uBlock Origin forcefully disabled by Chrome

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Chrome’s disabling of uBlock Origin

  • Users report uBlock Origin and many other extensions being “forcefully disabled” in Chrome, with a scary “no longer supported” banner.
  • It can still be re‑enabled through several confirmation dialogs, but this is seen as a dark pattern and temporary: enterprise policy can delay removal only until June 2025.
  • Some note Chrome’s page even promotes uBlock Origin Lite as a replacement, which others interpret as Google trying to soften backlash while still crippling full‑power blockers.

Manifest V3, security rationale, and real motive

  • Official justification cited is “security” (no remote code, static rules, etc.).
  • Many commenters argue this is a pretext: the real goal is to weaken ad blockers that hurt Google’s ad revenue.
  • Manifest V3’s limitations (dynamic rules, anti‑adblock workarounds, responsiveness) are described as equivalent to “tying a boat anchor around” ad blockers; people expect an arms race where MV3 blockers ultimately lose.

uBlock Origin Lite and other blocking strategies

  • uBlock Origin Lite is said to work “mostly fine” for average users and to have the upside of needing less invasive permissions.
  • Power users highlight missing capabilities vs full uBlock/uMatrix (custom rules, advanced anti‑adblock handling, certain filter types).
  • Some warn that ad companies haven’t fully exploited MV3 weaknesses yet; once Lite is widespread, its effectiveness may decline.
  • DNS‑level solutions (e.g. NextDNS) help generally but don’t reliably block YouTube ads.

Alternatives to Chrome and migration friction

  • Many call this the tipping point to abandon Chrome, recommending primarily:
    • Firefox/LibreWolf as the main “serious” alternative where full uBlock Origin still works.
    • Brave, Vivaldi, Orion, Arc, Ladybird, and others as varying‑maturity options, often Chromium‑based.
  • Others push back that switching isn’t “just install Firefox”: complex workflows, extensions, gestures, bookmark habits, and Google Docs/Gmail integrations can take days to replicate.

Mozilla/Firefox trust and data‑policy controversy

  • Thread contains a long, contentious debate about Firefox’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Notice:
    • One side says claims that Firefox “sells your data” or grabs rights over user content are misinformation or legal over‑caution driven by California privacy law, with permissions limited to “doing as you request” and data anonymized.
    • The other side argues Mozilla walked back its “we never sell your data” stance, does share de‑identified search/interaction data with partners, and added an unnecessary license over all content entered via Firefox, which they see as overreach.
  • Some view the timing as terrible: instead of capturing disgruntled Chrome users, Mozilla generated distrust and confusion. Others feel concerns are overblown compared to Google’s far worse track record.

Brave and other competitors

  • Brave is praised by some for built‑in ad blocking, speed, and battery life, but heavily criticized by others as a “scammy” crypto‑driven product with a history of shady referral/crypto behavior.
  • There is disagreement over whether political views of founders should influence browser choice.
  • Smaller/new browsers (Ladybird, Orion, Arc, Zen) are seen as promising but not yet ready or stable enough to be true tier‑1 options.

Broader concerns: ads, DRM, and web control

  • Several commenters see this as part of a long‑term trend: Google “fixing” the open web by locking down extensions, pushing more ads, and potentially moving toward DRM and “web attestation.”
  • Many express that even a modest reduction in ad‑block usage is worth billions to Google, so user experience and openness will lose to revenue.
  • The recurring advice: if you care about blocking invasive ads, stop relying on Chrome before it’s too late.