Comment by crazygringo

Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago

38 replies

View on Hacker News

> 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.

sgentle 2 days ago

It depends on how you interpret the word "properly". There are ads and adblocker-detection techniques that can't be blocked by MV3-style static filtering.

If "properly" means "can block all ads" then you're wrong. If it means "can block some ads" then you're right. If it means "can block most ads" then you're currently right, but likely to become wrong as adtech evolves around the new state of play.

Don't forget Chrome launched with built-in popup blocking. Now we just have popunders, in-page popups, back-button hijacking etc. Ads, uh... find a way.

Reply View 0 replies
zwaps 2 days ago

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

Reply View 29 replies
  • tredre3 2 days ago

    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.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • stavros 2 days ago

      So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3, it means that ad blockers function properly in MV3? Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?

      Reply View 1 reply
      • crazygringo 21 hours ago

        > Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?

        Of course it doesn't, if MV2 provided a bunch of edge case stuff that doesn't matter for normal adblocking.

        > So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3

        That's a silly thing to say. No, it's that if it's blocking 99.9+% of ads it should definitely be considered to be functioning properly. Which uBOL definitely is.

        Quibbling over whether it blocks 99.999% or 99.99999% is not relevant to whether it functions "properly". It clearly does.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • jwrallie 2 days ago

      > 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.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • crazygringo 2 days ago

    > It is true though. Like, literally.

    Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me?

    > Why do you think it is called Lite?

    Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

    Reply View 23 replies
    • rpdillon 2 days ago

      One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2.

      > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO can be converted to MV3 DNR rules, some websites may not be filtered as with uBO. A specific example in following tweet.

      You can read about the specific differences in the FAQ:

      https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

      My personal take is if you're a pretty unsophisticated user and you mostly don't actually interact with the add-ons at all, Manifest V3 will probably be fine.

      If you understand how ads and tracking work and you are using advanced features of the extension to manage that, then Manifest V2 will be much, much better. Dynamic filters alone are a huge win.

      Reply View 14 replies
      • ufmace 2 days ago

        I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit.

        I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot of those things. Or vague assertions that it's not doing something which is allegedly important, where it's never actually explained what that thing it's not doing is and why it's important.

        I have yet to see anybody show a specific example of a website where Lite doesn't actually work well enough. Or of any other specific thing it's not doing. I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing. If it can't be explained simply and clearly what it's not doing that's so important, maybe it's not actually missing anything important at all.

        I suppose I am a unsophisticated user of web browsers. I never got around to understanding or interacting with all the details of what "proper" uBO can do. Yet I still seem to browse the web just fine, and even build webapps sometimes, and I don't see any ads. So what's this great thing that I'm missing?

        Reply View 9 replies
      • stubish a day ago

        Switch to v3, and not notice as adtech slowly starts leaking through, such as people have already started seeing on Youtube. The key is to slowly crank up the number of ads that get through, boiling the apocryphal frog.

        Reply View 3 replies
    • rstat1 2 days ago

      Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.

      Reply View 6 replies
      • crazygringo 2 days ago

        It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice.

        Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now.

        And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally wanted it to minimize resources. You can install a dedicated zapper extension if you want that.

        I genuinely don't understand where this narrative of "adblockers don't work anymore on Chrome" is coming from. Again, it's just not true, but keeps getting repeated like it is.

        Reply View 5 replies
krade a day ago

UBO Lite doesn't support cosmetic filters or custom rules.

Reply View 0 replies
consumer451 2 days ago

I believe that another change is that ad blockers cannot update as quickly now? If that is true, since ad blocking is a cat and mouse game, doesn't that make ad blocking with a delay less functional?

Reply View 5 replies