DolphinMathGoogle Chrome will limit ad blockers starting June 2024
Ars Technica – Bias and Credibility Check
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Ars Technica - Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources. Overall, we rate Ars Technica Least Biased based on mostly neutral reporting that sticks to their
Admiral PatrickGoogle’s sales pitch for Manifest V3 is that, by limiting extensions, the browser can be lighter on resources, and Google can protect your privacy from extension developers.
Emphases mine. Funny, I use extensions to protect my privacy from Google.
DJDarrenThe second being Safari, right?
Right?
…right…
vladFirefox gang rise up!
sad WebKit noises
VeraxusI really like Orion, which is based on WebKit... but it's Mac only. 😢
As a web developer, Safari needs to either die in a fire or be transferred to a company that actually cares. It’s more than half a decade behind everybody else.
Tell me about it. Every time I implement some new thing in my app:
Firefox/Chrome: You cast HTML5 video. Critical hit!
Safari: Your spell fizzles…
It also took 6 years longer than everybody else to support WebGL2, and it’s the only browser without a working WebGPU implementation. It also has no timeline for wasm-gc, while Chrome already ships with it default enabled and Firefox will ship with it on the next release.
It also has no timeline for wasm-gc
Apple has been removing support for garbage collection from their dev tools. Wouldn’t be surprised if they never add support for that, they’ll tell you not to waste CPU cycles (and therefore, battery power) collecting garbage.
I personally prefer to use such languages, but I often don’t have a choice for certain tech stacks.
… Safari added support for HTMl5 video in 2009.
Chrome did not even exist yet in 2009.
Not looking to start a flame war here, but if that’s the case, then Apple’s had even longer to get it right. lol. I implemented my video containers using the MDN specs which worked for both FF and Chrom(e/ium) as-is. Had to read through Apple-specific specs to figure out why Safari wouldn’t render them (not autoplay but render at all).
Ah - that’s got nothing to do with supported features.
Your video wasn’t working because the default settings (which a user can change) block most video… because safari assumes (correctly) that most video on the web is an ad.
Chrome released in 2008,but did not support HTML5 video until 2010. But yes, Safari did it first (in 2008). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video
samwiseYeah, when testing my sites, on the desktop at least, I don’t even bother testing in Safari. It ends up with nothing but headaches and a bunch of kludges to make things work there. Reminds me of working with IE years ago. But at least with desktop Safari, it has such a small market share that ignoring it isn’t problematic.
Norah (pup/it/she)Why would it be? Maybe if you looked at market share just for mobile devices. But on desktop it’s limited to just macOS.
I’m mostly joking.
Mostly.
Leonard KelleyDump Chrome and chromium based browsers or just remain a whiny loser who has to deal with ads.
glennglog22Firefox has been fantastic for me.
Even without all this ad blocker bs from Google, I like Firefox a lot better than the chrome based browser I used before, opera.
It’s a lot cleaner and feels faster
I switched to Firefox because Chrome changed the shape of their tabs.
Doesn’t really matter at this point, I have already uninstalled chrome on all devices at home and work.
I guess Google can still try to slow down other browsers on YouTube and other Google services though.
Trust me when I say this - they will keep pushing until their services are no longer usable at all on anything other than chrome. And they will find enough money to keep the antitrust regulators quiet. Meanwhile a big chunk of those who switched away from chrome will return to it - because principles are not bigger than convenience. Meanwhile, those with enough constitution to stay put will find themselves excluded from a large part of the web - a digital pariah, if you will.
Yeah I don’t doubt at all that Google will try. I’m a bit more optimistic than you that we will continue to have ways to get around their bullshit though.
I really really want their bullshit to be defeated and freedom to prevail. What I described towards the end is partially my experience. But it’s not a complete loss yet. I’m trying to get everyone off chrome, and more people seem to be listening this time.
They decided to commit suicide?
yukichigaiYou would think, but the number of people I've met who surf the web without any adblockers at all and just seem fine with it is alarming. I think Google is counting on a lot of people just not knowing any better.
Won't stop me from informing them otherwise though.
originaluciferthey already know they have the numbers allowing them not to care.... 'acceptable losses'. its not like they didnt already analyze this decision to death
That maneuver will cost them a few % market share at best. Most people don’t even use ad blockers at all
Funnily enough I think the percentage use of adblockers is going to go up a fair bit thanks to what Google is doing. My amazingly sweet "just go along with anything" MIL actually complained to me about YouTube ads the other day, then ads on websites in general. She jumped at my offer to install a different YouTube client and a good adblocker once I explained that it was a possibility for her tablet.
If they wanted to pull this off they needed to do it quietly, not draw attention to the fact that adblockers exist and are apparently so effective they need to do something very public about them.
Firefox is just the only option. And while at it, use Piped or Invidious while you still can, people!
ScrubblesI’d recommend archiving all of the channels you can from Youtube, it’s clear they don’t want our traffic at all.
AltoI mean, yeah. They absolutely don't want to be spending bandwidth on those of us who use adblockers. What I don't think a lot of people realize is that Google is perfectly happy with the people who are essentially never served an ad not using the service anymore. Saves them money.
I meant firefox and non chrome users in general but yeah
Everything you said is correct. But the infuriating part is that YouTube reached that position by killing off its competition. YouTube wouldn’t be the only one standing now if they had shown the same behavior 10 years ago. Even more infuriating is that there are a lot of people around who support this entitlement from Google - because you know, you’re stealing from the creators! All creators should find a way to accept donations without feeding the abusive corporation.
I tried using Invidious, but found that it misses quite a lot of new posts in my subscriptions. So in the end I ~ahem~ flew to Ukraine to take advantage of family Premium for around £3 a month.
Mine has been working fine, but the instance did lose all my “Mark as watched” videos, and for some reason one specific channel never makes into the Subscriptions panel, but I just have it as a favourite and it ends up almost the same. The instance I was using for Piped is now borked, so I’m hanging onto Invidious for now.
Newpipe is damn near perfect. No ads either.
ulkeshGoogle can go fuck themselves for this. The moment their stupid Manifesto v3 bullshit came to light, I quickly migrated to Firefox and haven’t looked back.
Same. As I’m seeing what’s happening with Google, im glad I made that choice
As someone who never switched to chrome in the first place, it’s fun to watch all the smoke and fire now.
SineSwiperMozilla was quite the memory hog, back in the day. In some respects, it still is, but it’s certainly better than this Manifest v3 crap.
Firefox is probably the oldest browser in existence. The only surviving one among the original three (Netscape Navigator). The fact that it’s still among the major two is impressive by itself.
0x4E4FEnterprise users with the “ExtensionManifestV2Availability” policy turned on will get an extra year of Manifest V2 compatibility.
Who are these enterprise users 🤨 🤔…
Remember, Firefox is great and has no dependency on upstream Google code.
Use Firefox.
The one and only, my beloved 🔥🦊
Preaching to the wrong crowd there buddy
kratoz29I’m pretty sure ad experience will move some masses, I liked Chrome because Ublock works fine there, it has great extensions support and the best compatibility with the websites, but if you remove the adblocker support I would have moved (if I hadn’t already) in a heartbeat
Firefox is my daily, but the fact I have to fire up a chromium browser to use web serial or midi is an endless annoyance. Mozilla won’t add that functionality as they see it as a security risk.
jtk? I’m quite positive I’ve used MIDI in Firefox on hooktheory.
Honestly, in my opinion it kind of is (though I’m not an expert on it). Except for convenience I don’t think a browser should be allowed to access my USB devices. Though I would welcome it if it was enabled with the same kind of request that pops up when a browser wants to access the microphone or camera.
That is, quite literally, how it works in Chromium. Mozilla still sees it as a security risk, even with user permissions. Honestly, having to boot Chromium is a bigger security risk.
marcoFor a while I was a bit confused, because Mozilla said they would also implement V3 Manifest …
by implementing Manifest V3 on its own terms, Mozilla saves developers who are switching to the new platform from having to support two different versions of their extensions (for Google Chrome and Firefox) at the same time. On the other hand, it allows content-blocking extensions that were originally built using the less restrictive Manifest V2 to continue working at full tilt.
friends dont let friends use google chromefriends dont let friends use google chrome
ericjmoreyMozilla is implementing Manifest V3. They plan to implement it slightly different than Chrome: blog.mozilla.org/…/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-n…
They have published a guide for extension developers: extensionworkshop.com/…/manifest-v3-migration-gui…
More background on Manifest V3:
eff.org/…/googles-plans-chrome-extensions-wont-re…
eff.org/…/manifest-v3-open-web-politics-sheeps-cl…
Relevant part from the blog post:
What are we doing differently in Firefox? WebRequest
One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.
Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.
katy ✨i wish mozilla would just drop webextensions and webmanifest. webextensions are terrible. :/
EngywookAdGuard (system wide), PiHole, inbuilt adblockers are still there and won’t be affected by this. Who cares.
Adguard and pihole rely on DNS redirects - googs has already implemented “secure DNS” for Chrome in Android, which circumvents network level/local DNS by connecting to a Google owned DNS, serving content using those listings instead.
They’ll likely bring this to all flavors of Chrome.
Yes, one should use Firefox. Yes that could also avoid the android problem, but also no, because Google forces chrome at weird times (eg, some apps will load a minimal web viewer for hyperlinks links, without leaving the app - sometimes apps don’t respect the default browser setting and instead just use chrome.
🤷