Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Browser choices and MV3 fallout

  • Many commenters treat MV3 as a breaking point and say the real “bypass” is to stop using Chrome/Chromium altogether.
  • Firefox + uBlock Origin is the most recommended setup (desktop and Android). Some suggest hardened forks like LibreWolf or Waterfox.
  • Others propose Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, Safari, Orion, or de‑Googled Chromium builds; there’s disagreement whether any Chromium-based browser can really escape Google’s control long‑term.
  • Some report practical issues holding them back from Firefox (PWAs, certain banking sites, Google Meet performance, Yubikey quirks, occasional site bugs).

Security, privacy, and Manifest V3

  • There’s heavy skepticism of Google’s claim that MV3 is primarily about security; several argue it’s “less secure” or at best unchanged, because extensions can still inspect requests but can’t block them as flexibly.
  • Others argue restricting extensions’ power is reasonable security design, but note the conflict of interest when an ad company controls the extension model.
  • Some suggest a better model: powerful, manually‑vetted “trusted” extensions (as Firefox does), or whitelisting specific extension IDs for sensitive permissions.

Effectiveness of MV3 adblockers

  • uBlock Origin Lite under MV3 is reported by some as “works great, blocks all visible ads, faster than MV2”.
  • Others emphasize concrete missing capabilities: dynamic filtering, CNAME-cloaked tracker blocking, cosmetic rules, remote font blocking, script injection tricks needed for e.g. Twitch/YouTube cat‑and‑mouse.
  • Consensus: MV3 still allows basic ad removal for most users, but significantly weakens tracker blocking and advanced control, and is likely to degrade over time as adtech adapts.

YouTube, ads, and Premium vs blocking

  • Many pay for YouTube Premium and report a completely ad‑free experience (except creator‑inserted sponsorships), sometimes justified as a way to support creators or “buy back time.”
  • Others refuse on principle, arguing: paying strengthens the ad empire, creators are poorly compensated, and direct support (Patreon, etc.) is preferable.
  • There’s deep hostility to advertising generally: described as surveillance, psychological manipulation, “social cancer,” even something it’s a “moral imperative” to resist with blockers.

Reactions to the bug and blog post

  • Some criticize the author for reporting the MV3 bypass (“snitching” that helped Google for free).
  • Others counter that any major adblocker relying on an obvious bug would be flagged and the bug patched immediately; the real blame lies with Google’s MV3 design, not the researcher.
  • Several praise the technical work and note it’s impressive for a young security researcher, useful as a case study in browser internals.

Monopoly, standards, and larger politics

  • Many see Chrome’s MV3 push plus YouTube’s anti‑adblock measures as evidence that Google “owns the web” and should face serious antitrust action or even breakup.
  • There’s concern that Chrome’s dominance lets Google effectively dictate web standards and marginalize alternative engines; some pin hopes on Firefox, Safari, or new engines (e.g. Ladybird) to preserve diversity.