Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal: The death of uBlock Origin and uMatrix?

I found amusing when people can't separate a company politics with their product's usefulness/efficiency.

 

I don't find Manifest v3 amusing in the slightest. It is nothing to do with security, politics, usefulness or efficiency. Manifest v3 is an underhand and blatantly dishonest attempt to cripple adblocking on the Blink/Chromium platform. With Blink as a rendering engine now dominating the market it is the only corollary that can be made.

The plain fact of the matter is that uBlock Origin inter alia has become a substantial and palpable threat to the economic advertising model Google and others employ.

Any other deduction about the intentions of the manifest is naive and credulous.

 

Business is business, you can't blame a company for their methods because you are not forced to use their products; just move to another product.

However, you can blame those others who switched their engine to blink/chromium (aka Opera and co), those are the greedy ones who sold you for more profits and annihilated your choices.

 

You will be forced to look at adverts that you previously had the choice to block though. That could be considered unethical or anti trust even.

Opera switched to Blink probably because Presto was becoming too expensive to develop. This was possibly the reason for the widespread adoption of Blink by others, notwithstanding that Blink was a secure, regularly updated rendering engine and platform. I won't blame others for utilising Blink in good faith.

You're wrong anyway, the Chrome clones will probably try to ameliorate the deleterious effects of Manifest v3, many have stated the intention to do so. Opera has its own internal adblocker that basically has the efficacy of ABP at least. So your retort makes no real sense.

This is on Google and a conglomeration of advertising companies that have decided to cynically take advantage of the widespread use of Chromium as a platform. Their disingenuous and deceitful claim of improving security didn't fool Raymond Hill and many others who first brought it to people's attention.

This isn't just 'business' it is a blatant attempt to force an advertising economic model on end users by crippling the opposition.

Hopefully it will backfire on Google as users move to other browsers. I prefer Firefox and Safari anyway.

 

guest thats a contradiction. Opera and co switched to chromium for more profit(and they couldn't compete with Chromium with their own engine) just like Google crippling adblocking extensions for more profit. I do agree on business part. Can't blame them even though I hate these moves.
I use Edge dev now because it performs better than Chrome. But they likely won't support manifest v2's adblocking when Google makes a move(which I hope I'm wrong). I don't like other Chromium forks. None performed as good as Chrome or Edge for me.
Firefox is a great alternative. Webrender improved Firefox's performance significantly even in the newer devices whereas Quantum initially only felt better than Chromium in older devices. My experience.

 

Comodo has some Chrome clones that might not change to V3.

 

That is called business. Business is a war. You want serious success in business, you use all methods you have to disrupt or hamper competitors or those who slowdown your business.

I don't think so, sure some computer aware or geeks will move (whose are insignificant niches) but the masses? No, they don't even care about ads, and don't even know what are extensions or adblocker, i see it daily.

So Google will thrive while few will keep whinning without much impact.

That may not please many here but that is the hard reality.

 

I plan to try it soon. Let see if it can make me shift. My priority when choosing a browser is security, no useless bloat and and be multi-platform for easy sync.

 

That's not the issue here, it's that Google aren't being honest about their deception. To keep claiming business is a war is some form of misplaced perverted social darwinism. Whether business is combative or not isn't the issue. The issue is Google's duplicity. The real greed here is from the advertising conglomerates trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

I think that you seriously underestimate 'the masses'. What you describe as whining could just as easily be regarded as an awakening realisation. You seem a bit obsessed with a tendentious promotion of a peculiar ontological reality. There are many businesses which thrive providing an honest service. To try to excuse or dismiss Google's actions as merely a predatory exercise sounds like a heavy consumption of Kool Aid.

I don't drink the Kool Aid. I don't like the taste.

 

When i don't like something, i don't use it but i surely not waste my time to complain about it.
when i complain , it is usually something i used to like and use and got disappointed.

if you feel Google is deceptive, good for you, your opinion; what can you do or did about it by the way? nothing so move on.
if you had to complain about every deceptive/unethical/unfair things you come across, one life would be not enough, so why Google? and not Apple or amazon which aren't better...?

Kool Aid? i don't think so, i'm not emotionally attached to any products/vendors; i use what benefit me the most at the moment, the rest don't care.

 

Well said.

 

running adguard premium on my android device, nice and clean, browsers (others than firefox) and apps.
but for nothing i will drop ublock until i have to. there is nothing in comparison with such rich feature list. although i have basic lock out of domains. a pi-hole after router could do that job too but this is not flexible enough for me. (pi-hole is very useful for other net devices such as tv with web access and its "telemetry", or IoT or webcams and its "telemetry")

what i do care is if that manifest v3 will jump over to mozilla, that could be worse.

 

You've missed the point, as usual. The original complainers were the advertising conglomerates. It was their incessant whinging and whining about effective adblocking that promoted the whole Manifest 3 deception. They disliked the idea that users elected to block intrusive, annoying, potentially dangerous and bandwidth consuming advertising. If no one had complained about Google's underhanded plan to diminish or destroy browser adblocking Google would never have mendaciously claimed the manifest was for security reasons or anything else. The irony is that the more Google complain that they're not trying to remove adblocking from browsers the more they bring attention to what they've actually done effectively propagating the present backlash.

Yes, I can. I can elect to use less of their products. I see a MacBook on my horizon rather than a planned new Chromebook.

AFAIK Apple or Amazon aren't stopping me using elective advertising blocking. Anyway, as usual, this is a false analogy. I'm not complaining or whinging about everything and anything unfair or unethical. Again, this isn't the point. Which you seem to miss with an alarming regularity. The point is that Google, and almost certainly, an assortment of complaining advertising agencies, conspired to deceive end users in a surreptitious and clandestine way to promote an aggressive business model that would be virtually impossible to defend against. As such, they've probably shot themselves in the foot anyway. The publicity generated over the whole deception has raised its public profile. I don't agree with you that most people are totally ignorant.

The question you should ask yourself is: if people are as ignorant as you stated about adblocking and 'the masses' that never use them, how come Google are making plans to stifle or destroy adblocking development?

As usual, you have contradicted yourself yet again.

Addicts are usually in denial at first. Anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance are next I believe.

 

Thank you.

 

Yes that's true. They could just say: adblockers are hurting our revenue. Since we have monopoly on browser market we decided to make adblocking harder and by this improve our revenue ( btw. they've ended 2018 with 30 bn $ net income). At least they wouldn't be hiding behind "this is for your security" mantra that seems to be popular this days. I wonder what happened with their motto "Don't be evil".

 

I honestly think that it's more than just Google and that a lot of advertisers are behind this. This attack on adblockers has been brewing for a while in quite a few countries.

As I said before, this is about squeezing blood out of a stone.

 

back to the early 2000's. admuncher revival.

 

Indeed, ads conglomerate complains about adblocking then they use active and effective measures to solve their "issue" , then now you are complaining, but you can just be passive and at best change browsers, you weight peanuts in front of them, they do it because they can and it is even legal.

Like when they were collecting datas, people did complain, did it change much their behavior? No, they see the whinners affect them little, masses didn't care, so they keep doing and eventually if they go to far, just need to pay a fine lol. So much for fighting them, amusing.

You keep saying I miss the point based on your view, but you seems to have hard time understanding mine (or you deflect) so I will simplify it to you to the max I can:

I don't really care about if Google and co is right or wrong, their business, their products, their rules; accept it or leave it, but stop whinning,especially if you don't use them.

You want it to change, start involve in politics or get employed by them and change it from inside, instead of being keyboard warriors. But this won't be easy, and I'm not sure if you do, you will keep your actual stand or embrace them once you also get huge benefits.

"The commoners blame the privileged and wealthy, until they become one of them"

Itwt

 

Or use a Chrome clone. I like Brave.

 

Well said @guest

In Troll We Trust

 

This

 

The main whiner here isn't me. You have never really made a cogent point. You actually seem to miss every point and then invent straw men to argue with.

I don't need Google to change as I don't really use Chrome now and therefore won't be forced to see their adverts. I think it's fair to call them on their duplicity though.

That isn't whining or being a 'keyboard warrior'; that's an observation and a response.

If no one even mentioned any wrong doing by Google as they were behind their 'warrior' keyboards there would be no action taken whatsoever by anybody.

You're wrong again anyway, as usual. Google initially delayed the introduction of Manifest 3 predominantly because the 'keyboard warriors' noticed what they were doing and called them on it.

Then Google made some concessions and altered their plans slightly. Public opinion is more important to Google than you seem to realise.

I'm guessing you haven't noticed this as you are hanging out with your straw men on your social darwinist trip.

All you seem to have is contempt for anyone who raises a legitimate grievance.

'I don't really care about if Google and co is right or wrong, their business, their products, their rules; accept it or leave it, but stop whinning,especially if you don't use them.'

You know this is a straw man, right?

It's very easy to refer to 'the masses', 'the whiners' and whatever other derogatory terms you can. This speaks volumes about your own attitudes.

You're now whining about people allegedly whining. Can you see the irony here?

 

@Nanobot -- Good find!! Thanks for that info.

Whinning??

 

I wasn't going to mention it lol.

 

I just realised this is in the Ubuntu repo.


I'm not too sure how up to date it is though.



I don't really know how an unofficial snap will behave. Some are OK, some are less than OK.

What would you recommend about Brave?