Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
Google’s plan to fully remove Manifest V2 extensions from Chrome, effectively killing classic uBlock Origin support by 2026, is seen by many as a move to weaken powerful ad blockers in favor of the company’s advertising business. Commenters weigh the technical and security justifications for Manifest V3 against its practical impact: less capable content blocking, reduced enterprise security tooling, and greater dependency on Google-controlled APIs. As a result, many are advocating or already migrating to alternatives like Firefox, Brave, Vivaldi, Helium, and Orion, emphasizing browser engine diversity and robust, built-in or MV2-compatible ad blocking as increasingly important.
Impact of MV2 Removal and uBlock Origin
- Chrome 151 will no longer load MV2 extensions, so classic uBlock Origin will stop working there.
- Many commenters say they are more loyal to uBlock Origin than to any browser and will switch browsers rather than browse with ads.
- Some see this as the culmination of a long‑expected attempt by an ad company to weaken ad blockers; others repeat Google’s stated rationale of technical debt and security but treat it skeptically.
MV3 vs MV2 and uBlock Origin Lite
- MV3 removes or reshapes key capabilities: direct WebRequest blocking, persistent backgrounds, and remote code execution in extensions.
- On Chrome, ad blocking must use
declarativeNetRequestrules; this is described as faster but less flexible and less resistant to anti‑adblock tactics. - uBlock Origin Lite (uBOL) is widely reported by users as “feels the same” and ad‑free in daily use.
- However, uBOL’s own FAQ (cited repeatedly) says it is less capable, especially against anti‑adblock measures and for dynamic/complex filtering; differences are site‑dependent.
- Firefox’s MV3 keeps full WebRequest blocking, and commenters state there is currently no plan to deprecate MV2 there.
Browser Choices and Strategies
- Many urge moving to Firefox (or other non‑Chromium engines) to preserve powerful ad blocking and engine diversity.
- Others stick with Chrome/Edge/Vivaldi/Brave for:
- Performance (especially canvas/WebGL, complex UIs, and memory behavior).
- Better devtools and specific web features.
- Site compatibility, especially for Google services, some banks, government portals, video calls, and certain enterprise apps.
- Some report Firefox is sluggish, energy‑hungry, or incompatible; others report the opposite and blame addons, poor testing, or intentional degradation by Google services.
- Several recommend Chromium forks (Ungoogled Chromium, Helium) and alternative engines (Orion, Pale Moon, Ladybird in future) that still support strong ad blocking.
Network-Level and Built‑In Blocking
- Many advocate layering DNS or proxy‑based blocking (Pi‑hole, AdGuard Home, AdGuard for Windows) with browser‑level tools.
- DNS‑only blocking is seen as useful but insufficient: it can’t do cosmetic filtering, DOM‑level rules, or advanced script control.
- Some browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, Helium, Orion) ship built‑in blockers using uBlock lists or similar, partly sidestepping MV3 limits.
Security, Enterprise, and Policy Concerns
- One detailed comment argues MV3 harms enterprise security: it weakens on‑device inspection, stateful controls, and ad blocking that government guidance explicitly recommends.
- Chrome Enterprise Premium is noted as now selling some capabilities that MV2‑based tools used to provide for free.
Monopoly, Mozilla, and Future Risks
- Several see Chrome dominance creating a self‑reinforcing cycle: developers only test on Chromium, so alternatives suffer.
- Mozilla is criticized for mismanagement, reliance on Google search payments, and occasional missteps (extension review issues, Servo/Rust cuts), but still viewed by many as the best remaining mainstream counterweight.
- There is concern that if Google pressures Mozilla or Mozilla “caves,” only smaller projects and forks will defend user‑controlled browsing and effective ad blocking.