Google Chrome update will close the door on ad blockers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.