←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[12 Jul 25 20:49 UTC] No.44545043[source]▶
> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that.

Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true.

Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's faster because now all the filtering is being done in C++ rather than JavaScript. Works on YouTube and everything.

I know there are some limits in place now with the max number of rules, but the limits seem to be plenty so far.

replies(4): >>44545065 #>>44546649 #>>44546946 #>>44550708 #
zwaps ◴[12 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44545065[source]▶
It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?
replies(2): >>44545076 #>>44545231 #
tredre3 ◴[12 Jul 25 21:15 UTC] No.44545231[source]▶
The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. "

This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it.

Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

replies(3): >>44545658 #>>44545704 #>>44545991 #
1. jwrallie ◴[12 Jul 25 22:26 UTC] No.44545704{3}[source]▶
> Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

It can be relevant depending of how you define properly. If it depends on any of those functionalities that are missing, then it’s relevant.