
Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Firefox - axiomdata316
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just-gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/
======
delhanty
Possible dupe from yesterday perhaps?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430)

And not a bogus story in my opinion.

~~~
dang
Yes, along with many other recent threads:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20038872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20038872)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20037562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20037562)

------
_bxg1
It is worth noting that revamping the browser extension permissions model is
something that should definitely be done. Browser extensions up until this
point have been a massive security hole: they basically get read/write
permissions on every web page you visit.

Of course, content blocking could've been part of that new security model.

As Google tightens its grip, I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a
genuine fork of Chromium. Not just Chromium plus some extra stuff like Brave
and Vivaldi, but a real, doesn't-rely-on-upstream-changes-fork. Microsoft
seems like the most likely candidate for doing so.

~~~
Mirioron
> _they basically get read /write permissions on every web page you visit._

But you can select on which sites the extension is active. You can even make
it only active when you click on it.

~~~
_bxg1
This isn't a browser feature, it's an AdBlock Plus feature. You're just
switching off the blocking for certain sites, not turning off the extension
itself in any meaningful way.

~~~
15characterslon
You are wrong, sir. This is a browser feature.

[https://www.ghacks.net/2018/10/01/chrome-70-features-
option-...](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/10/01/chrome-70-features-option-to-
restrict-extension-access/)

------
pdkl95
Cory Doctorow was right... it wasn't _copyright_ that brought out the big guns
in the War On General Purpose Computing. The real battles started when people
utilizing the full power of heir computing devices started to threaten
currently-profitable business models.

The media companies saw media piracy and asked[2]:

> "Can't you just make us a general-purpose computer that runs all the
> programs, except the ones that scare and anger us?"

Google (and advertisers in general) is now asking ""Can't you just make us a
general-purpose browser that runs all the programs, except the ones that
programs that interfere with our business model?"

[1]
[https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html](https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)

[2] Ibid.

------
chanwitkepha
I use Adguard DNS. It can help because it work at DNS Level to block
Advertiser Domain.

[https://adguard.com/en/adguard-
dns/overview.html](https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html)

~~~
delhanty
This was insightful from Pieter Levels Twitter:

[https://twitter.com/levelsio/status/1054985994838130688](https://twitter.com/levelsio/status/1054985994838130688)

> The accidental thing nobody noticed is how @Cloudflare is suddenly in the
> best position now to take over the Web Analytics industry now that
> adblockers are all blocking JS-level Google Analytics, since Cloudflare can
> track users on the DNS-level

So once DNS blocking becomes the norm, the power to do evil will switch from
Google to Cloudflare.

~~~
Ayesh
DNS analytics are pretty much useless for web analytics due to wildcard
records, multi layer caching,etc.

------
yhoneycomb
Before I opened this, I really couldn't think of ANYTHING that would be big
enough for me to care enough about to switch.

But disabling ad block?

That's insane. If that really comes to fruition, there is no way I'm sticking
around.

~~~
r00fus
> But disabling ad block?

That's the fear. The reality is they want to use the AdBlock+ (ABP) model of
getting a trickle cashflow of adblocking users (and allowing so-called
"Acceptable Ads").

If you are seeing this as the thin edge of a very hard wedge into the concept
of adblocking, you're in good company.

Google/ABP need to start small, offend as few users as possible then make it
acceptable and move the conversation to "which ads should/n't be blocked"
instead of "all ads should be blocked", all while preserving their revenue
stream.

------
PhasmaFelis
> _Google is planning to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to
> enterprise users only_

> _the software giant is not backing down: It says the only people that can
> use ad blockers following the change will be Google’s enterprise users._

> _Google sent me a statement by email, which reads: "Chrome supports the use
> and development of ad blockers. We’re actively working with the developer
> community to get feedback and iterate on the design of a privacy-preserving
> content filtering system that limits the amount of sensitive browser data
> shared with third parties."_

These can't all be true. Which is it?

The last one sounds weasel-wordy to me: it might be saying that they want to
allow people to block _targeted_ ads and see random ones instead, which is
obviously not ad-blocking and would make "Chrome supports the use and
development of ad blockers" a bald-faced lie.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Google isn't banning any ad blockers directly. They're just deprecating an API
which many major ad blockers use, and the replacement API is different enough
that those ad blockers can't be ported to it. They claim that the deprecation
is about security and performance.

In particular, I don't think it's true that Google said "only people that can
use ad blockers following the change will be Google’s enterprise users".

~~~
creato
> They claim that the deprecation is about security

I mean, it kind of obviously is. Giving random extensions downloaded from the
internet access to the URLs of every request ever made by the browser is a
pretty insane security hole.

My impression is that other browsers (Safari) already removed this kind of
API, or never had it in the first place.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
As far as I can tell, they're not deprecating the API allowing extensions to
snoop, only the piece that lets an extension say "don't process that request
until I tell you it's okay". (In the design doc's terms, they're deprecating
only the blocking version of webRequest.)

------
plorg
Do 2B users use uBO, or do most of them use ABP or uBlock? Because I don't see
much pushback from the authors of the later, and it anything they have a
vested interest in design choices that negate the power of their greatest
competitor.

~~~
Rebelgecko
2B is probably the total number of Chrome users. I'd be curious how many
Ublock Origin users there are though. The # of installs counter on the Chrome
extension store maxes out at "10,000,000+".

~~~
devoply
Adblocking estimates are around 30% total.

------
snomad
All the more reason to use Host block lists such as
[https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

~~~
zwaps
yeah that's actually the point of the outrage. Using block lists is nice, but
modern adlockers can do much, much more. If you just use lists, chances are
the Ad industry - with the help of Google, will find a way to circumvent it.
They probably already have, see anti-adblock-blockers.

Nowadays, you can invent clever ways to get around all this. With the new
Chrome - you probably can't.

In the future, it'll probably be such that every website asks you to disable
adblocking or you are blocked from the site.

------
b_tterc_p
The interesting thing about ditching all of your ad blocking users is that
you’ve ditched the segment that shows the slightest interest in improving
their ux.

Hyperbole to assume all will leave of course, but I wonder what this will do
to user expectations

------
pmoriarty
This could also be a boon to external ad-blockers like Privoxy.[1]

Using Privoxy, you could have ad-blocking and continue to use Chrome.

[1] - [http://www.privoxy.org](http://www.privoxy.org)

------
blacksmith_tb
That's a bit hyperbolic though. I imagine a high percentage of HN users block
ads, but the overall rate is more like 25%[1] I suppose Forbes' editors
weren't so excited about "Google gives about 500M Chrome users a reason to
switch..."

1: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-
reach...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-
us/)

~~~
rstuart4133
As far as I know on Android Firefox is the only one that does ad blocking
well. That't because it supports plugins, including uBlock Origin. It's market
share is 0.36%

It was ad blocking that drove me to Firefox on Android. Screen space is
precious on mobile, and ads taking up a lot of it drove me nuts. I found I
preferred the UI but sorely missed Chrome's "translate page option". (I
changed my search engine to DuckDuckGo for the same reason - google search now
shows so much "useful" ancillary information I have to scroll past to get to
the actual search results I switched to DuckDuckGo just to avoid the
scrolling).

But at 0.36% I'm in the noise region as far as browsers concerned, which I
assume means most people don't care about ad blocking or noisy search results,
apparently.

------
maverick74
I bet they'll backdown!

There's no way they'll loose control over their users.

This will be changed and they'll find another way to force ads on their users
without loosing them.

Wait and see!

~~~
maverick74
Now, for sure ad publishers are happy with this and for sure will make their
services usable only with chrome.

Thank God we can change browser user agents :)

------
MR4D
Time for someone to start mass-producing pihole boxes and selling them online
for $50-$100 and make a killing.

If I had the time i’d do it!

------
jordache
freakin' done converted!

------
dheera
Okay, so they are crippling the webRequest API. I'm sure we can still block
ads by injecting some masterfully crafted jQuery cocktails. Ad blocking will
still be possible.

(Edit: Whoever just downvoted me -- you work on the Chrome team, I guess?)

~~~
zwaps
There was a time where I had to use some outdated ad blocker. ALL news sites
would display this "Disable your Ad blocker if you want to read this site"
full screen block (that was, of course, not blockable with an easy host list).

This is probably Google's roundabout way to defeat adblocking as a whole.

Disable your adblock, or don't visit any website with Google Ads. Your choice.

~~~
dheera
Yeah I think Fortune magazine did that to me. I just installed another plugin
to automatically inject some JavaScript to get rid of the "disable your
adblocker" curtain.

As long as bytes of content are being sent over my Ethernet cables, I will
find a way to render them.

------
privateSFacct
What a bogus story.

The issue google is trying to address here is that the adblockers get
permissions to basically all browsing data.

Google specifically says "Chrome supports the use and development of ad
blockers."

There is going to be a content filtering approach that doesn't require folks
give full access to all browser activity to a third party. For example, google
could provide hooks for a pattern list that the extension could populate to
block content. But no browsing data would be shared with the extension.

I know it's fun to go to immediate outrage - but Forbes is not the first place
I'd be looking for thoughtful / balanced stories.

~~~
throwaway2048
This has zero to do with privacy and security, because the APIs being removed
only have to do with modifying pages, the ability to read data from pages is
unaffected. The only real consumer of these APIs are ad blockers, they are
quite obviously being specifically targeted.

Painting this as all about user safety when it handsomely rewards Google's
largest profit center is farcical. (the new static list of 50k filters will be
completely trivial to workaround).

The only thing that is bogus here is the people denying it has nothing to do
with ad blocking.

~~~
privateSFacct
The extensions that want to do blocking would then not need to request
permission to read and modify pages.

As users we could pick adblockers that didn't require permission to ready all
our activity.

How is reducing the required permissions (significantly) not an enhancement to
user safety.

Your argument that we always must give extension authors full permissions to
get anything done is a pathetic one frankly.

~~~
throwaway2048
Chrome could easily enable this new API without crippling the old one, if
that's what users really wanted (its not).

