Google Chrome to Block Ad Blockers

Google is straight up killing 3rd party ad blockers with Manifest V3 due in October. 3rd party ad blockers will no longer be able to access the webRequest API. This effectively is stopping over 2 billion free Chrome users from being able to block ads at all. uBlock, Ad Block Plus, Privacy Badger etc, will be completely ineffective without a paid enterprise level subscription to Chrome.

The implementation of the new rules would effectively negate extensions such as uBlock Origin and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Privacy Badger, both of which use the webRequest API to block ads and other content before it even reaches the browser. Google wants extensions to instead use a different API called declarativeNetRequest, which lets Chrome decide whether to block content based on a set of up to 30,000 rules.

Is it all about the money?

Google's argument is that the extensions using the webRequest API slow performance because the browser has to wait for the extensions to decide whether to display content. declarativeNetRequest is arguably faster because the browser can start loading content while it decides what to block.
"Currently, with the webRequest permission, an extension can delay a request for an arbitrary amount of time, since Chrome needs to wait for the result from the extension in order to continue processing the request," states Google's current draft of Manifest V3. "This can have a significant effect on every single network request."

One of the best-known ad blockers, AdBlock Plus, already use rules to block ads and should have little trouble adjusting to declarativeNetRequest. But AdBlock Plus is widely seen as less effective than some other ad blockers. So is Chrome's built-in ad blocker, which blocks only ads that Google finds too obtrusive or annoying.
Is it all about the money?

Raymond Hill, developer of uBlock Origin, argues that Google, a dominant player in the online ad market, is making this change so that more ads show up in Chrome.

"Google strategy has been to find the optimal point between the two goals of growing the user base of Google Chrome and preventing content blockers from harming its business,"
"The blocking ability of the webRequest API caused Google to yield control of content blocking to content blockers. Now that Google Chrome is the dominant browser, it is in a better position to shift the optimal point between the two goals which benefits Google's primary business.

Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the EFF, summed of the feelings of many Twitter users following this news: "This is a really disappointing decision by Google. I will be switching to Firefox."


tomsguide.com/us/chrome-block-ad-blockers,news-30206.html

Attached: Capture.JPG (887x150, 23.58K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome.html
privoxy.org/
securedns.eu/
adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html
github.com/julian-klode/dns66
f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/
zenz-solutions.de/personaldnsfilter/
adguard.com/en/blog/introducing-adguard-home.html
someonewhocares.org/hosts/
github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
cloud.google.com/chrome-enterprise/browser/
brave.com/
vivaldi.com/
microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/
digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html
grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html
jmhs.com/online-high-school-diploma-program-classes-near-me
brave.com/download/
speedtest.net/
portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=267
portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1561
cnet.com/news/life-in-the-slow-lane-welcome-to-the-internet-in-rural-america/
doileak.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The cynical side of me says that they've probably weighed the risks and the benefits and they know that the vast amount of users will just go 'huh, okay'. The number of people I see commenting about ads tells me that a lot of people don't use ad blockers at all.

Oh, what a shocker. But I don't use that botnet browser anyway, no one should.

Honestly sticking to hardened Noscript policies (such as blocking global scripts, blocking Javascript/Flash/Silverlight and removing all the whitelisted junk urls) makes any ads that could pop up obsolete and blocks them in entirety. You'll need to temporarily allow a couple scripts to run once in a while depending what sites you are currently visiting, but you can always re-block those after you are done using said sites by revoking all permissions.

Ad blockers typically only block certain sites and certain scripts, so it makes browsing safer and faster, but it doesn't go "all the way" like a strictly re-configured Noscript would. If you really want to give Big Tech a hard time, here: >>>/prepare/22

He a contrarian

If they block the add blockers, they're add blocker blockers.

Attached: 1_8Zbd3iNhIquius0T80ympw.jpeg (1440x900, 490.95K)

Imagine being such a stupid fuck you use Google chrome

Are you the tech /killcen/?

both /killcens/ are paranoid

One is a boomer drunk prepper
the other is racist ardvark with a little tech savvy

In the economy of things, companies give money to advertisers, advertisers give money to google to show ads.
But if they see no return or barely any views, then they won't give google any more money, so you can see why they just want this feature gone even if they try to weasel some exception in:

Just kill google fam.