"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 - and while there's no plan yet to discontinue the Chrome MV3 compatible version, there are a million ways that this could go wrong.

My only long-term hope for this space is that a nonzero segment of congressional representatives have had ad blockers installed by their aides, realize that their experience online takes a nosedive when MV2 is discontinued, and calls for hearings! Blocking isn't just about not seeing ads, it's about a user's freedom to set up their "user agent" to preserve their privacy online from sites that don't respect their wishes. That's a right that Google is using its market power to erode, and it's not something we should take sitting down.

More on MV3 from a few years ago: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

> It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile:

Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

Lite doesn't require any permissions.

I'm doing all my banking in a separate Firefox profile where uBlock Origin Lite is the only installed extension. So there a zero extensions that have permission to access the pages or requests.

Of course I'm still using the normal uBlock Origin in my main browsing profile.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist.

Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google.

Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".

Reason: Removing user control from browsers is strictly bad.

Sounds like the real issue is "we are replacing X with Y" and there are use-cases for both X and Y to co-exist.

you get to downvote?

The "original" UBO is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploit happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of privacy is going to get completely pwned. UBO Lite works without being a gigantic security vuln.

Some people may think what you're saying is outlandish, but it's worth remembering that this is pretty much what already happened to Ublock (which led to the forking of Ublock Origin and return of gorehill)

I think everywhere that you used “nonzero” you could have also not and it would have still made exactly the same point.

Not saying it cannot happen, but in Firefox, it is a “Recommended“ extension which gets reviewed per release. A sophisticated attack could slip through, but a ham fisted takeover is unlikely.

When you get Karma of 501 or more…

Normally this kind of thing isn’t said in good faith, but it’s actually a way my writing can improve and I appreciate the feedback!

It's also worth mentioning that Firefox doesn't force you to auto-update add-ons, but Chrome/Chromium do. (There was a hack workaround to keep Chromium from updating, but I forgot what it was or if it still works. It wasn't a trivial option in the browser itself like it should be.)

Looks like FF got unlucky with a subcontractor that is "manually reviewing" extensions on the cheap

Which GOOG team are you on?

> My only long-term hope for this space ...

Some of the anti-monopoly investigations of Google might achieve this too.

The removal of MV2 is extremely clearly Google abusing their dominant market position to line their pockets at the expense of their users.

When this goes through, there will be another EU anti-monopoly investigation just for this.

> nobody will admit exist.

This is not true.

People talk about the upside of the declarative API plenty, but adding one function doesn't mean removing another, and the conflation required to use that as a defense of google is what gets downvotes.

"in theory" is not a real benefit

and just conveniently, X has some features that the owning company doesn't like as it is antithesis to their business model. Therefore, by replacing X with Y, and touting some performance improvements (which is real, but marginal), they get to remove X with plausible deniability.

I imagine the focus of the developers will very quickly shift to Lite once Chrome flips the switch and 95% of uBO's user base disappears overnight. It might not be what they want, but such events have their own dynamic.

I use a certain extension. An update turned the extension into payware, locking 90% of the features behind a paywall. So I refuse to update it and instead continue to use the revision that still has all the original features. I would be absolutely incensed and outraged if my browser insisted on forcing me to update this extension!

Surely there are better ways for a developer to make money off of an existing extension without suddenly locking previously available functions behind a paywall. Perhaps instead paywall NEW features? Or ask for donations?

He is on Extensions team. lol

They should let them co-exist but probably they figured out it is just easier to kill V2 extensions all together. What a shame.

Is uBOL as ad-removing and privacy protecting as uBO?

We aren’t talking just an extension here. If it didn’t exist, that would make web browsing insufferable to many. It is a part of web browsing itself. Let me put it as clearly as it can be:

***

uBO is a Holy Grail and gorhill is our Jesus Christ.

***

If MV3 (and further development) tries to touch it in any inappropriate way, comments promoting it deserve 5x downvote mutiplier without the usual -4 limit.

I get the security benefits, but the performance benefits seem weak. Won't the benefits of not having to run as much js to do the filtering be cancelled out by having the run additional advertising code that isn't being blocked by the lobotomised adblockers?

To be honest, the reason I mentioned it at all was because I do the same thing with the same word so it was as much of a comment for your benefit as it was for my benefit haha.

95% of the user base going away just sounds like less support work for gorhill. This isn't a VC-backed startup or ad platform that needs users to survive.

Seems safer to clone the source code and build the OG locally if banking security is that important.

New features requires work. Donations require charity, which doesn't exist in the mind of someone who does that

The "original" Chrome is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploitation happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of security is going to get completely pwned.

But I suppose in your clown world security model the big US corporations who have proven again and again that they will act against your best interests are the only ones to be trusted while individuals with a proven track record must be sandboxed at all costs.