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

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by summerheat, Jan 20, 2019.

  1. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,722
    There is an interesting discussion on uBlock Origin/uBlock-issues about the upcoming Chromium extension manifest v3 that includes important changes to the webRequest API in favor of the declarativeNetRequest API. It seems that the latter will only support the AdBlock Plus filter syntax up to a maximum number of 30,000 rules.

    Some participants fear that the webRequest API will be phased out. @gorhill's reply:

    However, it seems that the webRequest will not be completely phased out but will be limited somehow:
    Note that this is still a proposal and it has to be seen what will finally come out of this. Depending on what they decide there is a risk that important functions in uBO will no longer be available and uMatrix won't probably work at all any longer. This would probably affect all Chromium-based browsers. One participant in that thread thinks that such a move would not really be surprising considering that Chrome recently added its own light-weight adblocker.

    In any case, Firefox would certainly benefit from such a move - unless they follow this strategy. I don't think they will as this would be incredibly stupid. Even right now Firefox offers webextension APIs not available in Chromium from which uBO benefits.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  2. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    2,597
    Location:
    Canada
    Ugghh :sick: this is potentially bad news.
     
  3. Beyonder

    Beyonder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Posts:
    485
    Google would try to get rid of adblocking? Imagine my shock!
     
  4. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,722
    More concerned remarks by @gorhill :
     
  5. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    2,597
    Location:
    Canada
    Thank you for the update @summerheat. The software firewall I'm using allows to block domain level using wildcard parameters such as *.doubleclick.* and ad*.*.* for example, but this would be far too labor-intensive and overwhelming to manage. I'll probably switch to Firefox, I guess, if need be. I'd rather not use an alternative to uBlockO for site filtering.
     
  6. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    United States
    Post made by Gorhill today below in that chromium bug thread. No replies at this point from anyone with the Chromium dev team. Replies, if any address his post at all, will be interesting to say the least.

    I guess maybe the writing was on the wall when Chrome added some ad blocker functionality a few releases ago even though as far as I can tell it blocks nothing. They need to sell ads and they need users to be able to see those ads in order to make money to support all their pet political projects.

    Too bad Microsoft didn't move towards Mozilla instead of Chromium. Even though to me, FF is dog poop slow, I would move from Chrome w/o ad blockers such as these being able to fully function. There literally would be no other choice and Chrome will slow down anyway without a proper ad blocker.

    https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#maincol

     
  7. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,280
    Location:
    USA
    I can uninstall Chrome with a minimal number of clicks. It is my last choice anyway. I only keep it for testing. It would not be missed.
     
  8. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,722
    You're welcome! Yes, that software firewall would be able to replace Dynamic Filtering to some extent, but not Dynamic URL Filtering, let alone the crippled funcionalities of Static Filtering and Cosmetic Filtering.

    I'm happy that I'm using Firefox. :)
     
  9. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,722
    Not for me for sure! Perhaps you should try it with a new clean profile. But that's something for another thread ... ;)
     
  10. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    United States
    I haven't used it in awhile, really shouldn't have added that thought anyway, but will start using it soon as the writing is on the wall now.
     
  11. JimboW

    JimboW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Posts:
    273
    Really hope this doesn’t happen. Absolutely adore my Chromium for many reasons but don’t think I could live with this. The thought of losing Chromium and forced back to Firefox is very jarring. uBO is the best of its kind and will cease to exist. Not only that but implications for all ad/content blockers including ABP, Adguard et al. As Gorhill points out 30,000 limit isn’t enough for even EasyList alone. Even if this restriction was removed it will still affect cosmetic filtering. It is a huge debilitating backstep and from a browser that has been moving the web forward. Insane idea. This will be absolutely huge for Firefox where users from many moons ago that moved to a Chromium based browser go running back by the dozen. Don’t think Chromium developers have thoroughly thought this through and the ramifications it will likely have to their user base.

    EDIT: Just to add they can't seriously claim this as a security measure. One of the main reasons to use an ad/content blocker is for security. That's the number one way to get infected these days, by infected ads as you are bamboozled by flash ads and popups. Unless you download and click on anything that is lol.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  12. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    United States
  13. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,318
    I switched back to Firefox because of this bug which affects Linux users who prefer dark themes: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=863230. For my usage, there isn't much difference in performance. (I don't use many extensions in any case; just uBo and Stylus). All the same, I hope against hope that Google doesn't go down the road they are discussing and thanks to summerheat for posting!
     
  14. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    7,111
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    I hope that BlackFog Privacy still blocks ads as it is not browser dependent. Having Adguard installed may also still work, right?
     
  15. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,182
    Wow this really sucks. Chrome has been my default browser for a number of years now. Guess I will have to go back to Firefox.

    @Krusty what is Blackfog Privacy?
     
  16. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    7,111
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    Thread here to check out when you have time.

    BlackFog Privacy
     
  17. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    5,939
  18. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    12,650
    Location:
    UK
  19. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    United States
  20. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,182
    Thank you sir!
     
  21. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    United States
    Two Chrome Devs responded and while the lead dev on this 'bug' left a possible path for keeping these extensions running - reading between the lines the tone was like a parent back handing their child and telling them 'we understand you, but this is best for you, you'll see, we are your parents and this is happening'.

    The 2nd dev who commented is so out of touch with reality they described the changes as an enhancement to ad blockers to make them run faster.

    Mozilla, who must have been forlorn over Microsoft moving to Chromium must be, between themselves, soaring with joy because this may be the best thing to ever happen to them.
     
  22. pegas

    pegas Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Posts:
    2,369
    @avatar Will this somehow restrict Adguard application (not its Chrome extension)?
     
  23. Gandalf_The_Grey

    Gandalf_The_Grey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Posts:
    592
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  24. pegas

    pegas Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Posts:
    2,369
  25. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    12,403
    Location:
    Here
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.