"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s move to disable Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome, effectively forcing a shift to Manifest V3, is prompting concern over weakened ad blockers like uBlock Origin and reduced user control over web filtering. Commenters weigh Google’s stated security and performance justifications against its advertising business incentives, arguing that MV3’s declarative, quota-limited APIs constrain powerful, dynamic blocking and customization. Many plan to switch to Firefox or Chromium-based alternatives that promise to retain stronger extension capabilities, while others explore workarounds such as DNS-level blocking, enterprise policies, or OS‑level tools.

Manifest V3 and ad blocking capabilities

  • MV3 removes the powerful blocking variant of webRequest and replaces it with declarative rules (declarativeNetRequest).
  • Rule limits have been increased over time (now up to ~330k static + 30k dynamic shared across extensions, with per‑extension minimums), but are still seen by some as arbitrary and constraining.
  • Critics say you cannot fully express uBlock Origin’s dynamic/heuristic behavior as static rules, and features like “element zapper” and deep per‑site tweaking are degraded.
  • Several users report that uBlock Origin Lite and AdGuard MV3 extensions block “all” or “most” ads in practice, including YouTube for some, while others see more leaks and breakage, especially on complex sites.
  • There is concern advertisers will adapt once most Chrome users are constrained to static lists.

Security, privacy, and user‑control debate

  • Pro‑MV3 side: webRequest‑based extensions are a major malware/spyware vector; declarative filtering lets adblockers work without seeing raw requests, improving privacy and reviewability.
  • Critics argue Chrome could have kept MV2 for vetted extensions or gated APIs behind stricter review instead of removing capabilities, and that MV3 reduces user agency over their “user agent.”
  • There is disagreement whether blocking fewer APIs truly improves security, given other powerful capabilities (e.g., script injection) remain.

Firefox and other browser options

  • Firefox explicitly states it will keep MV2 “for the foreseeable future,” so full uBlock Origin and similar extensions continue to work.
  • Firefox features discussed: Multi‑Account Containers (per‑tab cookie isolation), existing but clunky profile management (an overhaul is in progress), vertical tabs via forks (Floorp, Zen) or add‑ons, but loss of PWAs on desktop.
  • Some criticize Mozilla for funding dependency on Google and for mishandling extension reviews (e.g., friction over uBO Lite), but many still see Firefox as the main escape hatch.
  • Chromium‑based alternatives: Brave and Vivaldi plan limited MV2 support tied to upstream; Brave and Vivaldi both rely more on built‑in blockers. Long‑term maintenance of MV2 forks is seen as costly/unclear.

Enterprise and policy workarounds

  • Chrome offers an enterprise policy (ExtensionManifestV2Availability=2) that keeps MV2 working until June 2025; users share registry and policy snippets for Windows, macOS, and Linux.
  • This “managed browser” mode can disable Chrome’s DoH resolver unless additional policies are set.

Network‑ and OS‑level blocking

  • Pi‑hole, NextDNS, and MITM proxies are suggested as MV3‑proof layers, but:
    • DNS‑level blocking is coarse (domain‑wide, weak exceptions), can be bypassed via DoH, and struggles with YouTube ads.
    • MITM proxies can be effective but run into certificate pinning and setup complexity.

Broader ecosystem concerns

  • Many see this as part of a wider pattern of platforms locking down user control (DRM, hardware attestation, secure boot) and of Google leveraging its browser monopoly to weaken adblocking.
  • Others think MV3’s impact is being overstated and expect most users to stay with Chrome, with only a technical minority migrating to Firefox or niche browsers.