by Apple
too, since Google's now not the only kid on the block to support it and now
you turned it into a de-facto standard.

Mozilla already partially caved to Google in pursuit of the "best browser" as
perceived by the average user. That was on DRM. Now I say partially because at
least they made it opt-in, but so they caved and next Google came up with this
thing.

If you going to keep paying ransom, you're going to have a lot of hostages.

------
happybuy
To defend Google a bit, it looks like the change is being put in place so that
users would have more privacy – by stopping extensions accessing all active
URLs.

In essence they are copying what Apple did with Safari and their content
blocking APIs. In this model, content blockers provide the browser with a set
of blocking rules and the browser executes them against pages during render &
load. Ad blocking can occur and privacy of what the user is viewing is
retained.

Sure it's more restrictive and yes will likely break existing adblockers, but
it's probably a better model for the future.

There will be arguments that you "can't do what is necessary" to create
effective adblockers. That's incorrect.... I've created such an adblocker [1]
using the Safari methods and its efficient, effective and high performance –
including loading some sites 2x faster.

[1] [https://www.magiclasso.co/](https://www.magiclasso.co/)

~~~
ltbarcly3
So Google is going to help me have more privacy by preventing me from letting
extensions I want to run from having access to data I want that extension to
have, so it can do a job I want it to do. Meanwhile, Google's software will of
course have full access to everything I do online, and most of my data will
live on Google servers. And the extension that I want to have access is also
downloaded from Google servers. And the extension is open source, so I can
totally check it for problems, or believe people I trust who vouch for it. Of
course, I can't do that with any of the code on Google's servers, where
basically everything I do all day, everything I read, everything I search for,
and all my emails and documents are.

Got it.

~~~
joefkelley
When Google takes the approach you want, they are vilified for "letting third
parties access your data" \- as in the Gmail "scandal" a few months ago.

If you let users do whatever they want, they will often shoot themselves in
the foot. It's a tough balance.

~~~
aylmao
Sorry for being behind in the news. What's this Gmail "scandal" you quote from
a few months ago?

~~~
belltaco
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-reportedly-allows-
third-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-reportedly-allows-third-party-
apps-to-scan-gmail-emails/)

------
lettergram
Well, highly recommend Firefox. Works great after the updates last year and
even use it on mobile.

It bothers me that iOS doesn’t support addons to Firefox mobile. But on
Android you can even install ublock origin

~~~
mark-r
There's still a feature of Chrome that keeps me from switching - Chrome will
show a lot more tabs open. I tend to leave a lot of inactive tabs to come back
to later, but that means I need to see them all.

~~~
sergiosgc
Install Tree Style Tab on Firefox. Moves tabs to a tree on the left. You can
see a lot more, and better organized too. In the era of landscape screens, I
think it's a must.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-
ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

~~~
mark-r
I might have to try that. Looks like you still have the tabs at the top of the
window too, not sure I'd like the visual clutter.

~~~
zcid
Not very user-friendly, but you can disable the horizontal tabs by editing
userChrome.css in your profile directory:
[https://superuser.com/questions/1261660/firefox-quantum-
ver-...](https://superuser.com/questions/1261660/firefox-quantum-ver-57-how-
can-i-hide-the-horizontal-tab-bar-with-treesty).

~~~
nachtigall
This is the up-to-date documentation for this:

[https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-
fo...](https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-for-custom-
style-rules#hide-horizontal-tabs-at-the-top-of-the-window-1349)

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

~~~
jaxn
Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.

~~~
jlarocco
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.

~~~
maverick2007
Why doesn't it? (Not a leading question, I just don't understand why it
doesn't) Isn't the way uBlock and the like work is that they see network
requests from a blacklist and not load those resources? Isn't network level
blocking just moving that from the local device up a level?

~~~
zeroxfe
They do (well partly), but with network level blocking you end up with broken
DOM elements (like images, videos, etc.) The good think about the browser
extensions is that they clean up the DOM and in many cases you wouldn't even
know if the pages had ads.

Then there's also Javascript trickery loaded with the page that do hostile
things if ad servers aren't reachable, and extensions know how to detect and
replace them.

I think the closer the blocker is to the user, the higher the fidelity of the
blocking.

------
swypych
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 <all_urls>, 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 allow them to tweak behavior if they so desire." \---
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-
qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#)

yup it looks bad.

~~~
metalliqaz
Is that for security?

~~~
ndnxhs
Security of googles profits.

------
LeoPanthera
I don't understand the technical details of this - could someone explain it to
an idiot?

\- Is the change specifically to block ad blockers, or uBlock specifically? Or
is it just a new extension API?

\- Could ad blockers adapt to the new version to work again?

I am reminded of the new version of (Mac) Safari, which features a new
extensions API. It took a while for them to appear but there are now good ad
blocking extensions again, like AdGuard for Safari.

~~~
kevindqc
From what I understand, there are currently events which gave you the ability
to inspect, and also cancel a request if you want. This allows you to do
things like cancel a request if it's trying to download a big video file.

But Google wants to remove the ability to cancel a request through the events,
and they want to replace that with declarativeNetRequest[1]. If you look at
the link, in the Rules section, it seems to be simple, kinda hardcoded (but
configurable) filters.

You can also see there's a limit of only 30,000 rules[2], which is not enough
for EasyList[3] (example used in the tracker), which seems to have ~74,000
rules.

This is not targeted to ad blockers specifically. It's a change that makes
blocking requests less flexible. For example, uBlock and uMatrix rules can be
overridden by more specific rules, something that declarativeNetRequest can't
do.

1\.
[https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReque...](https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest)

2\.
[https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReque...](https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest#property-
MAX_NUMBER_OF_RULES)

3\. [https://easylist.to/](https://easylist.to/)

~~~
wongarsu
>This is not targeted to ad blockers specifically.

At superficial inspection it's not _obviously_ targeted at ad blockers. It
might still be. Most of google's revenue comes from advertising, fighting
against ad blockers wouldn't be unexpected for them.

~~~
tyingq
The fact that they are leaving in the functionality to view/record/forward
anything you visit makes it clear to me that the target is adblockers.
Removing solely the ability to cancel a preflight request is, er, pretty
specific.

------
aerovistae
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...

~~~
aaronscott
I switched to protonmail a few months back, and have been very happy with the
service. They focus on privacy and security as a core value. They have a
limited free account (limited in terms of storage space and message volume),
so not a direct replacement for gmail. I use the paid service for more storage
and a custom domain.

~~~
rapnie
Yes, love it. The paid service is $5/m and you can use a custom domain and
create 5 email aliases. Also, I think, ProtonVPN comes with that package (not
using that yet, but will)

------
darkpuma
So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising
company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet,
interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that
is able or willing to step in.

Great.

~~~
masonic

      there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in
    

What regulatory bodies have legal _standing_ to step in?

~~~
ickwabe
The Federal Trade Commision has that legal standing even if they chose not to
exercise it.

------
jf
I will stop using Chrome entirely if this change is made.

~~~
needle0
Those are hollow threats. If you really care, you all really ought to stop
using Chrome _now_ , regardless of whether they go through with this. Bitching
on forums aren’t going to register on their metrics. Only actually stopping
use will.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Counterpoint: "Hey, we released that new feature and lost 2% market share"
sends a message.

~~~
stonogo
And that message is "Oh well, it would cost too much to revert that feature.
We'll just shove some more ads into the search product telling people to
'upgrade' to Chrome."

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Surely they'd do that regardless if market share dips?

------
PaulHoule
Google has shown some Chutzpah to sell their own ad blocker when they are the
#1 advertising vendor.

If feel they have enough impunity to get away with that, then it is no
surprise that they will try to put other ad blockers out of business too.

Other ad networks might be big enough to bring an antitrust lawsuit against
Google (although they probably won't last long enough) but Ad Blocking is such
a niche market that they couldn't possibly sue.

------
feanaro
Why would Google be given _any_ benefit of a doubt in the case of ad/resource
blocking?

They are a behemoth ad-based corporation that is becoming a monopoly in many
areas of computing. In yet more areas, they are becoming an effective monopoly
through size: they may not be the only company offering a type of service, but
they are the only one able to offer it at scale and/or with a certain level of
sophistication, given their resources are orders of magnitude larger than
almost any other company's.

All this taken into account, it's obvious how much is at stake for them. Why
_wouldn 't_ they try crippling blockers? Their revenue depends on it and the
_only_ counter-incentive is that there may be a massive exodus of users to
Firefox, while it still exists. Do it slowly enough, though...

~~~
londons_explore
I think you overestimate the level of strategy here.

This is simply an engineer spotting a performance bottleneck in Chrome and
posting a design to resolve it.

There is zero chance that Google's top brass told the engineer to deliberately
cripple ublock.

~~~
feanaro
A design that happens to cripple modern ad blocking and is not nearly close to
being a full replacement of the existing API. Improving performance by
removing features is easy. I don't think it's misrepresentation to call it
crippling of said features.

The fact is that modern ads and crapware/malware web resources are a large
problem that users choose to deal with by installing modern ad blockers. Even
if that makes the browser somewhat slower overall, it is the _ads_ that are
the culprit, not the ad blockers. Also, anecdotally, but I find the web's
performance to be vastly improved by installing uBlock Origin, as has also
been noted in another comment.

It is also a fact that Google's whole business revolves around ads. Again, why
_wouldn 't_ Google be mindful of ad blocking and try to prevent it from
happening, with all the resources it has at its disposal? It would be bad
business _not_ to try.

Even if this particular situation isn't an example of this, I think it is
irrational to think it does not and will not happen.

------
jchw
Ouch, I understand why they want to not have a blocking webRequest API but I
consider uBlock Origin to be a must-have extension. Hopefully this is relaxed
somehow.

I personally still use Firefox at home despite recent issues, but I honestly
would prefer having both as an option, plus I always recommend uBlock Origin
to everyone.

(Disclaimer: I work at Google but not on Chrome, opinions are mine and not my
employer's.)

~~~
metalliqaz
Have there been recent issues? I've been using Firefox consistently for years
and lately it seems better than usual.

~~~
magicalhippo
It's quite memory hungry. Not saying leaking per-se, but my 16GB machine at
work started swapping heavily mostly due to Firefox today.

Only had about 15 active tabs (though a number of dormant ones since last FF
restart). Between the various processes, FF was using about 6-7GB of memory.
Closing almost all of the tabs reclaimed about 2GB, so still a lot left over.

That said I'm not too bothered, I can restart FF every other week or so.

------
xkapastel
I don't think I can go back to the internet without uBO+uMatrix.

On a related note, why doesn't Chrome for Android have extensions? I get the
sense it's because it was more strategic to ban extensions entirely than to
allow ad blocking on mobile.

~~~
8bitsrule
Can't remember the site, but uBO reported blocking _over 1100_ requests when I
landed there the other day. I can't imagine browsing without it.

~~~
dzader
serious question - what sites are you visiting that you run into these issues?
I use chrome without any adblock and have for as long as chrome has been
around. I have NEVER once ran into this situation.

~~~
ohyeshedid
You probably run into hourly since you don't use adblocking, you just don't
see it because trackers/analytics engines aren't usually visible.

------
deprave
This was only expected. Why would an advertising company care about web
experience, security, or privacy?

------
WrtCdEvrydy
Acquire, Embrace, Extinguish

I think we're at Stage 3.

~~~
scrollaway
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.

~~~
cpeterso
Embrace: Google shipped its own ad blocker in Chrome last year. It blocks all
ads on sites that violate ad standards set forth by the Coalition for Better
Ads. If Chrome's basic ad blocker can encourage the publishers to clean up
their most annoying ads, then Chrome users might be less likely to install a
full-featured ad blocker like uBlock Origin.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17011266/google-chrome-
ad...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17011266/google-chrome-ad-blocker-
features)

------
0xmohit
It is funny to think that company that makes money by showing you ads based on
information that it harvests by various mechanisms would let you browse the
web without watching ads.

Interesting changes to Chrome seem to have become more often. A recent one was
the forced login policy.
[https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/09/23/why-
im-l...](https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/09/23/why-im-leaving-
chrome/)

------
londons_explore
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.

~~~
kabes
You know what else takes up massive amounts of CPU and slows down a typical
chrome instance? Sites filled with ads.

~~~
londons_explore
In my tests (albeit a few years ago), the actual text content on web pages was
slowed down slightly by adblock plus. I measured with a video recording of the
screen, and considered a page complete when the title and main body text of a
page were loaded.

It became a dramatic slowdown with a slow CPU. I made a performance patch
which saved 40% CPU time (by making a new css selector matcher). I even tried
to submit the patch upstream, but my employer blocked it with bureaucracy.

~~~
darkpuma
Adblock Plus is complete shit. uBlock Origin and uMatrix wipe the floor with
Adblock Plus.

------
abtinf
I started using uMatrix full-time about a year ago. At first, I was shocked by
how much traffic it would block - sometimes dozens of tracking domains. I
didn't understand the sheer scale of the tracking industry.

Losing the full efficacy of uBlock and uMatrix is a deal-breaker - not just
for Chrome, but many other Google services. That such a proposal is even being
considered is stunning and causes me to reconsider Google's reputation.

------
tbodt
> With such a limited [...], I am skeptical "user agent" will still be a
> proper category to classify Chromium.

epic burn

------
givinguflac
Discussion moved here:
[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/chr...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/chromium-
extensions/veJy9uAwS00)

So glad I’m not a google user. How much more does google have to do before
people stop seeing them as the freedom option?

------
amatecha
The comment author provides these notable examples which would no longer be
possible:

> the blocking of media element which are larger than a set size, the
> disabling of JavaScript execution through the injection of CSP directives,
> the removal of outgoing Cookie headers, etc.

Seems like pretty fundamental stuff for any user-side content filtering,
especially for the use of bandwidth and privacy considerations, ad-blocking
aside.

------
zelon88
"Hi folks! Can we please move this discussion to somewhere it's not as
noticeable? K thx bye!" _doesn 't address anything_

Sounds like Google devs to me!

~~~
SquareWheel
Or perhaps it's because people are spamming their bug tracker from sites like
Hacker News, preventing the necessary technical discussion from taking place.

~~~
zelon88
So unexpected traffic is "spam?" Seems like everyone posting has a stake and
is pretty engaged with the topic.

Negative != Disrespectful

Unexpected != Illegitimate

~~~
SquareWheel
This isn't just traffic. This is interrupting someone else's conversation to
complain after reading an editorialized headline.

Having dozens of people post "I'm moving to Firefox!!" doesn't contribute
anything. It detracts from discussion. For exactly those reasons the thread
has now been locked.

We screwed it up, like we always do.

------
redfast00
This might actually be good; would certainly drive some users over to Firefox

------
euske
Next move by Google: slowly crippling the functions of most Google sites (YT,
Gmail, etc.) on Firefox for "better UX on major browsers."

You see? Power corrupts.

~~~
GranPC
This is already happening. The new Gmail redesign is borderline unusable and
uses up 60% CPU just to display a plain text email, and YouTube's latest
update is slower in Firefox because they use a Chrome specific API.

------
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.

------
saagarjha
I'm all for getting out the pitchforks when Google does something
anticompetitive, but this seems to me to be very similar to WebKit's content
blocking API. How does this differ from that, and are extensions that run
JavaScript no longer allowed?

------
yogthos
Firefox exists, it works well, and it doesn't fuck its users to help
advertisers. If Google manages to push it out of the market we'll be stuck
with a garbage browser built by an ads company.

~~~
Zarath
Meh, I waste way too much time on the internet anyway. Maybe it's time to
rediscover some outdoor hobbies.

------
scrollaway
Please don't editorialize :|

Suggested title: Chromium Extension Manifest v3 change would break
uMatrix/uBlock

Mods?

~~~
abtinf
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".

~~~
scrollaway
The problem is I see a ton of people in the comments assuming this is a change
made with the intent of disabling/breaking ublock. Clearly it's not, and it
will affect more extensions than just that.

We should demand a LOT more evidence before claiming that Google _intends_ to
break adblockers before accusing them of that. If they are doing that, I want
to be the first one raging against them, and I don't feel comfortable raging
on something that deserves the benefit of the doubt.

~~~
abtinf
> Clearly it's not

What is your basis for this claim?

I am not an expert on this topic, but Gorhill is and has a demonstrated
history of technical/privacy judgement.

Gorhill's comment makes it clear that impacting the functionality of blockers
is an intentional change, as the proposal not only removes previous
functionality, but also enshrines one particular and limited approach to
blocking.

Edit: I would also note that "break" may suggest the possibility of altering
blocking extensions such that they could keep working and maintain their
present functionality. Gorhill's comment makes it clear that this is not the
case.

~~~
scrollaway
I've explained the logic in the post you're replying to. I'll rephrase it:

There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid
of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. We should demand such evidence
before implying that this is the intended outcome.

If such is the goal, have at it with the headlines. They write themselves.
"Advertising Giant Google Forcefully Breaks Ad-blockers in Chrome Update".

But until the evidence is there, we should be responsible about this.

~~~
iaw
> There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid
> of adblockers

So far there is only one rationale that could describe the motivation to make
this change. Can you propose another possible motive? I am personally
struggling.

~~~
scrollaway
My understanding of the changes is that they make sense for most extensions,
but gorhill's addons are being negatively impacted by them because of the way
they were implemented. You'll note it's still possible to implement content
blocking in the new system.

~~~
iaw
As others have pointed out the blacklist capabilities are severely inhibited
in the new system. Could you elaborate on how the changes make sense? It feels
like their messaging behind this is off if their intent truly is benign.

------
3xblah
I always found it strange that the most popular ad blocking method is one that
is internal to and relies on the browser itself.

Companies can change their browsers anytime and for whatever reasons they
want. As far as I can tell, users have little control over the
organizations/companies that write browsers, not to mention that the most
popular browsers are written by companies that benefit from sale of the online
ads. This make the ad-blocking browser extension brittle.

I also find it peculiar that the preferred approach to ad blocking has been
blacklisting rather than whitelisting. In other words, users prefer to let a
third party pick a list of servers to block. Everything else is allowed by
default.

Besides issues of delegation and having to trust a third a party, this of
course is a very large, constantly growing list that includes many, many
servers most users will never, ever encounter in their entire lifetime online.
Though it may be unnoticeable for now, an enormous block list is inefficient.

The alternative, which I have found easier to manage, is for users to
determine what servers they need to access, "whitelist" them (e.g. by placing
them in localhost authoritative DNS or /etc/hosts), and then block everything
else by default. This is similar to a firewall ruleset.

The number of servers any user will use in their lifetime is relatively small
compared to the total number of ad server addresses in existence now or in the
future. It is manageable.

If you are a non-technical Chrome user, and you have no idea of what servers
you are actually using repeatedly day-to-day, there is a built-in feature that
can help you make your own "whitelist".

Here's the URL:

    
    
       chrome://site-engagement

------
aboutruby
A little PSA, "uBlock Origin" is the currently updated, correctly working
extension, "uBlock" is the broken one.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ub...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ublock_origin/)

------
dbg31415
Annoying, but just block at DNS or host level.

* Pi-hole®: A black hole for Internet advertisements – curl -sSL [https://install.pi-hole.net](https://install.pi-hole.net) | bash || [https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

* GitHub - StevenBlack/hosts: Extending and consolidating hosts files from several well-curated sources like adaway.org, mvps.org, malwaredomainlist.com, someonewhocares.org, and potentially others. You can optionally invoke extensions to block additional sites by category. || [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

Someone will make money selling an ad blocker device that's just a configured
Raspberry Pi with a consumer-friendly way to install it on a home network.

------
hemantv
Brave is a great alternative. I just wish they could somehow integrate the
whole chrome extension ecosystem in there.

~~~
companyhen
The new update added support for Chrome extensions. Are the ones it doesn't
support?

------
jenscow
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.

~~~
darkpuma
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.

~~~
Zarath
Oh my god that tile fade in irritates me to no end.

------
gingerbread-man
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 justifications
for the proposed change.

See also (especially the section "Comparison with the webRequest API):
[https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReque...](https://developers.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest)

~~~
43920
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](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax) [1]
[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-
filtering](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering) [2]
[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-
vs.-ABP:-effic...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-
vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared)

------
kiwijamo
Yet another reason to use Firefox.

------
jeffrogers
I’m more concerned that the http/3 Connection Migration ID, proposed by Google
via the QUIC spec and operating at a lower level, will create a persistent
tracking mechanism, regardless of the application in use.

------
aboutruby
Anybody knows what "Hotlist-ConOps" means? I'm guessing "ConOps" is the name
of the project. Even looking at the issues like[1], I still have no idea what
it means.

[1]:
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=label:Hot...](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=label:Hotlist-
ConOps)

------
B-Con
> There are other features (which I understand are appreciated by many users)
> which can't be implemented with the declarativeNetRequest API, for examples,
> ... the disabling of JavaScript execution through the injection of CSP
> directives, the removal of outgoing Cookie headers, etc.

This is also incredibly important.

It's my HTML, don't restrict me. Let me mangle the web pages I request.

------
eugenekolo2
I recently set up pi-hole in a couple of hours on a raspberry pi I have at
home. Works fairly well - it can't block as many things as ublock origin can,
but it gets the job mostly done while still providing some sort of revenue to
content creators.

curl -sSL [https://install.pi-hole.net](https://install.pi-hole.net) | bash

------
fawelo123
Just use Firefox, disable all content blocking addons and enable
resistFingerprinting and container tabs. There you go you are virtually
impossible to track, and as thus will only generate useless traffic for
advertisers/trackers and actually cost them money in a legal way.

It would actually go hand in hand with "hide but load element"

------
mancerayder
Not surprised.

Was no one but me outraged about them turning the 'stop autoplay' of video
feature off within Chrome on desktop? This happened in the last year or two -
I don't remember since I switched to Firefox.

Chrome I only use for business / G-Suite purposes and for dumbo sites that
only work in Chrome. Admittedly I'll use IE before I use Chrome.

------
unwabuisi
For those that have migrated from Chrome to Firefox recently, what adjustments
did you have to make/get used to in Firefox?

~~~
keithnz
I changed last year? ( whenever the quantum beta came out )

now I live between the two browsers. For the most, there is no real difference
and for both browsers, holes can be plugged with plugins. ( One nice thing I
like out of the box for FF is that it supports column selection which makes my
life easier on some web pages I have to use regularly )

I like the web development tools on firefox, and usually use them over chromes

The only few things I've really had an issue with is a particular wiki page in
my works confluence system that seems to go incredibly slowly on firefox and I
end up using chrome to edit that page. The other is sometimes firefox doesn't
open a new tab in a new tab if the tab bar has a lot of tabs if I'm using the
UI ( I use vimium on both chrome and FF and it can open tabs no matter what )

Other than that, I have this very subjective "feeling" that chrome feels just
a wee bit nicer than FF.

------
privacywall
This was bound to happen. Google has always treated Chromium as their toy and
a way to protect their advertising monopoly. That is why we released the new
PrivacyWall today which includes the most advanced host level ad blocker built
by Stanford engineers. It's free and we will never sell out.

------
alexnewman
Another reason to try out the new brave which has all the capabilities of
chromium without downsides

------
sekasi
I'm surprised at the lack of support (hacker news) for Safari. It's a
fantastic browser, made by people who have a track record of not being evil
with data. I know that might seem like a big statement, but in the face of
Google I will happily trust Apple.

~~~
steedsofwar
I love safari, but of late unBlock Origin has stopped working, which means i
constantly switch to firefox when the ad's get nauseating.

~~~
ivl
Amusingly, Safari made the same change as the Chrominum devs are discussing
here. Limiting how well extensions can parse and block requests.

------
ForHackernews
Choose Firefox Now Or Later You Won't Have a Choice

[https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-
or-l...](https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-
wont.html)

------
SquareWheel
Bug reports are for technical discussion, not filing grievances. Please don't
be "that guy" who uses this space to complain. _Especially_ if you haven't
bothered to read the new spec and are simply mad at the title.

------
EpicEng
The spec makes this a bit ambiguous, and I have experienced nothing but
frustration in my continual attempts to move to FF (last time was two months
ago, spare me the argument), but if uBlock is over then so is my relationship
with chrome.

------
happppy
They are blocking Ad-blockers and improving Ads. Blocking Ads that are scam
like popups and such so ux should be good with content and Ads side by side.

It's actually Google wants to rule by blocking other platforms that provide
Ads.

------
pdimitar
The only thing that surprises me about this announcement is that it took them
that long.

Oh well, they'll just give me a reason to accelerate my full migration to
Safari and Firefox and to only touch Chrome when testing a website.

------
sakisv
Well, look at the bright side: People will (hopefully) remember that there's
an open source browser from a non-advertiser company (and therefore with not
many incentives to break your adblocks)

~~~
partiallypro
Unfortunately Google invests heavily in Firefox, and Edge is switching to
Chromium.

------
kamyarg
The day I see google ads on my chrome I will switch, they can do whatever they
want. I will also advocate switching to every person I know, so disable ublock
origin with that in mind.

------
smsm42
I wonder what this means for browsers like Brave. They are on Chromium engine
but AFAIK they are using their own blocking, different from uBO (not sure what
exactly they're using).

------
greymeister
... and yet another downside to Microsoft moving to Chromium.

~~~
metalliqaz
Why would Microsoft be driving this change? Google is the company with the
huge advertising business.

~~~
tivert
Because by moving to Chromium, Microsoft increased Google's control of the
browser ecosystem by killing one of the last remaining competitors to it. Now
only Firefox is left.

Before they dropped Edge, a move like this would have been a great marketing
opportunity for Microsoft: "Come to Edge, where your ad blocker still works."

------
CompMagicWork
Would this also affect Brave? From what I understand they pack their blocker
into the binary, but they might still call this API under the hood.

------
hi41
This is why we need competing browsers and Microsoft should have continued
Edge browser development. Thank goodness we still have Firefox.

------
privacywall
Privacywall provides host level ad blocking

[http://www.privacywall.org](http://www.privacywall.org)

------
paulryanrogers
Doubtful they will make such a popular extension impossible permanently. Doing
so risks alienating influential users.

------
fireattack
I will reserve my opinion until this one made it into the final or the dev
showed no sign of willing to change.

------
partiallypro
This makes me again wish that Microsoft had used Firefox's engine for their
new version of Edge.

------
Marsymars
Doesn't matter to me much for the browser since I use Firefox, but would ruin
Chrome OS for me.

------
decebalus1
I'm very happy about this change. Hopefully Firefox would gain a plethora of
new users.

~~~
techntoke
Mozilla is really no better than Google... in fact Chromium on my Linux distro
vastly outperforms Firefox.

~~~
decebalus1
What does performance on a Linux distro has anything to do with Mozilla being
better/not better than Google?

~~~
techntoke
Because Firefox doesn't offer any extra security controls over Chromium, in
fact I would say they are way worse than vanilla Chromium on Arch. Therefore
it makes sense to go with the browser that performs well, rather than one
consuming a bunch of resources unnecessarily.

~~~
decebalus1
what security controls are you referring to? Also, I think we were talking
about performance. How is performance relevant to security controls? And
again, how does that imply that Mozilla is better/not better than Google?

I'm starting to believe I'm talking to a bot.

~~~
techntoke
I'm referring to the security controls that Mozilla and their Apple-like fan
group claims give it an advantage over Chromium. I am saying that I do not
believe that it has any security or privacy advantage to Chromium, and the
performance is worse, so there is no reason to be in the Mozilla cult-like fan
club.

------
danielrowe
Firefox is a much nicer browser anyway. For a number of reasons including
privacy.

------
SamReidHughes
Well, it was nice mooching off the work they put into Chrome while it lasted.

------
novaRom
I find it disappointing that uBlock cannot be installed on Firefox on iOS.

------
bausano_michael
Check what effect this proposed change have on @exteranto framework

------
companyhen
Brave is my new everyday browser since they added Chrome plugin support.

------
jeff_marshall
Ublock Origin (or equivalent) compatibility is a deal-breaker for me.

------
lsiebert
Loving my decision to switch to firefox this year more and more.

------
outside1234
Can a downstream client of Chromium (like Brave) add it back in?

------
mountainofdeath
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Where have I heard that before?

------
novaRom
duck.com + mozilla.org

------
yingw787
I'd like to use Chrome or be on the ecosystem for the developer tools and
website compatibility but not have to...well...suffer through this. Maybe
Brave or another maintained fork of Chromium fits the bill.

~~~
_red
I've been using Brave for a few months now and they have come a long way --
with many bumps along the road. When sync is finally released (its in beta
now), I really think it will be a contender.

------
quakeguy
Vivaldi user here, should i switch to Firefox too?

------
leeoniya
i will go wherever uBlock Origin and uMatrix go

------
john4534243
Stick to firefox, for this simple reaseon.

------
nostrademons
I've switched to Brave for most everyday browsing. Still use Chrome for work,
but mostly just on sites that I pay for, with no or limited ads.

------
izacus
Perhaps the participants of this debate should also comment on the ticket
itself? Complaining here probably won't make Google hear you.

~~~
SquareWheel
If your goal is to lock the bug report to all future discussion, then by all
means start brigading.

------
ddingus
Right now, I still use Chrome. This change would end that use for all but a
couple small niche cases.

Installing Firefox on mobile today. Time to prep.

~~~
usuallymatt
The nice thing about the mobile version is that you can add uBlock there too.
I switched to Firefox a couple years ago and haven't looked back. Also have
been DuckDuckGo for about a year and last year I switched my email over to
Fastmail. Funny because I used to be the biggest Google Fanboy a few years
back.

------
patagonia
I heart Mozilla Firefox.

------
zapita
I switched from Chrome back to Firefox last year and haven't looked back once.

------
girishso
I sometimes use Chrome these days, it’s time for goodbye for good to Chrome
now.

------
forgotmypw2
dropped chrome long ago, actively remove it from anywhere I'm authorized to.
recommend you do the same, it's crossed the malware threshold long ago.

------
padraic7a
Beautiful. Will be great to see Firefox share increasing.

------
0xADEADBEE
I assume people with much more data than me have ran the numbers and concluded
this is a good move, but with the rise in people using ad-blockers [0], this
seems myopic from the outside.

The GDPR situation and this week's 'fine' for Google certainly suggests that
the current model of surreptitiously harvesting outrageous amounts of data
from unsuspecting service-users is untenable (as well it should be), so I'll
be fascinated to observe the next stages of the data collection vs privacy
skirmish.

[0] - [https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-
usage-...](https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-
usage-40-percent-laptops-15-percent-mobile-216324)

------
aj7
As far as I’m concerned, this wii break Chrome.

------
neves
Go Firefox!

------
keithnz
main reason why I use firefox on my mobile these days instead of chrome, I can
install uBlock Origin in Firefox.

------
tgeorge
Fork them

------
jimbo999
gorhill is a very short sighted zealot

------
jcomis
it's like they are trying to get you to switch to firefox.

------
lubujackson
"We went ahead and uh, fixed the glitch."

------
tyteen4a03
I can't wait for the day Firefox stops killing my MacBook.

------
sergiotapia
This will affect even Brave browser right? Really any browser that uses
chromium?

~~~
scottlocklin
No.

------
snarfy
> we will strive to limit the blocking version of webRequest, potentially
> removing blocking options from most events

Is there any rationale why?

~~~
wtallis
The "blocking version of webRequest" means that page loading stalls until the
extension decides whether to allow, deny or modify each request. This gives
extensions enormous power, which can easily ruin user experience if the
extension is slow about handling requests.

~~~
throwaway2048
unlike say, ads doing the same thing.

------
devoply
No this is about killing content blocking, while not saying so explicitly...

> the 30,000 limit is not sufficient to enforce the famous EasyList alone).

------
kabwj
I hope they don’t go on with this... I really don’t want to go back to
Firefox.

~~~
kiwijamo
Recent versions have improved hugely. Have you tried them?

~~~
kabwj
I don’t trust the Mozilla Corporation. Putting ads on my home page a few weeks
ago was the last straw. But if Google does this, that’ll be almost worse.
[https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/31/mozilla-ad-on-firefoxs-
ne...](https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/31/mozilla-ad-on-firefoxs-new-tab-page-
was-just-another-experiment/)

It’s funny when you think of it, now both browsers want to shove ads down my
throat. I hate the modern internet.

~~~
43920
I agree that ads aren't a great solution, but the entire reason Mozilla is
doing things like that is to avoid having all their revenue (and thus their
existence) dependent on Google. How else do you think they should make money?

It's also worth pointing out that the included ads are targeted locally on
your computer, and none of your browsing data gets sent to Mozilla
([https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab-
reco...](https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab-
recommendations)).

And it's also really easy to turn them off (preferences > home > "sponsored
stories").

------
colordrops
If you prefer chrome but don't want to deal with the privacy issues,
definitely try out brave-browser. It's a custom build of chromium with privacy
and ad blocking enabled by default, and is fully open source.

------
coffeedrinker
People who have grown to know and love ad blocking will move en masse to
Firefox. That would be a good thing.

The attempt to force users into a system they don't want when there are other
options available results in a loss of users.

~~~
needle0
I’m not so sure about that. From a nontechnical users’s point of view, they
aren’t entirely shutting down adblockers outright, but merely slightly
inconveniencing them - most users will probably migrate to a different, less
powerful ad blocker and just keep using Chrome. We’re all frogs in water while
Google keeps raising the temperature just ever so slightly higher.

------
paulie_a
Google proposed changes to chromium that makes many people not use chromium.
Or chrome.

I will focus on Firefox for compatibility, if it works on chrome that's great
but I will consider it ie6, I don't care about crippled browsers.

Depending on the project and leeway I might even block it outright. I did that
with ie6 on one system.

------
finnthehuman
Apparently I can't post just the thinking face emoji. But we all know what
this is, what else is there to say that hasn't been said to death already?

------
deepstream
The uBlock origin author's comment on the CR bug threads looks incorrect to
me, for the following reason.

Chrome extensions have access to the 'debugger' API.

Debugger API provides access to remote debugging protocol.

Remote debugging protocol provides commands to intercept, filter and block
requests.

Please see: [https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-
protocol/](https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/) and
specifically the "Network" domain.

------
AaronFriel
Another reason why it was an enormous mistake for Microsoft to adopt Chromium
as the engine.

Now Microsoft has a choice for Edge:

A. Fork here and pay the maintenance price and extension compat issues, with
potentially unlimited downside of technical debt in reconciling the two.

B. Adopt these changes and kill ad blocking in Edge, preventing them from
differentiating themselves from Chrome _and_ reinforcing Google's position as
an advertising giant.

Both are bad. What would have been less bad is if Microsoft switched Edge to
say, Gecko, or maintained EdgeHTML and continued to support a multi-platform,
multi-implementation web.

~~~
ngngngng
Or pull a 180 and start running their own build of firefox that they
contribute to.

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

~~~
UnFleshedOne
Ad-supported businesses are an example of tragedy of the commons. They cause
users to be product rather than customers. They make it harder for any other
monetization strategy to take off the ground (it is hard to compete with
"free"). Ads, and marketing in general, is a zero sum game with your resources
being spent simply not to fall behind, just because your competitors are
spending them (they are like lawyers and military in that regard). Ads enable
and encourage parasitic businesses, like content farms and the like.

For the marks, I mean, users, ads pollute visual field, occupy mental space,
create and encourage unhealthy habits.

Ad industry can't go out of business fast enough.

