←back to thread

552 points freedomben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
sho ◴[] No.41809962[source]
Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely.

Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's did with IE.

replies(14): >>41810044 #>>41810118 #>>41810304 #>>41810320 #>>41810359 #>>41810375 #>>41810472 #>>41810519 #>>41810553 #>>41811938 #>>41812626 #>>41813079 #>>41813685 #>>41822203 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.41810304[source]
> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective

I thought I knew that.

Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox...

...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through.

And at the same time, loading pages feels a little faster, though I haven't measured it.

Which has now got me wondering -- what if Manifest v3 really was about security and performance all along?

Because if Google was using it to kill adblockers, they've made approximately 0% progress towards that goal as far as I can tell. If they really wanted to kill adblockers, they'd just, you know, kill adblockers. But they didn't at all.

replies(8): >>41810353 #>>41810378 #>>41810393 #>>41810478 #>>41810535 #>>41810636 #>>41812396 #>>41818090 #
1. ◴[] No.41810535[source]