Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s plan to phase out powerful ad-blocking capabilities in Chrome via Manifest V3 is fueling concern that the modern web will become nearly unusable without intrusive ads. Many commenters predict the move will push technically inclined users toward alternatives like Firefox and Brave, or to network-level tools such as Pi-hole, though they doubt most mainstream users will switch. There is also broader unease about Google’s control over the Chromium project, the erosion of user control on the web, and whether regulators or new open-source browsers will eventually counterbalance this trend.

General Sentiment on Chrome’s Move

  • Many commenters see Chrome’s Manifest V3 and ad‑blocking limits as a breaking point and describe the modern web as “unusable” without blockers.
  • Some think Google is overplaying its hand and risks repeating Internet Explorer’s decline; others argue most users will stay with Chrome out of inertia and convenience.
  • A subset frames this as part of a broader “war on general‑purpose computing” and user control.

Impact on Browser Choices

  • Strong push from many to switch (or already switched) to Firefox, often paired with uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, and containers.
  • Brave is frequently cited as an appealing Chromium-like alternative with built‑in ad blocking not reliant on extension APIs; some dislike its crypto/rewards features.
  • Safari/WebKit (and derivatives like Orion, Otter) are mentioned as alternatives, but with downsides: smaller ecosystem, compatibility quirks, iOS engine lock‑in.
  • Some report Firefox being as fast and stable as Chrome; others find it buggy, slower over time, or lacking features like robust sync or “app mode.”

Manifest V3, V2, and Technical Limits

  • Key technical concern: MV3’s declarativeNetRequest caps dynamic rules (~30k), far below major lists (EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s, etc.), degrading block quality.
  • MV3 removes blocking webRequest APIs for most extensions but keeps read‑only inspection, so data exfiltration via extensions remains possible.
  • Firefox will support MV3 but keep MV2, so powerful blockers remain viable there.
  • Brave, Vivaldi, Opera say they’ll keep MV2 past Chrome’s deprecation, but this likely means increasing divergence and maintenance burden as Chromium evolves; long‑term feasibility is uncertain.

Alternatives: Network‑Level Blocking and OS/Router Approaches

  • Pi‑hole and DNS/hosts‑based blocking are seen as useful but limited: can’t distinguish ads from content on same domains (e.g., YouTube), and can’t remove DOM elements.
  • Router/OS‑level blocking is constrained by HTTPS and encrypted DNS; deeper inspection would require privacy‑hostile MITM.

Regulation, Power, and Long‑Term Fears

  • Some welcome EU scrutiny of anti‑adblock tactics due to malware and power imbalance; others want regulators to “stay out” and let the ad/anti‑ad arms race play out.
  • Concerns that big players could move toward proprietary protocols, DRM‑like requirements, or hardware‑level controls to enforce ads and tracking.
  • A minority is optimistic about future open‑source browsers or new stacks breaking today’s Firefox/Chromium dominance, but others see that as unrealistic given complexity.