Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including various ad blockers. Adblock Plus will most likely not be affected, though similar third-party plugins will, for reasons we will explain. The drafted changes will also limit the capabilities
A decent adblocker is a must to block potential malicious and malicious ads. If Google starts to break ad-blockers or only allow adblockers that let through their preferred ads, then the moment could come users start to steer away.
If it was only adapting to the new format there are other limitations when using that which weren’t a factor before, so I think you need to read the whole article in detail.
I hope there will be some chromium forks that allow such extensions still, like Avast Security Browser and also Brave 1.0.
Else hoping privoxy extension will still function and is self-learning.
I think our DavidR will still use Firefox with adblocker. Why shouldn’t he?
I will continue to use firefox as it suits my usage of a browser and I use uBlock and uMatrix add-ons which work across different versions of Firefox.
I have long kept away from Google products where I can (some areas are damn hard to avoid) because of this kind of power and potential misuse of that power.
You are right. But it was not adapted to be compliant.
It is “compliant” insofar as the way it currently works (which is different from uBO) would not be affected by the Manifest V3 change (if implemented).
I abandoned the AdBlock Plus add-on some time ago.
I can’t recall exactly what it was, I think it pulled some stunts that reduced its effectiveness and could well be considered getting in bed with some of the big ad companies/servers.
You sure will have an enhanced security problem with the new transfer via Manifest3 to the new chromium declarativeNetRequest API.
There is no two ways about it and not only for blocking extensions the going will get narrow, or there won’t be any.
Blocker extention-developers protest. 50.000 Euro fine for Google means only 4 days revenue less.
Peanuts really, and in such a way they rule our globe, a too big to fail Big Tech Giant.
With a max listing this new API gives no way to further big (phishing) blocklist (often over 70.0000 blocked),
so enhanced PHISHING threats galore. Malcreants may rejoice.
The new API only offers either the possibilities to block or redirect, nothing in between to hamper priviliged Google ad-tracking boffins. And, oh irony, all this presented to all of us in the name of enhanced privacy and security. (ROTFL).
That this comes to reside inside Google chrome, OK, you may choose for that. Had to be expected, but not to all variants of the chromium browser code? Yes, when Firefox uses the same developer API on its google chromium engines. Our loss.
Does it stay on the drawing board or will we all suffer the consequences of more Google shaping their own infrastructure?
When it gets more and more dfficult just to enjoy Google’s benefits and circumvent Google’s burdens.
It is a cat and mouse play like for Duval’s /e/ platform for propriety Android phones.
polonus (volunteer 3rd party cold reconnaissance website security analyst and website error-hunter)
Adguard is a good product. One of their guys (lead dev?) worked closely with Gorhill to agree a common syntax for filters that can be used in both Adguard and uBO.
