this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
262 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

59298 readers
4437 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
262
Google to weaken ad blockers on Chrome in a push for security (cybernews.com)
submitted 11 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Starting June 2024, adblockers such as uBlock Origin and many other extensions on Chrome will no longer work as intended. Google Chrome will begin disabling extensions based on an older extension platform, called Manifest V2, as it moves to the more limited V3 version.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 98 points 11 months ago (4 children)

"Security", haha yeah right

[–] radix@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago

The security of their cash flow.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Literally my reaction when I saw that.

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

they obviously mean their financial security.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

The security of their profits

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

An extension having access to everything on every page you visit is a potential security issue.

Whether that's an acceptable risk for you in order to have an extension that blocks ads is another question.

[–] draughtcyclist@programming.dev 14 points 11 months ago

Extensions by definition are a security issue. For that matter, so is being connected to the Internet in the case of a browser.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As far as I know, the plan for Manifest V3 only included removing blocking from the WebRequest API and extensions using WebRequest could still see whatever activity they are given permission to view.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Correct, and the reasoning for removing blocking was performance.

[–] TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t loading the ads impact performance moreso than loading them? Not really a browser nerd so no idea it just seems like blocking a piece of content from loading outright would be less demanding than loading it.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

How the WebRequest API works is:

  1. Network request is made
  2. Sent to the WebExtension
  3. Extension runs arbitrary JavaScript (Slow to very slow)
  4. Repeat for every extension handling requests
  5. Results eventually make it to the WebProcess where it belongs.

This is slow and will always be. Their change to remove blocking makes steps 2-4 a copy of the data instead of a synchronous call.

Now an ad can be slower, just by more data or bad JS. But that isn’t Googles concern because they sell those ads.

[–] TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Ahhhh gotcha, thanks!