1018
Google Chrome warns uBlock Origin may soon be disabled
(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
1018 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59559 readers
1895 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
IT guys will stop using it...
Which means they'll stop deploying it as the default browser on some large enterprises, it won't ship as defaults in pre-baked images going forward.
Average joes and janes will use Safari and Edge depending on OS.
Where is their growth going to come from after this change? Chromebooks? lol.
I hope they do it, it will hurt them in the long run.
You can bet 300 new uBlock replacements to spring up practically overnight, some of them scams, reducing trust in the Google ecostystem.
Unfortunately it's a bigger problem.
Google doesn't plan to block uBlock Origin itself, but the APIs it uses to integrate into Chrome in order to function. This will effectively disable all adblockers on Chrome. uBlock won't be removed from the Chrome extension store, it will just have 90% of its functionality removed.
Additionally, this isn't a Chrome-only change, but a change in the open source Chromium, an upstream browser of Chrome all other Chrome-based browsers use (essentially everything aside from Firefox and Safari themselves).
The change itself is involved in changing the browser's "Manifest", a list of allowed API calls for extensions. The current one is called Manifest v2 and the new one was dubbed Manifest v3.
Theorethically Chromium-based browsers could "backport" Manifest v2 due to the open source nature of Chromium. However that is unlikely as it's projected to take a lot of resources to change, due mostly to security implications of the change.
Vendors of other Chromium-based browsers themselves have little to gain from making the change aside from name recognition for "allowing uBlock", which most users either wouldn't care for or already use Firefox, so the loss for Google isn't projected to be large, just as the gains for other vendors.
TLDR: uBlock won't be removed from the Chrome extension store, but the mechanisms through which it blocks ads will be blocked. The block isn't a change in Chrome but in Chromium and affects all Chromium-based brosers (all except Firefox and Safari). Other vendors could change that to allow adblockers but it's projected to take a lot of time and resources.
There is already a "lite" version of uBlock origin that conforms to the new manifest and will still work.
There are still a few features missing, some can't be implemented but others will be.
Is it by the same author? Nik Rols, iirc?
Raymond Hill (gorhill) is the author of uBlock Origin, uBlock Origin Lite, uMatrix etc.
I remembered... poorly.
The 'block element' picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.
Also included block lists can't update unless the extension itself updates.
Those seem like really big hurdles. How can those be worked around?
Is it not possible to trigger a manual block list update?
It's not something that can be worked around. It's specifically a design feature of manifest v3 to restrict these types of things.
Your options are to accept this or use a different browser.
No, they will not, if they didn't already. Because convenience it key.
The browser war is over, and humans lost, corporations won. Google and other huge corporations control the biggest websites and most of the access to content on the internet.
They just need to make it inconvenient to use ad-blocking browsers.
They built their business on advertiser gambling, which seem to be flawed concept, because they keep on squeezing that tube for every penny more and more, in a race to the bottom.
But they are still in control of both browers and content so they have options to keep squeezing more.
So you want to use a ad blocker? Well, the browser that supports them might not be white listed (anymore) by the bot detector, and you have to solve captchas on every site you visit, until you come to your senses and use a browser, where ad blocking is no longer possible.
Oh, and all that is ok, because of "security". Because letting the users be in control of their devices and applications is "in-secure". They are just doing that to protect you from spam and scams, just trust them! Trust them, because they don't trust you!
I'm looking into the possibility of moving my organization to FF. Office of about 200 endpoints. The sticky wicket that I don't fully understand is Auth passthru to 365.
Does this help at all: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/windows-sso
You're absolutely right.
That said at least I'll take this as my cue to peace out of the mainstream web and only use Links2.
"IT guys"? Chrome has a 66% market share globally.
Its not the IT guys themselves, its the aggregate influence. One large school campus flips the switch to Firefox on their next image deployment its a drop in a bucket, but when 1000 schools, 2000 government agencies and 5000 businesses all suddenly stop using Chrome the graph starts to move, because laypeople just accept the default.
IT guys are like browser-influencers, they tell their parents what to use, friends, and so on. We all used to recommend Chrome, I don't anymore.