Google ramps up its campaign against ad blockers on Chrome.

Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.

Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.

The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.

Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.

Archive link

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
          2·
          4 months ago

          For now. They could default to yahoo and make money. Maybe not as much, but they could sustain browser development.

          Firefox is still far superior to chromium.

        • Mikina@programming.dev
          112·
          4 months ago

          IIRC, only like 2% of Mozilla spending goes towards FF (I may be misinterpreting something, but I remember 2% being thrown around), so funding FF without rest of Mozilla bullshit shouldn’t be that hard. Of course, since Mozilla did spend so little on FF, it’s a question how much they actually care about FF and what would happen if they lost access to their golden goose. They shouldn’t have problem funding FF, but they probably have other bullshit they don’t want to let go and that has more priority for them.

            • Mikina@programming.dev
              14·
              4 months ago

              You are right, it was unfairly harsh wording, I apologize for that. Most of those products are super cool and important, I’ve kind of extrapolated it from what I’ve read in other posts about them spending too much on stuff like events and other, non-developemnt, related stuff that I actually never checked, while also not realizing that they also have a ton of other projects, which mixed with the dissapointment with the recent development about the Meta partnership led to me choosing that wording unfairly.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            167·
            4 months ago

            Not sure firefox will be on our side after the recent ad tracking debacle. If they implement one more anti consumer feature I‘m jumping ship.

            • stoy@lemmy.zip
              513·
              4 months ago

              A CEO is a needed possition, I know in the past the Brendan Eich was controversial in his political views, but Laura Chambers seems ok so far

              • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                32·
                4 months ago

                A CEO is a needed possition

                Ha! Good one…

                oh wait. You’re serious…

                How is a ceo needed? They do no work. Their entire job is to rake in cash from workers.

                All a ceo needs is a guillotine.

                • stoy@lemmy.zip
                  42·
                  4 months ago

                  Ok, granted that the CEO concept is not the only way to lead a company.

                  But you do need a leader, someone who can make decisions for the company, someone to make everyday decisions that are not fun, but needed to make the company work.

                  We can absolutely argue about their compensation, but thst is another argument alltogether.

                  • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                    51·
                    4 months ago

                    Here’s a short animated Ted Talk about co-ops without CEO’s. Decisions can be decided by the workers, I think there’s some disconnect on what you’re imagining a CEO is. If you’re needing to make decisions everyday for the company to work… well you’re looking at something like Twitter which isn’t a stable company in a lot of ways. The video goes on to explain how co-ops operate and perform successfully through the centuries and a good starting point if you haven’t been introduced to the business model before.

                    Managers or “presidents” do exist, but the big difference is their role is to implement the decisions made by the group and does away with the usual power structure that influences and hurts the workers (usually through wage theft like the record bonuses CEO’s collect while making decisions for the share holders, not the consumers or employees).

                • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
                  33·
                  4 months ago

                  Right.

                  And a football team doesn’t need a quarterback.

                  🤦🏼‍♂️

                  Yes, many of them are assholes, doesn’t change the need for the leadership.

                  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                    21·
                    4 months ago

                    ceos are not equivalent to quarterbacks.

                    the ceo is equivalent of the team owner. he makes the money and not much else.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              101·
              4 months ago

              it is lol, have you seen how much the ceo is paying herself?

              its kind of a reddit situaton, where money wouldnt be that much of an issue if it werent all for the ceo.

          • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
            3·
            4 months ago

            using a novel engine based on web standards.

            Now, that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time…

            • toastal@lemmy.ml
              5·
              4 months ago

              It’s hard to take a project seriously for championing our privacy if the only communication options are Discord & Microsoft Github

                • toastal@lemmy.ml
                  2·
                  4 months ago

                  There are free (both kinds) options to these problems if they can’t afford it—and that still isn’t an excuse to require all coms go thru US-based proprietary services with big privacy implications.

                  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
                    11·
                    4 months ago

                    Although I‘m not a fan of the options either, the implications regarding the project are minimal and I wasnt talking about the money. Hosting communications platforms isnt easy. It requires the team to change their habits besides their already challenging tasks of producing usable software.

                    Being the change you want to see does not implicate money, it implicates you contacting them, talking about their reasons, convincing them the comfort loss of non big tech platforms is worth it and only them it becomes a question of money.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
              21·
              4 months ago

              I am hopeful they will get some more corporate backing. We can donate all day but that is a drop in the bucket compared to a few million from some large companies