Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.

Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.

The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.

Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.

Archive link

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Using the internet without an adblocker is genuinely dangerous. Everyone really should be using uBlock Origin. Using a web browser that prevents uBlock Origin puts you in danger

  • Modva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Moved to Firefox some months ago, it’s fine. Small adjustment but browsers generally offer high interchangeability

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The title should be “Google pulls plug out of Chromium”

    Too bad that even when people start switching, people writing drafts for the W3 spec are mostly Google employees. I’m sure that’ll be their next battleground.

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the perfect time to go aggressive on telling your friends to switch to Firefox

    • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because the ads constantly change across the websites. Adblocking is naturally a cat-and-mouse dynamic. However, the “remotely hosted code” Adblockers use is not exactly “code” (as in a JavaScript code, for example), it’s more a Regex code containing patterns for the different websites and different behaviors (for example, the pattern for the pesky HTML element containing the ad, or the pattern for some ad-serving domain). Google is extrapolating their meaning of “remotely hosted code” purposely, so they can “justify” their measures.

      • shadycomposer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Fair. Pulling rules makes sense. Code wouldn’t. (I wouldn’t consider regex as code.)

        Thanks for the details.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not sure firefox will be on our side after the recent ad tracking debacle. If they implement one more anti consumer feature I‘m jumping ship.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              it is lol, have you seen how much the ceo is paying herself?

              its kind of a reddit situaton, where money wouldnt be that much of an issue if it werent for the ceo.

            • stoy@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              A CEO is a needed possition, I know in the past the Brendan Eich was controversial in his political views, but Laura Chambers seems ok so far

              • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                A CEO is a needed possition

                Ha! Good one…

                oh wait. You’re serious…

                How is a ceo needed? They do no work. Their entire job is to rake in cash from workers.

                All a ceo needs is a guillotine.

                • stoy@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Ok, granted that the CEO concept is not the only way to lead a company.

                  But you do need a leader, someone who can make decisions for the company, someone to make everyday decisions that are not fun, but needed to make the company work.

                  We can absolutely argue about their compensation, but thst is another argument alltogether.

                • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Right.

                  And a football team doesn’t need a quarterback.

                  🤦🏼‍♂️

                  Yes, many of them are assholes, doesn’t change the need for the leadership.

        • Mikina@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          IIRC, only like 2% of Mozilla spending goes towards FF (I may be misinterpreting something, but I remember 2% being thrown around), so funding FF without rest of Mozilla bullshit shouldn’t be that hard. Of course, since Mozilla did spend so little on FF, it’s a question how much they actually care about FF and what would happen if they lost access to their golden goose. They shouldn’t have problem funding FF, but they probably have other bullshit they don’t want to let go and that has more priority for them.

            • Mikina@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              You are right, it was unfairly harsh wording, I apologize for that. Most of those products are super cool and important, I’ve kind of extrapolated it from what I’ve read in other posts about them spending too much on stuff like events and other, non-developemnt, related stuff that I actually never checked, while also not realizing that they also have a ton of other projects, which mixed with the dissapointment with the recent development about the Meta partnership led to me choosing that wording unfairly.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          For now. They could default to yahoo and make money. Maybe not as much, but they could sustain browser development.

          Firefox is still far superior to chromium.

      • feoh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Totally agree. Many people who keep using Chrome have a VERY outdated view of what Firefox can do. That’s a shame, but it’s unfortunately an aspect of human nature that negative impressions are SUPER hard to change.

  • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve heard reasonably good reports about ublock origin lite (uBOL), the manifest V3 implementation. I haven’t made the jump yet, though.

    • ivn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I has some deal breaking limitations:

      • No filter list that can be updated, you have to update the whole extension to update filters. This adds delay as it has to go through Google verification process, they could even refuse some updates.
      • Not every type of rules are available on MV3, so it has to drop some filters.
      • No CNAME-uncloacking.
    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It may still block a relatively large part of the ads, but uBlock is not just about blocking ads. Large parts of it’s filterlists are about blocking data mining, shitty cookie prompts and similar things.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Maybe. I’m on Firefox, but a lot of my family members are on Chrome and I’m not looking forward to the calls ;)

  • Zicoxy3@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    the big companies, technological or not, always do the same thing… they launch a good product, very cheap (or free). When they already have a big market, they start cutting back. In the case of food, they raise prices, cut products, slightly change the taste… In the case of technology, they raise prices, cut the product, eliminate features…

    That a company like Google, dedicated to data, has its own browser and pays to include it as standard in cell phones, it is clear that it is not going to stand still when an addon for its browser blocks part of its business…In this case, very few will switch browsers. That means changing habits. Already did with Google Photos… . Tiene miles de millones de fotos y vídeos de menores, de fiestas, íntimas… Ofrece espacio gratuíto y después, le pagas por ello, porque tienes tu vida ahí… Or with Google Maps. It’s a great service, but it knows where you go, what for, your schedules… a brutal security problem…or with email… it reads everything. Because otherwise it will add you to the calendar when you take a flight without having opened the confirmation email…

    I’ve never stopped using Firefox. Google pays it too, but it’s the only one that’s independent. And then there’s Waterfox, Librewolf, PaleMoon… Run away from Google… there are alternatives.

    Translated with DeepL.com (free version)