That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin.
If the plug has already been pulled then this works, I've had this set in my registry for a while and uBO is still chugging along as per normal.
Browser extensions are probably the most convenient option, especially for the layman, but there is always DNS-based blocking and/or local proxies like privoxy.
FF is an option for now since they say they'll maintain the slightly more powerful v2 chrome web extensions (still gimped compared to the old actual FF extensions they dropped). But they've tied their horse to Goog and are now being led, even if it takes a few years to bring the pot to boil.
When that day comes, I'll drop Firefox like a bad habit as well.
Whoever keeps full-strength ad blocking working is going to be my browser provider. I don't mind paying. Heck, maybe we can just crowdfund someone to operate a minimal fork of Chromium that just keeps Manifest V2 running.
I can't emphasize enough how little brand loyalty I have for any browser that breaks ad blocking. They may as well be removing the back button, it's that boneheaded of a feature removal.
i mean in the near future if all ads are preventable. we probably will just be paying to use internet products. i mean its the only reason its free right? or maybe the isp will become the new apple google fb and they will provide browsers and websites. and most likely these isp will lock exclusives. eek
we DO pay for internet and internet products, in so far as actual internet and actual internet products. I pay ISP, I pay VPN, I pay some security services.
further in my humble poor opinion; If the only way to secure funding/guarantee your product/job/life is by having completely irrelevant, predatory ads hosted in your space, maybe you should go int oa different field, or not expect to make money off of a niche hobby application.
Hosting a website, app, service, (if not a paid service), should be "cost of doing business". Or "cost of maintaining a hobby which I'm broadcasting."
It is a great disservice to our children that the "default" in life is "you will pay for this ,and you will watch brain rot ads"
Yeah, all commercial outfits need revenue, and if they don't have ad-based revenue they need their users to be customers paying for the service. Right.
This said, I see three more ways for free (like gratis) services (at least free for users):
1. Government-funded services. If some online services are deemed to be very important for public wellbeing, the government might decide to pay for a service or to run it themselves. One example is public databases like a list of medication covered by health insurance.
2. Non-profits. They can live off voluntary donations from users, governments, and companies.
3. Hobbyist-supported services. People work pro bono to support a service and some hobbyists even pay for third-party services (like hosting).
These are not sharply discerned categories. A service might nominally be run by a non-profit, but the non-profit is staffed by hobbyists and the government might pay for hosting and other costs. Such a service would be a government-funded hobbyist service run by a non-profit.
If you're not trying to be global scale and/or the only site in your market segment, you can go pretty far off of voluntary donations. As far as I know, even the largest Mastodon sites are Patreon/Liberapay/etc funded.
It will probably be Opera. The only reason I don't use their browsers is because I don't like running non-free software and really don't like using it heavily or for anything important but losing ad block would push me into it.
They didn't declare anything about that. Vivaldi said they have their own ad blocker not dependent on V2 [0]. Edge is in process of updating their timeline [1].
I think the problem is. What if Chromium won't have code supporting V2 anymore? This means, it is just impossible to run V2 extensions because V2 is not only turned off but completely removed.
Vivaldi seems to have decided that they will provide a built-in feature for advanced ad blocking and Edge seems to be undecided yet.
Oof, sorry for spreading misinformation.
I could've sword that I read an announcement years ago by Microsoft, stating that they're not planning to deprecate V2 and keep supporting both. I cannot find this announcement anymore, and it seems the deprecation is already in effect.
Thanks for acknowledging. Mistakes can and do happen, or information has changed since the post. I also accidentally wrote misinformation here on Hacker News.
But it won't help if manifest V2 supporting code is finally deleted from Chromium.
Vivaldi already has a built-in adblocker in place, so Vivaldi ad-blocking doesn't depend on V2 being available.
This said, V2 shouldn't be removed at all because this will stifle the extension ecosystem. I predict that extensions will stagnate. Just because some ad-obsessed company killed V2 to stop an extension threatening their revenue.
Will be interesting to see what happens then. Will those who are 100% invested in "browser extensions" be able to transition to methods that do not require the cooperation of the financed by advertising browser vendor.
In theory Chrome users should be able to just keep using old versions or edit the source to remove the offending changes and re-compile. In practice, Google's version of "open source" offers little control to end users. The program is far too large and complex.
It seems likely the remedy sought for Google's antitrust violations will affect Chrome in some way, not to mention affecting Google's continued support of Mozilla. It is unclear what the future of web browsers may look like.
There was a Firefox that came bundled with Adblock at one point for Android, but since then Adblock has gotten in bed with advertisers. I'm not sure what's available these days for Android.
Not sure why you're downvoted. The ad blocker being an extension makes as much sense as "CSS" being an extension. Browser makers, why not just permanently integrate ad blocking into the guts of the browser? You could probably do an even better job, not being limited to the extension API.
Realistically, on a bog standard installation of uBlock Origin, how different will my experience be with the v3 compatible uBlock Origin Lite? I'm not sure if I'm even using any of the "advanced" features or not.
Specifically:
- YouTube ad blocking will not work. At all, most likely. The filter lists/scriptlets would have be updated more often than Google would be willing to process extension updates (because filter lists can no longer be updated separately from the extension)
- Some sites will show blank space where ads used to be.
- If a website bypasses adblocking, it will take (a week?) longer than it normally does for those updates to propagate, because those updates have to go through Google’s review first.
- It’ll be hard to update the extension to tackle more advanced ad blocking technologies, because the blocking engine is hardcoded into the browser in MV3
> It's very possible that the sites you visit do not require any of the filtering capabilities specific to uBO, in which case you won't see a difference.
The best way to find that out would be to try uBO lite. I personally haven't noticed any difference, but my browsing, in terms of variety of sites I visit, is fairly limited compared to many folks.
Edit: another thing is if you are happy with adblocking on Safari, you won't notice much difference with uBO lite, since Safari only supports effectively the same API as MV3. uBO has never been available on Safari since Safari 13, because Safari already did the equivalent of MV3 in 2019 with their version 13 release.
To me, the biggest issue is filter lists can only be updated when the extension updates and Google controls the update cadence. YouTube ad blocking, for instance, requires frequent filter list updates (or did a few months ago, I'm not sure where things stand now).
TL;DR: In order to detect ad blocks sites create "bait" URL's that look like ads, but are purely there to detect if ad blockers block them. The only reason to do that is to punish the user for using a ad blocker, perhaps by nagging them, perhaps by refusing to display or load the content entirely. UBO responded by making bait URL's appear to work by redirecting them to local resources. Sites responded to that by putting required content behind bait URL's. So UBO now uses a number of dynamic heuristics it uses to detect what is bait and what isn't. Those heuristics aren't possible in V3.
My guess is UBO ability to change it's behaviour for every site based on what the site did created never ending war between ad blocker detectors and UBO. Engaging in that war too much effort for a lot of web sites to engage in, which is why you don't see too many ad blocker detectors. With advent of V3 this dynamic will change, as UBOL will have one hand tied behind it's back. My prediction is once V3 comes in, a lot more sites will start demanding you disable UBOL - but they won't notice the presence of UBO.
You give control of your ad blocker to Google completely. Basically the same scourge that is making mobile devices almost useless, despite their powerful hardware and overall capabilities.
I’ve been using Brave since Google announced they were going to do this. Blocking is built in and they support ublock origin with manifest v2 “for now” https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
As a daily user, I really am curious how you came to this conclusion.
Brave is essentially un-googled chromium with ublock built-in. It's available on windows, Linux, osx, and android. I can't imagine how a reasonable person could consider it "adware."
> Striking, high-definition images that are featured in the Brave new tab image rotation. Advertisers have the opportunity to feature their brand prominently in this coveted space in front of millions of consumers. Designed for high-impact branding and awareness campaigns.
It's surreal to have to explain to someone in HN how browsers work... You can set your homepage to a URL. If that URL has ads on it, like Google or Bing etc, then you will see ads when you open your browser. If you set your homepage to a URL without ads, you will not see ads. This has been true since Netscape Navigator.
> It's surreal to have to explain to someone in HN how browsers work...
It's surreal that you don't know how your own browser works, and yet you think you're in a position to explain how browsers work.
> You can set your homepage to a URL.
And if you don't, the browser shows you a screen, which is not a webpage, but a screen served from within the browser, which is true in every modern browser. On your favorite browser, that screen contains ads, and you have to configure your browser to stop showing you ads.
What part of the phrase "New Tab Takeover" do you not understand?
If you want to use an adware browser that you have to configure to get rid of the ads, and that gets their money from advertisers so they serve them and not you, nobody can stop you. But it's a bit silly to argue that's not what's happening when Brave themselves are advertising this as a service to their users (advertisers--you're not a user, you're the product).
It's clear you're not going to face reality, and nobody else is reading this at this point, so I won't be responding further.
> Striking, high-definition images that are featured in the Brave new tab image rotation. Advertisers have the opportunity to feature their brand prominently in this coveted space in front of millions of consumers. Designed for high-impact branding and awareness campaigns.
It's surreal to have to explain to someone in HN how browsers work... You can set your homepage to a URL. If that URL has ads on it, like Google or Bing etc, then you will see ads when you open your browser. If you set your homepage to a URL without ads, you will not see ads. This has been true since Netscape Navigator.
Brave seemed normal for days/weeks then one day randomly started giving me hourly crypto spam notifications. I had remove it's permission to send notifications.
I've been using Brave for a good couple of years, and the only ads I see are when I open a new, fresh tab, and I don't find that it gets in my way at all. I open a new tab to immediately put an address into the navbar.
Most of the "new tab" ads are pictures, and any branding is generally way down the bottom, a screen's depth away from the navbar where my attention goes.
I'm relatively militantly anti-advertising and I barely notice it (but maybe I'm losing my edge - no pun intended).
brave is the most shady. at least google microsoft tells you while they spy on you. brave has:
installed a vpn with a running service without telling its window users in an update. also made it reinstall every update until they got called out and users kept complainiong. i mean they did eventually..
if you use brave search without the brave browser they would turn on on the send analytics option back on no matter what you do. ofc this was in secret like after you reopened the browser etc. every other setting would save.
the most popular privacy browser comparing site is owned by a brave employee. it was almost impossible to find this disclosure but they since have made it a bit more easier to spot. still the way they do tests is pretty sus. like testing out the box when they know they have a blocker and certain important settings on
etc etc. i mean i guess its not so surprising their job is hiding thing.
i used to use brave. even when i switched off i used brave search default. but the fact i couldnt turn off analytics, or more so they fact they made it look like i could turn it off made me never lose the last amount of respect i had for those guys. i mean i dont even care about privacy anymore really, i use edge. its just the shadiness that turns me off
These two things don't seem to go together. I open a new tab >100 times a day. I'm not willing to even see recent sites there, let alone ads! My Firefox new tab page is literally blank.
I literally do not notice it, for me it's equivalent to a blank page. Maybe I've trained myself to ignore it, but that's where I am.
There's no movement or sound, and it doesn't get in the way when all I'm doing is creating a new tab to then chuck a URL into the navbar and load up the page.
I've had numerous performance and memory issues with Firefox but from my testing over the years it's the closest to Chrome/Chromium you can get.
Also Firefox gets new features fairly regularly. It's still an "innovative" browser, as opposed to Chromium which is mostly stagnant. Vertical tabs are pretty cool.
ABP was initially released almost a full decade before UBO was a thing (although I don't know if the Chrome version is related), so I wouldn't judge someone for just using it...
It might be related to mobile phone users, as far as I can tell the chrome browser on Android does not let you install extensions. I imagine a huge swathe of chrome users are using it on their phone.
It's the main thing I take away a non-engineer doing any sort of presentation at work. Wtf is that banner at the bottom third of the page and why are you putting up with it and happy thrusting it on us.
I'm sure anybody would find it just as weird after they experienced an ad blocker for a short while, they just lack that initial impulse or idea that it's possible.
Even a lot of engineer folks are way less tech savvy than you would think. Doing some pair programming makes you realize how little people actually know the tools they're working wth.
"Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin"
Source: the very article.
Even in the Google Chrome "niche", does 30 million out of 3.45 billion sound like 30-50% to you?
The overwhelmingly vast majority of human beings using web browsers are not using ad blockers. They wouldn't know how and it wouldn't occur to them in the first place.
That stat would still leave ~ 1 billion Chrome users which use ad blockers but aren't using big names like uBlock or Adblock. Seems off by an order of magnitude.
I have on my browser several multilingual dictionary extensions and others by small developers that I do not completely trust. I do not have the inclination to audit the code, and I want to keep the extensions updated. There is a very real possibility that the authors sell control over them to malicious actors. Manifest v3 deprecating remote-hosted code makes it more feasible to use such extensions without trusting these developers, only google's review process. For me this is more important than uBlock Origin being able to execute remote-hosted code for ad-blocking.
If you keep the extensions updated, they could still have control sold to malicious actors and be updated to do malicious things without you noticing. Google's review process is not strong enough to protect from this.
Besides, Google could still allow you to install Mv2 extensions in Developer mode. Just like with Apple's 30% app store tax, this is about making money not protecting users.
The first point you make can be perhaps substantiated with evidence, but the last one is a stretch and not a worry to me considering my use case. But I think moving to Mv3 will help google protect its chrome userbase from malicious actors.
That is a made up threat with a lot of hypotheticals. A more straight forward consideration is not to have an ad company responsible to determine the capabilities of an ad blocker. Also because ad blockers are recommended to increase overall security.
I don't think there's anyway to tell FF to stop an extension from updating using remote files so malicious code could still be deployed after passing any moderation.
I kinda hate the focus on (well-deserved) uBo but not the whole Manifest V3 bullshit itself.
It affects extensions like uBos most, for sure, and for some of its core features it cannot even be worked around.
But it also hurts the "long tail" of the extension scene badly.
I have dozens of mature, not-really-need-to-frequently-update extensions that require (perhaps trivial) changes to fit Manifest V3. But god knows if the author is still around or bothered to update them. I'm sure some of them are not because I had to download the source code and install them manually.
It's basically python 2 to 3 transition but for Chrome WebExt, even if you ignore the new API restriction part.
---------------
On a broader note, I'm increasingly frustrated by the constant pressure on users to adapt their habits to software changes.
This isn't just about Chrome or browsers in general.
Every year, I find myself spending countless hours battling changes in Chrome, Firefox, Office, Windows, MacOS, not to mention various websites, just to restore functionalities or user experiences that were already there but have been altered or removed. This often involves tweaking hidden settings, using command line switches, or relying on third-party or self-made extensions and scripts. And it affects so-called 'power users' the most because they're typically the ones who use the software or service to its fullest.
I consider myself someone who is open to change. For example, when they move the search button for the umpteenth time (I'm looking at you, Google Play Store), it's annoying, but I can adapt.
However, the removal of a feature is something you can't simply "adapt" to. It leads to a tangible loss of productivity, and it's even more frustrating when a feature that was previously available is suddenly gone.
For those that, for whatever your reason, haven't already migrated over to something else by now it might save you a bit of effort to flip the flag described here https://support.umbrella.com/hc/en-us/articles/2110644495733... and see what the best options look like in 2025 after forks and the like have had a chance to prove out their stances a bit and the Firefox's funding situation after the Google search deal ruling looks clearer.
"uBlock Origin fans can rest at ease since a new and improved version is already available — uBlock Origin Lite. It's worth noting that while the new app ships with similar features to the original version, including core ad-blocking features, it doesn't support dynamic filters for blocking scriptlet injection. The Lite version's capabilities are relatively limited due to its compliance with the Manifest V3 framework threshold."
“Improved version…capabilities are relatively limited”. Who writes this stuff? The Lite version is only “improved” in the sense that it works with Manifest v3. It’s certainly not a replacement for the original, and the original isn’t going anywhere.
I have zero sympathy for any users affected by this, especially the Google apologists that haunt Hacker News. Everyone knows Google is first and foremost an ad company whose business model is based on building intrusive profiles of individual users that can be aggregated, sliced and diced, and sold to Google’s customers, aka advertisers. Go pull Google’s 10K and see how they make their money.
I have like 20 extentions in the "may soon lo longer be supported" list, several without good alternatives, are they all getting the can soon or are adblockers being specifically targetted?
A while back I installed uBlock on my grandparents' computer to help them avoid scammy ads. This change will make it more difficult and dangerous, for elderly users to browse the internet. As a young nerd, I can switch to Firefox easily, but I can't imagine it will be easy for everyone. My experience from using Firefox is that it has its own quirks, and comes with its own learning curve.
I don't know what to say but to encourage everyone to make some noise. Please let your representative know about this. Hopefully we can still put a stop to this before it's too late.
It doesn't mean the following but in British English 'sus' means 'assessed' or 'figured it out', as in, "I've sussed it and it's nothing to worry about". I'm not sure how far back this usage goes but Douglas Adams used it in THHGTTG in Zaphod Beeblebrox's mouth.
Google Chrome is the new IE6. I find increasingly website won't work in firefox, but will in chrome, which is exactly what you would see in the dark ages of the internet with organizations still actually using microsoft web servers and .net code (or activex) that only work in IE. With Google increasingly unfriendly attitude toward their users, I stopped using Chrome unless necessary (per previous comment) a good 6 years ago and never looked back.
I liked Google a lot more before they removed the "Don't be evil" from their motto and embraced the dark side to become utter scumbags.
yeah, this was expected when they nerfed uBlock (and various other extensions) with the manifest v3. Using another alternatives is the way now for me too, like other comments, using Firefox.
If you haven't made the switch to Firefox, now is the time. There's no reason to keep supporting Google through Chrome. There hasn't been one in years.
Chrome is faster for me, and I like tab grouping. uBlock Origin Lite is still supported. It theoretically has less features but I haven't noticed what they are.
It will pretty soon be possible to turn off top tabs in Firefox without this kind of userChrome jiggery-pokery. The sidebar API has been updated in Firefox Nightly 131, and it provides a side tab bar, and the ability to disable the top tab bar. Existing sidebar tab extensions will be able to update to this API.
In particular, I recently ran into a very long-running issue where Chrom[ium] attempts to auto-fill inappropriate shit (like names from saved credit cards) into utterly unrelated form fields.
This has been going on for many years now [0], because maintainers insist their browser must ignore standards like autocomplete="off" [1] and use some "crowdsourced" remote-server fuzzy-recognition bullshit, and when their AI system is terribly wrong there's way for pages to opt-out.
This is especially aggravating for any developers who cannot meet WCAG accessibility guidelines that might be required of them by contract or law, and people have submitted a litany of other problematic examples [2] to no effect.
I can't comment on all of Chrome's behavior here, but Firefox ignores autocomplete="off" too, and this is noted on MDN [0]. This is because a lot of poorly-managed sites think they're being security-conscious by disabling password managers, so browsers had to step in and ignore the attribute.
I don't have a problem with any browser supplying credentials that the user has already used and chosen to save for a specific particular domain/form/input.
The issue is that Chrome is randomly/unpreventably suggesting all sorts of data even when field is for a medical patient's name rather than doctor using it, or when it's a generic chat-message field, and it does all that when the user has never used the form or even visited the domain before.
Informing all customers that it's out of our hands and can only be stopped by disabling their personal Chrome settings is... Not practical.
Mozilla can pull the plug, too. Unless one is using a Firefox derivative the risk is the same.
Not sure why people think Mozilla is different. It is financially dependent on Google.
Need a smaller, simpler browser that anyone can compile. Then it does not matter what these companies do. Source code can be edited by its users to meet their requirements.
https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV...
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin.
If the plug has already been pulled then this works, I've had this set in my registry for a while and uBO is still chugging along as per normal.