
Google relents slightly on blocking ad-blockers for enterprise Chrome users - amaccuish
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_api/
======
gorhill
I was asked to comment by Thomas Claburn from The Register[1]:

The most concise summary I can come up with is in the article:

> Google's primary business is incompatible with unimpeded content blocking.

* * *

[1]
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_a...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/29/google_webrequest_api/)

~~~
djanogo
Do you collect any stats for overall ads blocked?, I wonder how much $$ damage
you did to Google finances since you launched your extensions on Chrome and
Firefox.

~~~
aw3c2
There is no damage being done by ad blocking, please don't use such language.

~~~
guuhv
That depends on whether you consider "lost income" to be damage. If I had a
webpage or an ad business, for me it would be damage.

~~~
justinjlynn
Nobody is giving me money, I consider this to be lost income, therefore
everyone is doing me damage. /s

~~~
justinjlynn
In all seriousness though, this line of thinking is, at best, going to feel
like constant victimisation if one engages in it far too often. Don't be
surprised if people don't go out of their way to give you money they don't
have to give you in order to get what they want in the way they want it. Lost
revenue refers to revenue you could've captured if you had done things
differently, so do them differently. If there's any damage done, it's damage
you did to yourself.

------
tomp
(Edit: _Re original title: "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-
blocking"_)

Seems to be referring to this part of the text:

 _> Observation

> Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in
> Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be
> available to enterprise deployments). Extensions with appropriate
> permissions can still observe network requests using the webRequest API. The
> webRequest API's ability to observe requests is foundational for extensions
> that modify their behavior based on the patterns they observe at runtime._

No idea if that's the API that adblockers use (or just a part of it)...

~~~
shawnz
I was under the impression that the ability to observe all requests was the
whole problem that made the webrequest api dangerous. Now they're keeping that
but eliminating the blocking features only? What?

~~~
skymt
The stated reason for removing blocking from WebRequest is to improve
performance, not privacy. If an extension can block a request, Chrome needs to
wait for the extension before performing the request. See the WebRequest
section in the design document:

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-
qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#heading=h.t5tc5efl7rfz)

~~~
Mirioron
So, why not just _not_ install the extension then? This just seems like taking
the user's choice away.

~~~
skymt
In fairness to Google, it's not absurd in principle. Mozilla has dealt with
this problem for years: when an extension slows the browser down, the user is
more likely to blame the browser than the extension. But in this specific case
of ad-blocking extensions, I have a hard time taking Google's justification
seriously. Ad blockers speed up the browsing experience far more than whatever
negligible processing time the filter process takes.

------
kryptiskt
So how many billions should the EU fine them this time to make them take
notice? Using their dominant position in the browser market to bolster their
dominant ad business, hmmm, maybe a fine isn't enough.

~~~
anfilt
Maybe that Google should have no say in the browser standards.

------
vorpalhex
The author spends a lot of time saying the changes aren't immutable, then goes
on to say "Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest
API in Manifest V3".

That seems both very final, and as if they have entirely failed to read any of
the feedback the community has given them.

------
sexy_seedbox
Related: for Android users who want to use Chrome on mobile with adblock (or
any extensions), Kiwi Browser introduced extensions support recently:

[https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-
ex...](https://www.xda-developers.com/kiwi-browser-google-chrome-extensions-
android/)

~~~
tedivm
There's also AdGuard, which acts as a VPN and blocks traffic on that IP, DNS,
and (optionally, if you enable their certificate) HTTP/S domains. Because it
works on the VPN level it blocks ads for all apps, not just the browser.

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

Google won't allow the full version in the Google Play Store (probably for the
same reason they're breaking adblockers on the desktop), but you can download
the full APK here-

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

~~~
dredmorbius
Also trivially accomplished with PiHole or adblock on OpenWRT, and with a bit
more work, Privoxy, SquidGuard, and related tools. Running your own DNS server
(DNSMasq, Knot Resover (kresd), Bind) pretty much gives you carte blanche to
do anything you want.

[https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

[https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock](https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata/adblock)
(see:
[https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/...](https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/adblock/files/README.md))

[https://www.privoxy.org](https://www.privoxy.org)

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

[http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html](http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html)

[https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html](https://knot-
resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/daemon.html)

[https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/](https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/)

~~~
basch
Which would only help me on my phone, while I am home.

~~~
dredmorbius
True. Though also for all other devices on that LAN.

There are device-based adblock systems that can be applied. On a rooted
Android, you can run DNSMasq locally. For iOS there are adblocking apps AFAIU.
Or you could (and perhaps should) run all traffic through a VPN, with adblock,
when remote.

------
anonymousab
I think it would be telling if eyeo GmbH is also in favor of these changes.

The way ABP works will probably be 'good enough' for the average user, for at
least as long as it takes to sway or marginalize competing browsers and to
come up with an ad content delivery strategy that requires (by then) long
unsupported extension features to counter.

They're building the pot with which they'll slow boil the content blocking
crab.

------
dceddia
Did anyone else notice the double meaning of the term "blocking"? This bit
tipped me off to the confusion:

> And he argues that if the blocking nature of the webRequest API really
> represents a performance concern, Google could just adopt Firefox's approach
> which uses a technique called Promises to return a non-blocking/asynchronous
> response.

They do explicitly say "content blocking" in a few places, but in most
instances they say "blocking webRequest API" which might actually refer to
blocking-as-opposed-to-non-blocking and not ad-blocking.

------
meddlepal
Firefox says Hello.

~~~
bhaavan
Firefox uses much more of my CPU cycles than Chrome for some reason. I wish it
had a good task manager for me to debug the culprit process.

I can feel my laptop loudly spinning fan, after a long running firefox
session. It stops doing this, if I close / restart firefox.

~~~
driverdan
Do you keep Gmail open? It's poorly optimized for non-Chrome browsers and
tends to peg the CPU at seemly random times.

~~~
0az
Honestly, at this point, I don't even use Gmail web: I just use the macOS
built-in Mail app (Thunderbird unfortunately doesn't have a friendly UI).

If more people switch to Firefox, this might be an additional effect: a rise
in the usage of desktop mail clients.

------
JulianMorrison
Force ads through blockers, I move to Firefox.

------
Chirael
In environments where use of Chrome is forced on us (e.g., a workplace), with
this change will we still at least be able to use NoScript to protect from
drive-by malware downloads?

If uBlock Origin is going to go away from Chrome, my first choice would be
Firefox but if I can't use that then I think I'd rather use Chrome with
NoScript (if possible) and images turned off.

------
josteink
We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after all.

Obviously sarcasm on my part, but I see this terrible (and false) argument
every time someone complains about the Chrome market share near-monopoly.

You’d think people would know better by now.

Edit: sarcasm made clearer.

~~~
tomxor
> We don’t need to worry about web monoculture. Chrome is open source after
> all.

Chromium doesn't really have many of the benefits of other open source
projects, it's a behemoth (have you ever tried a shallow clone and build from
scratch?). Forking chrome is pointless unless you have an army behind you to
maintain it. In that sense, chrome is chrome, and nothing more, it's
proprietary by sheer volume.

Anything based on it is usually little more than a chrome skin, or at best an
out of date tracking branch that's been pulled apart and put back together
again, e.g QtWebEngine which takes 6 months between releases just to pull
apart the code to strip all offensive code and put back together again.

~~~
Kudos
I agree it's not typical in terms of the scope of the project, but Microsoft
literally just released a browser based on it, joining Opera, Brave, etc.

~~~
em-bee
they also have an army to maintain it

~~~
tomxor
and they don't even stray particularly far from chromium.

------
lousken
I'd like to see gorhills response to this before I make any judgements.

~~~
jerheinze
[https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
issues/issues/338#iss...](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417)

~~~
noir_lord
Yep, the second that I can't install ublock origin on Chrome will be the
second I stop using it.

Currently I mostly use FF for the web and Chrome for Dev and testing but if I
have a tab open I'll use it.

If I can't use ublock origin I'll lock down Chrome so that I can only visit a
whitelist of things I need to Dev/test and switch entirely to Firefox.

~~~
tedivm
We require adblockers at work for security reasons, so we'll be migrating
everyone to Firefox or Brave once this happens.

------
tracker1
Hopefully Brave, Edge, Opera and other derivatives continue to support the
more advanced API.

------
JohnFen
Sounds like yet another solid reason to continue to avoid using Chrome.

------
outside1234
Just use Microsoft Edge!

------
ouid
this will kill chrome.

------
cpcallen
The title of this post was edited. The original title—and the interesting part
of the linked article—is "Only enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-
blocking."

I think it's rather telling that Simeon Vincent has buried this news in an
off-handed one line comment buried in the middle of a rather long post, and I
think it's unfortunate that HN's title policy has also buried the lede.

~~~
sjwright
It is remarkable that the title on HN could be changed to something that
borders on strategically dull. I don't think you could create a less
communicative title if you tried. This is an important story which affects a
large portion of the HN audience, yet I doubt even 1% of the affected users
would know what "Manifest V3" refers to.

"A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is so
outrageously devoid of information that it is difficult to come up with an
innocent explanation for it.

~~~
sjwright
And now this article has now dropped off the front page in rapid time.

I don't get what the aim is here. Why bury a story that everyone is going to
know about soon enough?

Edit: to the numerous people who are voting my comments down, could you please
provide actual feedback?

~~~
dictum
It's not being intentionally buried, but the rapid drop in interest is a
testament to the utter dullness of "A response to feedback on the proposed
changes in Manifest V3"

"Manifest V3" is jargon, which is a big problem in HN. See Show HNs that don't
really explain _what_ is the thing being introduced.

The _Response - > feedback -> proposed changes_ chain is verbose. The three
concepts are almost a single concept (changes) wrought as present -> past ->
future.

"A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is a
characteristically Google-internal-y [0] way to say "Update on coming changes
to Chrome extension APIs".

[0]: My unscientific feeling is that a lot of engineers at Google write about
projects as if the audience is other Google engineers. It's not out of malice,
but it's convenient when you don't have to explain the full rationale for a
change.

------
JorgeGT
Just for the record, the original title of this submission was "Only
enterprise Chrome installs will have full ad-blocking"

------
amaccuish
As the OP can the title please be changed back to my original one? It was far
clearer what this is actually about.

~~~
amaccuish
Thanks. I actually got this from the reg article but followed HN rules and
posted the original google groups link. The register article is much clearer.

------
sctb
Thanks! We've updated the link from
[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-
exte...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-
extensions/veJy9uAwS00/9iKaX5giAQAJ) which was less clear.

~~~
dang
We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039630)
and marked it off-topic.

------
wguaa
So to keep using uBlock Origin at its full functionality I'll have to flip a
configuration bit on Chrome first?

~~~
dannyw
Or use Firefox.

~~~
wguaa
No thanks.

~~~
nhumrich
Why not?

------
nullwasamistake
This title is terrible, it's meaningless to 99.9% of users. It doesn't even
mention Chrome!? How is anyone supposed to know what this post is about?

~~~
sjwright
Don't worry, if the issue is as described it's going to spawn a _lot_ of
headlines of Hacker News, not just this one.

Though in changing the title to something that could only be described as
strategically dull, at least we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators
lie.

~~~
Shish2k
> we now know where the loyalty of HN moderators lie

Loyal to consistently implementing the rule of "HN submission title should
match the original page title"?

~~~
sjwright
That's not a viable explanation, as "A response to feedback on the proposed
changes in Manifest V3" is not the page title. _At best_ it's a modified
version of the first sentence.

Furthermore it's a rule which is rarely followed. Look at most of the title
edits: more edits are deviating the submission titles _away_ from the original
page title.

[https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/](https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/)

Of course it's a moot point now. This article's new title has caused it to
drop off the home page and it's now effectively dead.

------
village-idiot
At a certain point it’s impossible to take this as a coincidence.

------
Simon_says
Headline is wrong. Firefox has ad blocking.

~~~
Simon_says
To everyone downvoting, the headline was edited. Previously it said that only
Chrome Enterprise edition has ad blocking.

------
lostmsu
If they remove the API, can they be sued for non-competitive behavior?

Obviously, Chrome has a monopoly in web browsing, especially on desktop. And
this can be seen as a leverage for a different business they have, namely ads.

~~~
gtCameron
In what world does Chrome have a monopoly on web browsing? They have ~66%
market share, and there are at least two high quality, free, alternatives on
Mac and Windows that are only a click away

~~~
mpcjanssen
"they have a 66% market share", in that world. A 100% market share is not
needed to have monopoly power.

