Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s move to fully deprecate Manifest V2 in Chrome is seen by many as a strategic weakening of powerful ad blockers like uBlock Origin, even though lighter MV3-based blockers and built‑in engines in browsers such as Brave will continue to function. Commenters worry this change tightens Google’s control over the web and reinforces the Chromium monoculture, pushing privacy‑conscious users toward Firefox and its forks, DNS‑level blocking, or alternative engines like Ladybird. While some report little practical difference with MV3-based tools, others emphasize lost capabilities (especially against tracking and anti–ad-block measures) and frame the shift as part of a broader trend toward an increasingly hostile, ad‑driven web.

What the Chrome change is

  • Discussion centers on Chrome dropping Manifest V2 (MV2) extensions in favor of Manifest V3 (MV3).
  • Many see the headline “end of ad blockers” as overstated; MV3-compatible blockers already exist.
  • Others argue it is effectively the end of full‑power blockers like classic uBlock Origin on Chrome.

Effect on ad blockers (MV2 vs MV3)

  • MV3 replaces webRequest with declarativeNetRequest, with rule-count limits and no arbitrary JS on requests.
  • Critics say this removes key capabilities: full list usage, dynamic filtering, scriptlet injection, fine‑grained privacy protections, and some anti–ad-blocker countermeasures.
  • Some argue MV3 cannot do robust URL‑level privacy protection (e.g., stripping tracking parameters); others dispute or downplay this.

User experience with MV3 blockers

  • Multiple users report uBlock Origin Lite and similar MV3 blockers work “well enough,” including on YouTube.
  • Others insist Lite is clearly weaker: fewer lists, fewer controls, more tracking allowed, and more vulnerable to ad-tech workarounds.
  • A recurring theme: for “99% of users” MV3 blockers feel fine; power users and privacy‑focused users see a big regression.

Browser alternatives and blocking strategies

  • Strong push toward Firefox and Firefox-based forks (Zen, LibreWolf, Waterfox, Glide), especially for full uBlock Origin.
  • Brave is frequently cited: built‑in engine-level blocking and limited MV2 support for a few key extensions; some doubt long‑term sustainability and raise past controversies.
  • Other options mentioned: Vivaldi, ungoogled‑chromium, Orion, Helium, Tor Browser, Safari with third‑party blockers.
  • Many advocate DNS-level blocking (Pi-hole, AdGuard Home, private DNS) as first line of defense, but note it’s insufficient alone.

Monoculture, power, and regulation concerns

  • Heavy criticism of Chrome/Chromium monoculture: other Chromium forks depend on Google’s technical choices.
  • Fears that sites may increasingly assume Chrome, potentially degrading experience or blocking non‑Chrome/non‑ad‑accepting browsers.
  • Some see this as abuse of market power and lament lack of stronger antitrust responses, especially compared to earlier Microsoft cases.

Security rationale debate

  • A claimed justification is extension security and reduced attack surface.
  • Many posters view this as pretext from an ad company whose business model conflicts with strong blocking.
  • Some acknowledge MV2 had real tech debt but still see the net effect as “nerfing” ad blockers.