Google Chrome warns uBlock Origin may soon be disabled

It already is on mine, no trace of chromium or it's forks.

What pisses me off is how many websites don't work right with Firefox now. There's been several times where I've had issues with a site functioning on Firefox and had to switch to a chromium browser.

Until you do more than warn they don't care.

Linux Phones and Degoogled Phones surge in response.

Unfortunately for work I may have no choice:-(. Several of our daily work products I've tried on Firefox without success. Those also don't have ads.

I wish there were better alternatives. I may try out LibreWolf but I could not imagine it somehow being easier, though with enough effort put in the end result may be all that matters. Until the first update (possibly forced on the server end even if I don't on mine) that breaks everything and I cannot do my work for the day, in which case I will absolutely go crawling back to Chrome, bc they have us by the short hairs there.:-(

Saying this about any corporation's product is guaranteed not to age well.

Anyone else been having issues of not being able to load YouTube videos past the first few seconds on Firefox using ublock? I couldn't find any recent information online. I don't know if this is part of the war on ad blockers, or unrelated.

Besides the fact that Mozilla sucks, Firefox is an amazing piece of software. It's PITA that it's about to be enshittified.

Almost as if a browser company that's not also an advertising company has no reason to fight ad blockers.

It has made mobile browsing usable again for me.

It saddens me to agree with this. Who knew Google would become as oppressive as fucking MICROSOFT?

I hear the term 'broken up' a lot in media and discourse, but it's never explained. In your eyes, what actually happens when a government 'breaks up' a corporation? I mean, what are the steps, objectives, and outcomes?

Not being adversarial, I'm just curious.

It really wouldn't change anything in the long run. Any company that creates a browser is gonna need some form of income and people aren't willing to pay for a browser. What would be their incentive to continue to work on the browser when they aren't being paid?

If Google presented me with ads for things I might be interested in and in a non-invasive way, wouldn’t mind looking at them at all.

Instead I get ads for the seemingly random shit I have absolutely zero interest in buying. How they are consistently wrong about my spending habits is unbelievable. I have two fucking hobbies! I don’t see ads for anything relating to them. Ever.

I never thought about it that way. Interesting. Thanks!

You're correct, and now people will boycott Chrome. Firefox and Brave are good / accessible / easy to get for most people so...

a boycott comprising* 200,000,000+ people

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.

IT guys will stop using it...

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!

"IT guys"? Chrome has a 66% market share globally.

Not only a bigger market share. What's keeping Firefox alive is the financial support they get from Google. If enough people move from Chrome to Firefox without Firefox also securing finances from elsewhere, Google could easily kill Firefox by just not giving them money and we'd all be left with just Chromium.

What are you expecting, a corp to... ah... uh... not be evil, or something? :-P

Users can still use ad blockers. Users will be safer from malicious extensions sending all your web traffic to an untrusted party.

Frankly, at this point I might even be more attached to blocking ads than browsing.

I guess you want the internet to be a place for finding useful information, and/or the entertainment you choose to access, over it being a long uninteruptable stream of infomercials for crap products you have no interest in? Then groogle is not for you. In fact groogle is not for humanity.

Well, I'm forced if I want to use casting to androidTV or chromecast. Edit: fx-cast exists.

Google an ad company are killing ab blockers Chrome browsers. Yeah, that sounds right.

FTFY

killing ab blockers

I might finally get a six-pack!

MV3 doesn't kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.

Some of these "features" that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.

Even with an ad blocker, it gets more unusable every year that goes by

Every time I turn off uBlock and reload a webpage I'm like "JFC this is eye cancer".

Got my boomer mom to finally install an ad blocker. She was tired of looking at a webpage, having an ad give some kind of script run error, and then it reloads back at the top. It’s a big problem on the cooking websites she goes to.

I would rather go back to the days of shitty pop-ups you can just close. These ads are far worse, and none of them even make sense.

Oh no, they are about to lose the $0 that uBlock origin users bring!

They know they will lose users and they don't care. They will make much more per user selling ads than before. Google is an ad company. They're not a browser company, or a mobile OS company, or an office suite company. It's all about ads.

I'm not sure how wide the intersection of power users that use uBO but also haven't heard of the manifest v3 deprecation coming since like 2019 actually is, but that could be because I'm the type of person to randomly recommend browsers to people and discuss them a lot.

Every browser is either chromium (open source captured by Google) or exists because of a Google search contract (this represents 80% of Mozilla's revenue), Google can't lose

That's pretty optimistic, as tons of power users are still eating that Windows crap, too.

With the direction FF is taking it's gonna be forks for now.

The only thing that held me back from using LibreWolf over Firefox was that it disabled (automatic) dark mode on websites. I understand this is part of the "resist fingerprinting" configuration. There's a workaround now ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1732114).

In about:config update these 3 preferences:

• privacy.resistFingerprinting = false
• privacy.fingerprintingProtection = true
• privacy.fingerprintingProtection.overrides = +AllTargets,-CSSPrefersColorScheme

Seeing that half of my extensions (it was seriously like 10 of them) were going to be disabled is what pushed me to finally switch to Firefox because if I have to find alternatives to them it might as well be on another browser

I am one that switched. I have Linux Mint which I use 99.9% of the time, and a windows 10 laptop that I use 0.1% for that one windows program.

I think more people are wanting to get out of the grip that google, apple, and Microsoft have over them. Many are overwhelmed because they are in so deep. It took me months to get out, which I did about 6 years ago. I never looked back though. I know people that want out, but are not strong enough to commit to switching all their services and apps.

The reason for this is because switching from Windows to Linux is a lot bigger change, requiring a fair amount of technical know-how, and even knowing that Linux exists in the first place. Swapping browsers is easy in the technical sense, it's breaking the habit that's the hard part, but if they piss people off enough all it takes is uninstalling it in order to break the habit, not a drastic paradigm shift. I'm a long time Chrome user, like over a decade and with the recent "unverified download" nonsense unless you enable their invasive tracking has put me over the edge. I had both the Chrome and Firefox icons pinned to the taskbar and just out of habit kept clicking it, I finally removed it last week

I'm not so sure about that. Windows despite its ads is still generally usable or at least readable, but adblockers affect almost every website, and in a much more extreme way, without which renders some websites virtually unusable. As someone else said, installing another browser is also far easier than taking backups, installing an entirely new OS, implementing your backups, and learning an entire new OS which may not readily support the software you have licensed from windows for most users.

Users care a lot about convenience. I expect that they weigh installing and learning linux etc as less convenient than the ads in windows which is why they would not switch, but I expect when it comes to this case, they would weigh installing a different browser with adblock as much more convenient than using the internet with ads on every single website.

The more people use Firefox, the more web devs will be forced to ensure their website works on Firefox.

I'm showing my age, but back when IE was basically the only browser and Firefox (Firebird back then) launched, people often lamented that things didn't work in Firefox. The solution? People used Firefox and web developers were forced to make their shit work in Firefox. When Chrome came out, suddenly we had three real options and the way to make everything work? Open Standards.

Now, Chrome is in the position IE was back before Firefox came around. How ever will we make sure things work in Firefox??? Use Firefox. If enough people dump Google's malware browser, the web has to go back to supporting multiple browsers through open standards.

Have you reported issues for them? It's in the menu somewhere. If Mozilla get a lot of reports for particular sites, they reach out to the webmaster and try to work with them to improve Firefox support - usually by removing proprietary Chrome-only features or by removing reliance on Chrome bugs that don't exist in Firefox.

You can also report the issue at https://webcompat.com/, just search to see if it's already been reported first.

Same. For me, the big one's my bank that requires its users to use Chrome, else it won't let you log in. I got around this by using an agent-switcher extension in Firefox.

Which sites?

User agent switcher. I have zero issues since using it.

Ladybird looks great! Very much looking forward to an alpha linux release so I can use it and give all kind of feedback.

Looks like what I'd want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.

if it's* the right one