The headline is correct. The popular ones like uBO are 100% dead on Chrome thanks to googles coercion.
They didn't just "switch". They had to fundamentally change how they block ads and the new version the adtech company forced upon everyone...drumroll...is less effective at blocking ads. What a coincidence!
Per uBlock:
>uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules
With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.
There is a limit on how large the list can be, depending on the browser.
JavaScript really isn't that slow. JIT compilation can wind up faster than AOT compilation. And much of the APIs called by JavaScript is natively-implemented browser code. JavaScript is faster than C# yet people implement games in C# (not the engine cores, but that's a very similar situation to JS) and don't bat an eye.
that is theoretically true. but i switched to the v3-compatible ublock origin lite a year ago and i've noticed essentially no difference in the performance. all the ads are blocked, just like they were with the v2-compatible adblocker.
Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off.
For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox.
So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons:
- Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this.
- Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.)
- Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it).
- I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.
The headline is correct. The popular ones like uBO are 100% dead on Chrome thanks to googles coercion.
They didn't just "switch". They had to fundamentally change how they block ads and the new version the adtech company forced upon everyone...drumroll...is less effective at blocking ads. What a coincidence!
Per uBlock:
>uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules
uBlock Origin Light is still pretty good though. Maybe it's good enough for most people?
I was under the impression MV3 is stricly less capable in terms of blocking ability than MV2?
Yeah. MV3 is a faster but less capable version.
With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.
There is a limit on how large the list can be, depending on the browser.
JavaScript really isn't that slow. JIT compilation can wind up faster than AOT compilation. And much of the APIs called by JavaScript is natively-implemented browser code. JavaScript is faster than C# yet people implement games in C# (not the engine cores, but that's a very similar situation to JS) and don't bat an eye.
> JavaScript is faster than C#
Are you joking? C# is in another leage, when we talk about performance.
> JavaScript is faster than C#
Apples to oranges, scripts need an entire browser/Interpeter framework underneath it to even function
See the mentioned game engine reference which closely parallels this.
I also thought under MV3 you could block ads, but not the tracking that they do.
But a list of like 100 domains will get rid of most major ad services.
[dead]
that is theoretically true. but i switched to the v3-compatible ublock origin lite a year ago and i've noticed essentially no difference in the performance. all the ads are blocked, just like they were with the v2-compatible adblocker.
MV3 is not an improvement over MV2 for the purposes of ad blocking.
Most would not consider MV3 versions as ”adblockers” anymore.
Most (real world, not HN) users don't really notice any difference between MV2 and MV3 based extensions.
MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.
I just tested Chromium with uBlock Origin Lite (default settings, aka "Optimal") and had no issue blocking YouTube ads.
Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
You say that like MV2 version didn't need extensive workarounds to block YT ads.
I'm still not seeing any ads. Works fine for me.
Do they block ads though? I am now only using Firefox because I can install Ublock origin and that works out for me.
uBO lite blocks between most and all of the ads, at least on the sites I browse. I honestly didn't notice a difference switching over.
I'm actually more curious to hear what sites it doesn't do a good job on.
ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off.
For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox.
So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons:
- Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this. - Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.) - Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it). - I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.
Yeah, I think calling the Mv3 versions "secure adblockers" would be more accurate.
How about "nerfed adblockers"? Do any of the MV3 versions replicate the full power of ublock origin on Firefox? (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...)
To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.
Secure for whom?
Browser users. Pre Mv3 extensions were a huge vector for malware. My in-laws were hit by that.
You can write malicious MV3 extensions. The changes' stated reason was performance, not security.