Google announced that starting in June 2024, ad blockers such as uBlock Origin #uBOwill be disabled in Chrome 127 and later with the rollout of Manifest V3 (#Mv3).
The new #Chrome manifest will prevent using custom filters and stops on demand updates of blocklist. Only #Google authorized updates to browser extension will be allowed in the future, which mean an automatic win for Google in their battle to stop YouTube #AdBlockers .
#ManifestV3 is deceitful and threatening to your privacy, and now is a good time to switch to #Firefox (@mozilla) and/or #TorBrowser (@torproject) if you haven't done so already!
EDIT for clarification: MV3 in Chrome will still allow some ad blocking extensions, but will severely limit their blocking ability and even restricts pre-set filters to 50 MAX.
@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff The second paragraph is of particular importance since that also explains why AdGuard is supporting it (see Google's announcement) and the "wider ad blocking community" (i.e., all the bullshit that's not the one true blocker aka uBO) is okay with it. They sell ad blockers and lists as a product. They're okay with not blocking everything (like YT), especially if noone else can do it anymore because the competition (uBO) is sidelined.
This push is not against ad blockers actually, it's against effective ad blockers, particularly uBO.
The problem with that theory is that AdGuard blocks YouTube ads. It also uses EasyList-syntax blocklists just like uBlock Origin does. In fact, uBlock Origin's wiki points to AdGuard's documentation as a source of information on writing blocking rules.
The only thing I've found that AdBlock don't want to block is paywalls (presumably because of the DMCA), so I just subscribe to a set of community-maintained paywall removal rules in standard format.
People should definitely switch from Chrome to Firefox, though. Google's sleazy attempt to sell user tracking in the browser as "ad privacy" is enough reason for that.
@mathew@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff Yes, they currently do block it but they don't have much of an incentive to do so and it takes a lot of resources to keep that up to date. Right now they have to try blocking it to keep up with the competition.
If, with MV3, the lists have to be bundled and ack'ed by Google, there's great likelihood that this will die first. Either because the filter won't be ack'ed or because YT just updates their stuff too frequently.
Suddenly, not blocking YT becomes the norm and is considered "good enough". Much more of a comfortable position for AdGuard.
And yes, since the people around AdGuard invented the filter syntax back then, that's still the point of truth for the syntax. However, due to this standard, people using uBlock can also import AdGuard lists etc. With user filter import gone this feature goes away as well...
tbqf, the fundamental idea of MV3 isn't bad: Allowing for near arbitrary scripts to execute in the browser, fetched automatically from remote servers is basically a critical RCE vulnerability by design. The move to declarative filters and reimplementing the filtering code itself in native code is a good move and even speeds up filtering! It's something we, usually, should cheer!
Unfortunately Google decided to have a rather restricted set of API filtering features available that don't aren't sufficient to reimplement uBO in this declarative way, and also put arbitrary restrictions on foreign filtering rules. It's a gift, but a poisoned one.
@mkind@FamilyCyclist@sdueckert@mathew@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff Well, it's the idea of the web since Javascript -- at least depending on your definition of "executing code". But I'd argue viewing an HTML file is not executing remote code but local code that's interpreting a declarative(!) file, just like viewing a PNG; I wouldn't call either executing remote code.
That being said, running code from a website is still less of a problem than an extension, since the website's code (barring exploits) can only exfiltrate data I give/enter the website the data anyway. The extension can, in theory, exfiltrate data from any website.
This business model reminds me of Adblock Plus with their "acceptable ads". The difference here is of course that Google owns major ads companies and those will be the "acceptable" ads.
Clever product managers, very clever! Now, you all had your moment - let's all use Firefox/Brave :)
@CassandraZeroCovid@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff In the tradition of simplifying “simplify, simplify, simplify” to “simplify”, might I suggest Google’s new motto be “Evil”?
@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff Ah shoot I meant to write EU regulators but I keep forgetting. Like someone should investigate it and if there isn't a law to prevent it, write one.
I recently installed GrapheneOS on my phone and I really wanted a Firefox version that fixes the vulnerabilities that Vanadium does while also allowing users to add extensions. I've been relaying on Firefox Nightly but it has been quite unstable lately.
I wonder if Fennec allows custom collections like Firefox Nightly does? I will give it a try.
@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff but this article seems to state that Firefox will also adopt MV3, doesn't that mean moving to Firefox will not help anyone?
@catsalad Google's self-appointed position as the internet's Security Protocols Czar is in direct conflict with their position as the world's largest advertising company. This couldn't be a more blatant conflict of interest.
My problem is that I have a chrome enterprise account that is primarily used for managing chromebooks for elderly relatives who shouldn't be allowed near a computer, but have to pay their bills and things.
uBlock Origin is ESSENTIAL to keeping them from falling for scams, as they have done in the past.
I really don't want to have to buy them a new router because the all in one provided by the ISP doesn't allow for custom DNS/Pi hole in addition to the management of that.
Chromebooks and Chrome Enterprise make that more affordable and easier to manage. I could get them cheap Windows 11 devices and set them up with an e3 license but that would be more money and quite frankly not worth it.
A $250 laptop with 10 years of updates and a cost for peace of mind of $11 a month is a bargain.
@elaterite@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff If by Meta you mean Facebook, Firefox has a great container system for tabs that isolate Facebook completely. No need to use a different browser. 👍
@elaterite@catsalad@mozilla@torproject@eff You're very welcome! You can actually do it for any website. It also allows you to sign into multiple accounts at the same time. I think it's kind of automatic for Facebook but you can assign sandbox to any site you want. Let me know if you need help with it. 😊
Add comment