Adtech is cyber warfare. Used to manipulate, control, and feed our minds with things that not even we understand what they're up to. There is no argument for uBlock being disabled/removed.<p>Fight for an internet where we're not exploited.
Google needs to be broken up. It's extremely concerning that a company that derives most of its revenue from internet ads, can use its control over the world’s most dominant browser to limit apps that are a risk to its bottom line as it pleases.
Imo, Google's plan is to make Chrome a sealed OS like Windows, where MS has all the control and users have no control.<p>But Google isn't alone. The pressure to show the 25% YoY growth means you need to do worse things than your competitors or die. If you don't poison the river, your neighbor will and you'll starve to death next year. It's the Saw movie, but for corporations.<p>The pressure to grow the stock price never stops, and next year Google will have to invent something else, something even more morally depraved.
On macOS I recommend kagi AND Orion for the ultimate zero telemetry search experience.<p><i>No need to block when you are not the product</i><p><a href="https://kagi.com" rel="nofollow">https://kagi.com</a><p><i>full disclosure: I am wearing my free kagi t-shirt right now</i>
Linux distributions should patch chromium downstream, enabling the "webRequestBlocking" API in manifest v3. The alternative is to load "policy" extensions, so I guess a system-wide ubo linux package could do it..
Chrome?<p>I switched to Firefox a few years ago, when Chrome would only play Youtube with 480p resolution. Too bad, the Youtube/tv interface was slick.
- Switch to Firefox with uBlock Origin.<p>- Change your default search engines.<p>- Uncheck the Firefox ads and remove commercial stuff.<p>- We all convince Mozilla to refrain from enshittifying Firefox or abandoning it, somehow, because ads are the main reason people hate browsing the internet, so if Firefox becomes a safe haven, Google will stop giving it money to stay alive.
I need to move my Google Chrome saved passwords to Firefox, but I don't trust Firefox, so I need to host my own credentials storage.<p>Firefox isn't all flowers and sunshine either, but at least it's not Chrome, where I can't run an ad blocker anymore.<p>Absolutely unacceptable Alphabet
> uBlock’s own uBlock Origin Lite, which uses Manifest V3 and has received positive reviews on the Chrome Web Store. Still, the ad blocker’s developer Raymond Hill has said the Lite version can’t match the full capabilities of the original uBlock Origin.<p>To me the developer should update the current v2 version with the new approved v3 version. Yes, is worse but at the end of the day is better for those 40M of users [1]. I'm speculating but I think he don't want to show defeat, maybe some ego is involved there.<p>[1] <a href="https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm" rel="nofollow">https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...</a>
It's disingenuous to say that Google is targeting uBlock Origin. The Manifest V2 extension architecture is fundamentally different from V3. V2 uses always running scripts while V3 requires event driven temporary workers. Additionally V3 eliminates the obviously risky V2 features like remote code execution and direct modification of network requests.<p>Not surprisingly, uBlock Origin relies heavily on features in V2 to perform it's functionality. It could probably be rewritten to use V3 but it's not a simple "Hey ChatGPT, make all this code into V3 compliant code." It will require a pretty fundamental rewrite.<p>Google made common sense improvements to the way extension work for safety and performance. Were they sad that uBlock Origin stopped working? Probably not. But I highly doubt it factored into the need for the V3 changes.
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of malware and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.<p>There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).<p>If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.