
Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: comment from uBlock Origin author - fanf2
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417
======
drewg123
To see how Google feels about ad blockers, all you need to do is look at
Chrome on Android & the fact that it does not allow extensions at all. I have
personally used Firefox on Android for years because of this.

I predict Firefox will see a large uptake in market share if ad and content
blockers become ineffective on desktop Chrome. I've finally switched to
Firefox on the desktop now that U2F support is here, and it looks like it was
just in time.

~~~
enitihas
Can you tell us which browser apart from mobile firefox allows extensions?
Safari no, Edge no. I use firefox mobile for extensions, but browser vendors
might want to make different tradeoffs since mobile has different
requirements, and it is used by far too many people for far too much personal
tasks and allowing access to browser data may not be as desirable as on
Desktop. 99% of mobile users don't have the technical skills required to
understand what data extensions will have access to.

Off course, Apple doesn't even allow other browsers on iOS, so firefox iOS
can't support extensions even if it wanted to. If you look at a single policy
and decide that you know all you need to know, then maybe you should first ask
for apple to change.

~~~
buro9
Brave browser allows you to default disable JavaScript which for 90% of sites
means to block adverts (and 10% of sites will break the site)

Firefox Focus will at least destroy everything the moment you leave a site

Firefox allows ad-blockers

These are what I use for all sites that aren't owned by Google... Google sites
I open in Chrome, but only Google sites do I open in Chrome

I have no default browser on my Android, I pick a browser when I click a link,
with Brave being my default in most cases, Firefox Focus for "must have
JavaScript but please scorch the Earth afterwards" and Firefox for somewhere
inbetween

~~~
enitihas
Brave makes different trade offs. I use brave with javascript disabled, and
find a lot of sites not working. Specifically, any links I open from email
mostly don't work due to JS. If you don't know why your fav site isn't working
due to JS, brave might not be your cup of tea. And that is 99% of mobile
users.

------
AJ007
Who is actually calling the shots over at Google?

In January, Google announced that Chrome was going to be blocking all ads on
domains that had too many ads ( [https://blog.chromium.org/2019/01/building-
better-world-wide...](https://blog.chromium.org/2019/01/building-better-world-
wide-web.html) ) ; website owners were told to use the new "Ad Experience
Report" in Webmaster Tools/Search Console to find out if they passed our not.
Months later, my sites never were reviewed. Everyone I asked also did not have
their sites reviewed.

Now Google has updated the Search Console and this "Ad Experience Report" is
no where to be seen.

Maybe whoever came up with this idea and announced it never had the
authorization to do so. After all, Google's Adsense was happily encouraging
web site owners to add ad placements to their websites that were blatant
violations of these new rules, including the most egregious, full page
interstitials. The UI of Adsense would easily convince a more novice operator
to just turn on "auto ads" and have Google blanket their website with ads
automatically. Certainly this couldn't have been the plan, follow Google's
advice so that your site could never earn advertising revenue from Chrome
users again?

I suspect Google does have a plan to deal with ad blocking. They might have a
few plans. Right now, it resembles someone bashing their own head against a
wall. These changes to Chrome precipitate the end of Chrome having a dominate
desktop market-share. If it really happens. But no matter what happens, Google
is once again a little less trustworthy after.

~~~
kretor
Chrome security lead Justin Schuh says he is responsible:

"The sole motivation here is correcting major privacy and security
deficiencies in the current system. I know, because I set that focus, and the
team reports up through me."

[https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1134092257190064128?s...](https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1134092257190064128?s=20)

~~~
jzl
Ugh. Reading this guy's account is just making me depressed. There is not a
single convincing or meaningful response to gorhill's excellent and concise
twitter thread:

[https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1134127701583904770](https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1134127701583904770)

All I see is handwavy posturing and tweets like this: "I should know better
than to check Twitter after a painfully long day, but I am not dumb enough to
actually reply to any of this crap."

This is the person who (by his own claim) is making the call on something that
will fundamentally change the entire Internet?

~~~
elliottkember
The same person who made these incredibly snide comments on the Chrome
password debacle a few years back:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6165708)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6166953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6166953)

------
StavrosK
I used a friend's phone to look at some website and was horrified that the
website had added ads everywhere since the last time I visited! Then I noticed
he was using Chrome, which doesn't have adblock, and apparently the web is
just terrible.

Thank God for Firefox Mobile.

~~~
woldemariam
I used AdGuard and I don't see any ads in Chrome

[https://adguard.com](https://adguard.com)

~~~
ulucs
Or you could use firefox and not see ads for free, AND communicate Google that
what they're doing is unacceptable.

~~~
HugoDaniel
Google is an advertising company

~~~
ce4
from a recent Google SEC filing:

"New and existing technologies could affect our ability to customize ads
and/or could block ads online, which would harm our business.

Technologies have been developed to make customizable ads more difficult or to
block the display of ads altogether and some providers of online services have
integrated technologies that could potentially impair the core functionality
of third-party digital advertising. Most of our Google revenues are derived
from fees paid to us in connection with the display of ads online. As a
result, such technologies and tools could adversely affect our operating
results."

[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419000004/goog10-kq42018.htm#sB8A92C82A7085B27A37F412D2216BC6F)

------
ishan1121
If this becomes a reality, we as a tech community must do our part. We must
personally leave chrome, ask all our friends and family to stop using chrome
and switch to Firefox or Brave. Really show Google what we as a community can
do.

~~~
morganvachon
Agreed, except Brave is a closed source wrapper for Chromium and you can't be
sure if it's really as safe and private as they say. Also, it's married to a
cryptocurrency scheme and that alone is reason to stay away.

~~~
sanxiyn
Which part of Brave is not open source at
[https://github.com/brave](https://github.com/brave) ?

~~~
morganvachon
Thanks, I wasn't aware they had finally produced source code with an open
source license for the wrapper code. Still, I don't see anything on their
Github about the servers that run the backend of their ad-serving and
cryptomining services. Until I see otherwise I'll assume that is closed and
proprietary and that all browsing activity is monitored, logged, and monetized
per their advertising model.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/a2y9iv/is_br...](https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/a2y9iv/is_brave_fully_opensource_or_just_some_parts/ebspns0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)

------
kgwxd
Title should say "uBlock Origin". I think a new name would really help the
tool, even just officially changing to "uBO". Every single thread about it has
several people confused over the name.

~~~
__HYde
uBO definitely seems like it would have bad search engine discoverability.

------
forgotAgain
The only thing saving Google from an antitrust decree is the lack of an
antitrust enforcement will in the US government.

Google is taking advantage of it's monopoly position in browsers to help
another business area: advertising.

~~~
tannhaeuser
Where was this antitrust enforcement you mentioned when Google bought
DoubleClick and YouTube, and Fb bought WhatsApp? Antitrust regulations aren't
working at all, to the point other markets/nations might have to take steps to
brace from the monopoly the US is breeding.

------
elcapitan
I switched to Firefox when Quantom came out and never looked back.

On Android I use Opera, which has a built-in adblocker. I would love to use
Firefox as well, but on Android it just seems very sluggish. Especially the
scrolling is kind of cruel.

~~~
kgwxd
I keep seeing people complain about scrolling on Firefox on Android, I've been
using it for several years on Nexus 5X, I just don't see what people are
talking about. Whatever you're experiencing, is it really bad enough to
justify using a proprietary browser? Do you have any clue what the browser or
that built-in ad blocker are really doing? Where do they get their block list?
Does it block trackers? Do they collect data about you directly? I don't have
time to dig into it now, but I remember hearing some kind of story about them
acting as a proxy to accomplish the ad blocking, if true, that's a horrible
trade-off.

~~~
elcapitan
I think condescending lectures like that are what's really going to convince
people.

~~~
adar
"Doesn't happen to me, but you should deal with it."

Really inspiring stuff!

------
rsweeney21
Would Edge be forced to adopt this change or is this Chrome specific?

If Edge can preserve the old behavior then this might be a chance for
Microsoft to really hurt Google if they wanted to.

~~~
pedrocx486
Each fork can choose the path to follow and MS has the manpower to keep that.

------
stevenicr
I use adblocking tools on most sites most of the time, mainly as a security
measure and for some privacy. I would be okay if there was a button to allow
self-served ads to be displayed, and would be especially fond of something
that allowed me to limit certain types of ads, and to only share certain bits
of info to the ad-determining-system.

So long as ads are served by third party servers I can not stand the lack of
security and privacy.

If example.com serves ads from it's own server and there is malware in them,
then example.com has issues. Currently places like yahoo have served malware
and simply blame the third party and portray themselves as duped victims that
have no liability.

If this thing happens with chrome - and someone is using an adblocker that has
been crippled, if then a malvertisement is served, wouldn't google become
liable for blocking the security plugin from working properly and therefor
causing the infection?

------
samayylmao
If I search for ublock with google I don't get a result pointing to ublock in
the google chrome app store.

I do get results for: firefox, opera, microsoft.

coincidence?

~~~
saagarjha
[https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=ublock%20origin](https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=ublock%20origin)

~~~
GraemeL
I followed the link logged in to Google, in a private window and through a VPN
in another browser. The results were the same and in the same order in each
case: Firefox addon, uBlock.org, Gorhill's Github, Wikipedia, MS store,
Reddit, Twitter and the Opera addon. The Chrome addon doesn't show up until
the top of the 3rd results page.

The suggested searches were for adding every major browser apart from Chrome
to the search.

If you add Chrome to the query then uBlock for Chrome appears as the top
result.

Seems kind of a strange failing that Google search needs such a specific query
to get a result for a chrome addon that their own store page claims has over
10 million installs.

~~~
saagarjha
Every time I tried, I got the Chrome Web Store, uBlock.org, gorhill/uBlock,
the Firefox addon, Wikipedia, How-To Geek, and the Microsoft Store. Somewhat
interesting, I think…

------
jknz
Microsoft could auto-install a Microsoft branded chromium with native uBlock
integration in the next windows update. That would be entertaining to watch.

On a related note, if OSes were shipping uBlock powered browsers by default,
removing ad blockers would be considered a security risk and a no-go.
Hopefully we'll be there one day.

~~~
a_imho
Actually all browser vendors could/should do that except for Google.

------
s09dfhks
switched to firefox back when the news about chrome potentially blocking ad-
blockers broke.

At first i was worried my workflow would be disrupted, but literally nothing
has changed. I was able to find all my chrome extensions in firefox's
marketplace

------
anuraj
Google as an Ad company has interests diametrically opposite to people who
want to browse without annoyance. Having a monopoly browser with an ad company
should surely be deemed anti competitive. Google should be allowed to keep
only one - Ads or Chrome.

------
jonas21
I'm struggling a bit to understand the outrage directed specifically at Google
over this.

When Apple made a nearly identical change in Safari, some people even praised
it for protecting user privacy by preventing malicious ad blockers from
intercepting every URL you visited. Most people didn't seem to care, and those
who did generally seemed happy about it. But when Google does it, people
assume the worst intentions.

~~~
msbarnett
) There’s no stunningly obvious conflict of interest leading to the conclusion
that Apple is undermining ad blockers in order to protect their ad sales
business.

2) Safari’s API is less restrictive than Chrome’s proposal. Rules can be
updated dynamically instead of requiring resubmitting the extension for
approval, for instance.

3) Market share is materially relevant to level of concern. What the mouse
does is less concerning than what the 800 lb Gorilla does.

~~~
jzl
Yep. Safari desktop market share is less than 4%.

Also Safari does a lot of tracking and cookie prevention out of the box:
[https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308138/apple-
safari-11-...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308138/apple-
safari-11-advertiser-groups-cookie-tracking-letter)

------
OldFatCactus
I've been resisting the switch to Firefox but this is has finally compelled me
to make the jump

------
juststeve
more comments here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430)

------
kerblang
It sounds like there is some performance-based argument getting shouted over
here - something to do with blocking I/O (not blocking ads) - what exactly is
google proposing?

------
wnevets
Using the internet without uBlock is a one big dumpster fire. I would drop
chrome in a heartbeat and switch to firefox full time If I can't use uBlock.

------
a_f
I wonder now that Edge is moving to be Chromium-based that it will take, or be
forced to take the same approach?

I can imagine Microsoft carving a greater slice of the browser space if they
continued to support Chromium extensions whilst Chrome did not.

~~~
suby
It won't be forced to take a similar approach. Google is leaving the code in
the codebase for enterprise users, so presumably it will just be a toggle /
straightforward for them to keep it functional. Microsoft also has the
manpower to basically do whatever they want.

------
ilaksh
I am trying to switch to Firefox right now. The main challenge for me is I am
used to Chrome filling in all of my passwords so there are some that I have
forgotten.

~~~
jnet
You can import those into firefox by going to options -> privacy and security
-> saved logins and click on import. I just did it yesterday and it worked
well.

------
kyriakos
New Microsoft Edge may benefit from this.

------
xwdv
I think it will be clear that DNS based adblocking may be the only viable
adblocking solution for a while.

~~~
gruez
DNS based adblocking is a last resort because it's so much worse than
extension based adblockers, even worse than the manifest v3 that's being
proposed. They can't block first party ads, so Google would be fine if you
switched to it.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I genuinely don't mind first party ads, FWIW.

------
Fnoord
Browsh + uBlock Origin + Mosh + Tmux = low bandwidth remote browsing

------
sanxiyn
Everybody, please switch to Firefox.

------
devoply
From a strategy perspective now is a great time for all ad blockers to simply
abandon Google... causing a massive outflow of users to Firefox and other
browsers. There is not reason to keep making this sort of software for Chrome.

~~~
diveanon
I think you are vastly over estimating the number of people who use ad
blockers.

~~~
jzl
"Survey shows US ad-blocking usage is 40 percent on laptops, 15 percent on
mobile" [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)

"In 2018, roughly 25 percent of internet users were blocking advertising on
their connected devices. This figure is expected to keep growing"
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-
reach...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-
us/)

"How many people in the UK are using ad blockers?

Rates of ad blocking in the UK remain relatively low compared with other
Western countries tracked by eMarketer. We estimate that 12.2 million people
in the UK will use an ad blocker at least monthly in 2018, representing 22.0%
of internet users, compared with 28.7% in France, 32.0% in Germany and 25.2%
in the US. ... We expect 43.0% of UK internet users ages 18 to 24 will use an
ad blocker this year." [https://www.emarketer.com/content/ad-blocking-in-the-
uk-2018](https://www.emarketer.com/content/ad-blocking-in-the-uk-2018)

~~~
diveanon
I'm not trying to dispute the facts, but anecdotally I just don't find that to
be true.

40% seems very high to me, but then again usage of ad blockers isn't exactly
exciting conversation that I try to bring up when I'm around my friends.

I wonder if we will start seeing "you wouldn't download a car" style ads
targeting users of ad blockers soon.

------
StavrosK
Please switch to Firefox, it's better:

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/new/?redirect_source=f...](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/new/?redirect_source=firefox-com)

If your favorite feature works slightly worse in Firefox, consider that its
interests align with yours, unlike Google's.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I might be the only person in the world who never stopped using Firefox as a
primary browser (since ~2005).

~~~
oftenwrong
I have used it as my main browser since it was called "Firebird". For me, its
pros have always outweighed its cons, even during the long period in which its
stability/performance/memory-usage was inferior to its competitors.

Some nostalgia:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Mozilla_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Mozilla_Phoenix_logo_vector.svg)

~~~
cesarb
I can top that: not only I used it as my main browser while it was still
called "Firebird", but I also used as my main browser its predecessor Mozilla
back when its version numbers were single-digit "milestones". For those who
didn't experience these early versions: they crashed a lot, and opening more
than one window (there were no tabs back then) increased the chances of a
crash so much that after 2-3 windows having it crash was almost certain.
(Before that, I had used Netscape, starting with Netscape 2.)

------
Bantros
Brave

------
fencepost
It's so nice that Google gets to have its own voter ID "it's for security!"
movement, and all of us get to play minority voters.

Have they cast anyone in the Kris Kobach role yet?

------
mathw
Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Adverts are a means to do that. Don't
like them? Start paying directly.

That would admittedly be an easier argument if online adverts weren't hideous,
intrusive, slow, distracting, bandwidth-chewing, performance-destroying,
malware-delivering, privacy-violating abominations.

~~~
sanxiyn
Better: pay, if and only if doing so removes all ads.

It is naive to think that companies wouldn't want to show ads to paid members.
It may not be necessary for survival, but companies do love money.

~~~
cr0sh
> It is naive to think that companies wouldn't want to show ads to paid
> members.

It used to be, back in the olden days of pay-TV, that you'd get HBO, etc in
order to not have commercials shown to you. I haven't seen HBO in like
forever, but last I recall, they ended up showing tons of "commercials" for
stuff they were playing, were going to show, up-and-coming things, "sister
station" things, etc.

Basically, yeah - you didn't get to hear about the latest and greatest form of
Tide or Folgers - but instead you would get anything and everything about HBO
and other channels.

Great.

Today - I don't know what you see. I know for Hulu and other streaming
services, it was peddled the same way (pay to get no ads). Now you pay - and
you still get ads. Thanks.

So I've personally done what they don't want you to do, but they can't stop
me: I've stopped watching everything. I don't even go to the movies if I can't
help it. The magazines I purchase are super-niche so I don't see any
mainstream adverts that way (Nuts and Volts, Servo, 2600). I don't listen to
the radio. UB-Origin on my browsers (and with all this being discussed, I'm
going to look into switching back to FF as well, and setting up a pi-hole).

They still manage to sneak some crap in - and I can't help to see those
billboard ads and other things as I drive down the road or whatnot. Amazon
also has some ads, and some things I subscribe to require you to see the ads
to see the content, but that stuff is usually off to the side and just
"filters out" into background noise at best (and most of the time it's for
products I either don't want or can't afford; for some reason, I get a bunch
of ads for Rolex watches and BMW cars - you'd think they'd run one commercial
for a Unimog, but nooooo).

Ultimately, I've more or less opted out of consumer popular culture. This crap
being discussed, and numerous other issues I see and experience, is just
pushing me further off the road.

For instance, I intend my next "smart phone" will be one that I build and code
myself. It won't look very pretty, and I'll still be tied to a service
provider and all that entails, but even if all I have are SMS and voice
calling, that'll be enough for me.

I'm also in the "slow process" of rebuilding/refurbishing an old Toughbook for
general usage, but that is also competing with a couple of other projects, a
refurbished TRS-80 Model 100, and a custom built "cyberdeck" I've been
contemplating and buying the parts for.

Maybe go back to using BBS's too, or some other "dark web" niche of the
internet - I dream of a place of freedom, the network I knew back when I
started in the 1980s. Not this walled-off mess we're walking...no
running...towards.

