About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported"

From Manifest V2 support timeline (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;extensions&#x2F;develop&#x2F;migrate&#x2F;mv2-deprecation-timeline" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;extensions&#x2F;develop&#x2F;migrate...</a>):<p>&gt; Starting on June 3 on the Chrome Beta, Dev and Canary channels, if users still have Manifest V2 extensions installed, some will start to see a warning banner when visiting their extension management page - chrome:&#x2F;&#x2F;extensions - informing them that some (Manifest V2) extensions they have installed will soon no longer be supported. At the same time, extensions with the Featured badge that are still using Manifest V2 will lose their badge.<p>&gt; This will be followed gradually in the coming months by the disabling of those extensions. Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. For a short time after the extensions are disabled, users will still be able to turn their Manifest V2 extensions back on, but over time, this toggle will go away as well.<p>Time to say goodbye to Chrome.

I feel like Raymond Hill and the uBlock Origin contributors&#x27; impact on the web is often unappreciated.

I don’t get why we need only a declarative manifest format to specify blocking rules.<p>Chrome has the ability to run code in a sandboxed environment with no external network access. This could be done in JS, or it could be WASM.<p>So, why can’t they leverage that? Ublock receives the page being visited and it needs to return an array of elements to block. The browser can do the replacement and element stripping itself. This is the approach Safari takes on iOS for content blocking extensions.<p>Instead, Chrome went with a “limited set of static patterns in JSON format” approach, which rules out or limits a lot of use cases.<p>But… why? The obvious answer is because they don’t want adblockers, but this seems a bit too obvious. Is there some technical reason I’m missing for this?

I fear this will have significant consequences on the youtube vs ublock war. A key component of how ublock prevailed is by devising mechanisms to push instant updates of the filter lists. Does the chrome web store allow timely updates, or will they be significantly delayed? Or do the filter updates not go through the store?

Can the explanation be more verbose or link to &quot;Why this matters for you&quot;.<p>Inform people instead of what could be read as &quot;I&#x27;m just not doing it&quot;.<p>Firefox user here since before it was Firefox so I see this as a chance to educate.

Chrome is not a User-Agent anymore, it is a Google-Agent.

Some anecdata: 14 of my 32 extensions are listed as &quot;may soon no longer be supported&quot; :(

Wonder how many people are going to uninstall because of this dialogue.<p>Also, is there an arrival date for V3 now?

The obvious solution is to build a complete browser compiled in WASM and release it as a Chrome extension.<p>This new in-browser-browser can then have a good support for stuff like uBlock Origine or whatever else one pleases.<p>This way you still use chrome while making chrome irrelevant.

For the moment, the best possible solution seems to me simply disabling auto-updates. On long-term, if supermium can port over the critical fixes from chromium, ubo v2 may still survive with chrome-ish packaging.<p>For larger context, the ecosystem is fragmenting, and I have ~10 browser extensions that are critical to me. I don&#x27;t think I will prioritize chrome&#x27;s software cadence over my own preferences, thank you.

Came here to see what exactly that meant for UBO and didn&#x27;t see anything so posting the below:<p>Raymond Hill, the creator and maintainer of uBO, has made it clear that he will not be trying to adapt uBO to Google&#x27;s Manifest v3 – the extension architecture that is replacing v2.<p>&quot;You will have to find an alternative to uBO before Google Chrome disables it for good&quot;

Of the two, one shall still be in use, not only by me but because demands are there.