About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)(github.com)
github.com
About Google Chrome's "This extension may soon no longer be supported" (2024)
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/About-Google-Chrome%27s-%22This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported%22
178 comments
I simply cannot give up the option of zapping distractions off of my screen. I really cannot understand how people can use Youtube or even a Youtube embedded video without zapping away the distractions. There is no way I'm coming back to Chrome if they don't support manifest V2. It's Firefox for me.
I'm also using it to remove distractions from stack exchange sites like hot network questions. I can stay focused on solving my problem much better if my eyes can't wander to interesting unrelated stuff.
And yet 99% of YouTube's users use it as is.
This comment reminds me of this George Carlin bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN1Q5SjbeI
Many people are annoyed but 1) don't know there is any other way, 2) got used to it and the hassle of it is still worth it for them to get to watch the stuff they want.
I am in group 2)
You know about adblockers, right??????????? It isn't just YOutube, it's the entire internet these days!!
[deleted]
I use uBlock origin lite and there are no ads on youtube or embedded youtube videos
The parent comment is talking about distractions, not ads. YouTube has plenty of those, even embedded YouTube videos, unless you pause the video before it ends. uBlock Origin Lite cannot block elements except through packaged rulesets, and while there are some ad-blocker lists that are meant to block annoyances on pages in addition to ads, everybody has a different idea on what is an annoyance on a webpage.
exactly. I was not referring to ads, but to annoying suggestions in embedded videos (also when the video is paused!), and even to the long and mostly useless suggestions list on the right of the screen. I want to use YouTube as a useful tool, not to waste my time in endless loops of "oh, that looks interesting!"
There are ads, you wait for them to load, but they are not shown.
Just for the record: uBlock Origin Lite can block ads, but the user can’t add their own custom rules.
They mention "other browsers" in addition to Firefox that will continue to support Manifest v2, but I can't find a list. Does anyone know off-hand the additional browser options for Manifest V2 and multiple-OS support?
I think some Chromium-based browsers like Brave have pledged that they'll keep v2 around for as long as it's practical? Though IMO, people who depend on Manifest v2 with Chromium forks are running on borrowed time, Chromium moves fast and I can't imagine that keeping the Manifest v2 code working will be very easy. Especially if Google takes advantage of the limited access extensions now have to the HTTP request flow to do major refactors in that area.
Chromium browsers can't make that pledge and those that promised have red flags in my book.
1. These browsers can barely add their own functionality on top of upstream, and maintaining Manifest v2 compatibility may be expensive. Consider that the development of Chrome exceeds 1 billion per year.
2. They all use Chrome's Webstore as a distributing channel, except for Edge, but IMO, Microsoft has an even bigger interest in seeing uBO die.
Brave itself has ad-blocking built-in, which won't be affected, and it's fairly capable, but promising that they'll keep compatibility with uBO is a lie, if they ever made that promise.
1. These browsers can barely add their own functionality on top of upstream, and maintaining Manifest v2 compatibility may be expensive. Consider that the development of Chrome exceeds 1 billion per year.
2. They all use Chrome's Webstore as a distributing channel, except for Edge, but IMO, Microsoft has an even bigger interest in seeing uBO die.
Brave itself has ad-blocking built-in, which won't be affected, and it's fairly capable, but promising that they'll keep compatibility with uBO is a lie, if they ever made that promise.
I agree, and it seems like Brave agrees too. From https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/:
> For as long as we’re able (and assuming the cooperation of the extension authors), Brave will continue to support some privacy-relevant MV2 extensions—specifically AdGuard, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix
I'm no fan of Brave, but it's nice to see that they at least somewhat acknowledge that they likely won't be able to support v2 forever. Only time will tell how long they're "able".
> For as long as we’re able (and assuming the cooperation of the extension authors), Brave will continue to support some privacy-relevant MV2 extensions—specifically AdGuard, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix
I'm no fan of Brave, but it's nice to see that they at least somewhat acknowledge that they likely won't be able to support v2 forever. Only time will tell how long they're "able".
> Consider that the development of Chrome exceeds 1 billion per year.
1 billion what, LOC? Dollars? Downloads? Emails from the ad department demanding QoD improvements to Chrome?
1 billion what, LOC? Dollars? Downloads? Emails from the ad department demanding QoD improvements to Chrome?
Dollars, current estimates ranging between 1 and 2 billion.
Firefox is currently developed with half a billion, but IMO, that is why there are only 3 browser engines left, with all the “forks” depending on the upstream.
Firefox is currently developed with half a billion, but IMO, that is why there are only 3 browser engines left, with all the “forks” depending on the upstream.
Yep, currently brave (and others I assume) switch it on at build time, when Google removes that from chromium they may move it to their patch set, but who knows how long they’ll keep that once it starts breaking.
The dynamic web request hook is the only thing still relevant in MV2, right? Are there any other features to be backported from MV2?
I've tried to understand what makes this so incredible impossible to maintain by asking people, I feels like FUD from the FF community (which I'm a part of) because it's all just wishywashy statements that it'll be impossible to maintain.
The reason all the statements are "wishywashy" is because it's impossible to say anything concrete here, we don't know what Google is planning to change in the future. But we know that Chromium is a huge, fast-moving code base, and that dynamic web request hooks require support from core parts of Chromium. If Google refactors or rewrites those core parts in a way which makes them incompatible with per-request dynamic hooks, keeping around v2 support means carrying huge patch sets against core parts of Chromium, forever. That's likely going to be a very large ongoing maintenance burden.
But Google haven't made those changes to how web requests are performed yet, so it's impossible to say how difficult it will be to add back whatever functionality is necessary to add back dynamic web request hooks. Maybe it'll turn out to be relatively easy, and maybe Google will leave that part of Chromium relatively unchanged for a long time. Only time will tell.
But Google haven't made those changes to how web requests are performed yet, so it's impossible to say how difficult it will be to add back whatever functionality is necessary to add back dynamic web request hooks. Maybe it'll turn out to be relatively easy, and maybe Google will leave that part of Chromium relatively unchanged for a long time. Only time will tell.
The best thing for Brave to do would just be to build it into their own ad blocker because Google is going to intentionally make it more and more impractical to support older extensions that interfere with their business model.
Brave and Vivaldi will continue to support it for some time. Brave also does not really depend on MV2 as they have their own adblocker (which is about as effective as uBO, I believe).
edit: link to their adblocker: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
edit: link to their adblocker: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
[deleted]
Edit: I was wrong. See below.
Original comment: Brave's built in blocker is OK for what it does but I believe that it only replaces a subset of all uBO's features. For example I don't think that Brave's built in blocker has an element picker that lets you create cosmetic filters on the fly. I use that feature all the time in uBO.
Original comment: Brave's built in blocker is OK for what it does but I believe that it only replaces a subset of all uBO's features. For example I don't think that Brave's built in blocker has an element picker that lets you create cosmetic filters on the fly. I use that feature all the time in uBO.
Click the Brave shield icon, then select advanced controls, then at the very bottom you'll see "Block Element".
I haven't used it enough to know if it works like the uBlock one, but at least it is there.
I haven't used it enough to know if it works like the uBlock one, but at least it is there.
Brave does have an element picker for creating cosmetic filters. It even works on Android, I just tried it.
You're right, I just found the option on desktop in the right-click context menu. According to some posts I've just found in the community forums, the feature was launched years ago but for some reason I had never noticed it even though Brave used to be my default browser until recently
Anything based on Firefox, like LibreWolf, as well
Arc (until they completely abandon it), Firefox, Orion.
For anyone else like me that hasnt tried uBO lite wondering what features are missing: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
There seem to be quite a lot of other nice features which also do not work on Chromium-based browsers even with the v2 version of uBO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#Limitations_in_C...
It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox.
> It’s only a matter of time before the modern Phoebus cartel starts blocking Firefox.
I feel like nobody will have to consciously do anything in particular, with the current way how things are going.
- Chromium is the modern IE and developers will primarily be on the hook for supporting it, Firefox support will be an afterthought so some sites will just be broken, moving more users over to Chromium.
- The Firefox marketshare is dwindling, it's likely that the users with proper ad blocking will eventually be a rounding error and therefore quite inconsequential. Especially if there are any more ad-related APIs pushed by Chrome that make users more profitable (e.g. Topics API).
- Even among tech enthusiasts, Mozilla in particular doesn't have very good reputation (e.g. how much they spend on actually improving the browser vs other initiatives) and I don't see the marketshare of Firefox skyrocketing, unless something big happens. New competitors like Ladybird are also niche, though it's a really cool project.
- If Apple ever moves over Safari to Chromium, like Edge did, then that effect will only be amplified.
I feel like nobody will have to consciously do anything in particular, with the current way how things are going.
- Chromium is the modern IE and developers will primarily be on the hook for supporting it, Firefox support will be an afterthought so some sites will just be broken, moving more users over to Chromium.
- The Firefox marketshare is dwindling, it's likely that the users with proper ad blocking will eventually be a rounding error and therefore quite inconsequential. Especially if there are any more ad-related APIs pushed by Chrome that make users more profitable (e.g. Topics API).
- Even among tech enthusiasts, Mozilla in particular doesn't have very good reputation (e.g. how much they spend on actually improving the browser vs other initiatives) and I don't see the marketshare of Firefox skyrocketing, unless something big happens. New competitors like Ladybird are also niche, though it's a really cool project.
- If Apple ever moves over Safari to Chromium, like Edge did, then that effect will only be amplified.
>Firefox marketshare is dwindling
It's basically non-existing already (less than 4% globally) [1] and with basically zero mobile presence.
[1]: https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#top-browsers...
It's basically non-existing already (less than 4% globally) [1] and with basically zero mobile presence.
[1]: https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#top-browsers...
In spite of its dwindling usage, Firefox is still used by more than a 100 million people on desktop.
I posted this comment some days ago [1]:
To put some numbers on what a 2.54% market share means, Firefox actually tracks this data. See here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity:
> Monthly Active Users (MAU) measures the number of Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days.
> February 10, 2025: 163,203,913 clients
> February 17, 2025: 163,742,671 clients
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43219572
I posted this comment some days ago [1]:
To put some numbers on what a 2.54% market share means, Firefox actually tracks this data. See here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity:
> Monthly Active Users (MAU) measures the number of Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days.
> February 10, 2025: 163,203,913 clients
> February 17, 2025: 163,742,671 clients
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43219572
Probably quite a few people like me who use both Chrome and Firefox.
Yet I genuinely don't understand how people can tolerate the modern web with ads?
It's possible some people accept it because they don't know any better, but I have never seen anyone going back once they realize it's possible to get rid of the pollution; I have never heard anyone say "where dit the ads go? I miss them".
So maybe it's just our responsibility as power users to educate our friends more?
It's possible some people accept it because they don't know any better, but I have never seen anyone going back once they realize it's possible to get rid of the pollution; I have never heard anyone say "where dit the ads go? I miss them".
So maybe it's just our responsibility as power users to educate our friends more?
The more people block ads, the bigger the incentive for companies to invest in blocking blockers. In a way, it's in the interest of power users to keep their tricks obscure so it's not worth to eliminate these options.
I honestly don't understand it either! I'm a screen reader user, and if I had to use the web without adblock, it would take me a lot longer!!! However, I have friends who also use screen readers who do!!
We were seen as failing a security audit recently for having firefox installed on some of the development laptops and got ordered to remove it by IT who conceeded that it was stupid but had to check boxes for insurance is ISO standards.
This causes the majority of people to only be exposed to Edge/IE or Chrome at work, and use their phones the rest of the time.
This causes the majority of people to only be exposed to Edge/IE or Chrome at work, and use their phones the rest of the time.
I hope you’re wrong but yeah, who knows. I’m glad that Ladybird is under active development and seems to be making progress.
I can live with that. By blocking Firefox they would self identify as user hostile in the same way that google has done with V3. I think this would a huge step forward, a massive shit filter.
A certain amount of websites are mandatory today, like local utilities, employer chosen health insurance, etc. I have to keep Chromium around for some that don't work right with Firefox.
After trying both, I prefer Matrix to Origin.
However I do not rely on extensions/add-ons as I believe extensions/add-ons are not the right solution. Unless the computer user is compiling the browser herself, extensions/add-ons can be crippled/disabled/etc. by whomever is distributing binaries. When the distributor is supported by online advertising as is the case for both Chrome and Firefox, and all the other so-called "modern" graphical browsers, this possibility cannot be ignored.
However I do not rely on extensions/add-ons as I believe extensions/add-ons are not the right solution. Unless the computer user is compiling the browser herself, extensions/add-ons can be crippled/disabled/etc. by whomever is distributing binaries. When the distributor is supported by online advertising as is the case for both Chrome and Firefox, and all the other so-called "modern" graphical browsers, this possibility cannot be ignored.
Many years ago I switched to chrome because ff felt sluggish. That’s all fixed since a long time. Not sure why so many seems to be choosing chrome today.
Chrome with Ublock origin works through June 2025, via "browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025". Discussion on how to enable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812638
I see people reporting that the extension has already been forcefully removed (or disabled in some cases) from their Chrome. This hasn't happened to me (v133 on MacOS).
I have primarily been using Chrome up until this point as I was under the impression that performance (and therefore battery life) is bad with FF on MacOS. Recent results seem to indicate that Chrome is in fact the worst offender [1].
Yesterday I uninstalled Arc as they have all but abandoned their browser to work on some AI crap browser (after saying they planned to support manifest v2 for the forseeable future).
Today I installed Orion Browser [2]. It's using webkit under the hood and seems to be far lighter on battery life than Chrome, Arc (Blink) and Firefox. They fully support FF and Chrome extensions and therefore UBO seems to be working (on the whole) very well.
[1] https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-ma...
[2] https://kagi.com/orion/
I have primarily been using Chrome up until this point as I was under the impression that performance (and therefore battery life) is bad with FF on MacOS. Recent results seem to indicate that Chrome is in fact the worst offender [1].
Yesterday I uninstalled Arc as they have all but abandoned their browser to work on some AI crap browser (after saying they planned to support manifest v2 for the forseeable future).
Today I installed Orion Browser [2]. It's using webkit under the hood and seems to be far lighter on battery life than Chrome, Arc (Blink) and Firefox. They fully support FF and Chrome extensions and therefore UBO seems to be working (on the whole) very well.
[1] https://birchtree.me/blog/everyone-says-chrome-devastates-ma...
[2] https://kagi.com/orion/
It is a shame that Orion is Mac and iOS only. I found this statement[1] in response to a request for it on other platforms
> We are getting a lot of repeat questions about windows/linux/android version and sometimes it appears that users think that the team is choosing not to work on these platforms. The situation is quite different and simpler - we do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet.
> And since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. And building a browser is not cheap, especially one on top of WebKit.
> Ways you can help accelerate this is: > Contribute to Orion development with your time > Help spread the word about Orion to attract more users > Get Orion+ and financially support developmet
This is a tricky situation to be in. A lack of resources to support multiple platforms, but the solution being more subscribers. But the incentive structure is perplexing. Those supporting development going to be those already using Orion. And those not on Mac/iOS are unlikely to financially support a browser they can't use in the hopes it might one day come to a platform I use.
[1] https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-l...
> We are getting a lot of repeat questions about windows/linux/android version and sometimes it appears that users think that the team is choosing not to work on these platforms. The situation is quite different and simpler - we do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet.
> And since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. And building a browser is not cheap, especially one on top of WebKit.
> Ways you can help accelerate this is: > Contribute to Orion development with your time > Help spread the word about Orion to attract more users > Get Orion+ and financially support developmet
This is a tricky situation to be in. A lack of resources to support multiple platforms, but the solution being more subscribers. But the incentive structure is perplexing. Those supporting development going to be those already using Orion. And those not on Mac/iOS are unlikely to financially support a browser they can't use in the hopes it might one day come to a platform I use.
[1] https://orionfeedback.org/d/2321-orion-for-windows-android-l...
I happen to be in the target audience:
Orion user on Mac (but I think of it as a better Safari if anyone saw me writing I only use Safari and Firefox), but would like to have it available on my non Mac machines as well.
Orion user on Mac (but I think of it as a better Safari if anyone saw me writing I only use Safari and Firefox), but would like to have it available on my non Mac machines as well.
Same here for me, I will look into donating some of my time to this project
They announced they are planning linux release in 2025 in their end of 2024 event, and down in the thread you linked they hint apparently it is now in active development.
Also remember Apple users are much more lucrative, they tend to be way more willing to pay for software than Windows users.
But a lot of Apple users who use things such as Kagi and Orion (i.e., the hacker news crowd) also use other platforms. I have a MacBook but run Linux on my desktop and I know I’m not the only one. The ability to have the same browser on all platforms (with synced tabs, bookmarks etc) is really useful.
right you are gregory
That's a very Australian thing to say.
I think the smallest macropod is the Tammar Wallaby?
I think the smallest macropod is the Tammar Wallaby?
Maybe do a crowdfunding effort?
Orion is great. There are some websites that for some reason don’t work as well as with Safari/Firefox (like Github), but otherwise it is pretty good.
Orion looks pretty interesting, it's not like any of the other alternative browsers (opera, vivaldi, brave, arc etc) which just wrap Chromium in more junk. It uses WebKit which is optimised for Apple platforms, giving more battery life, while also integrating uBlock Origin.
Do they really remove it? Because I've had several extensions get disabled and was only able to re-enable them after enabling developer mode (toggle at top-right).
I believe that most say "remove" because they get removed from the plugin-bar when disabled.
I'll ditch Chrome without a second thought if they really remove it. They'll lose access to my browsing history, so I don't see what they have to gain with it. What about the ads which are blocked at network level via PiHole?
Have they even considered that PiHole might then catch on and start blocking ads on mobile devices in households which would otherwise not use it?
I believe that most say "remove" because they get removed from the plugin-bar when disabled.
I'll ditch Chrome without a second thought if they really remove it. They'll lose access to my browsing history, so I don't see what they have to gain with it. What about the ads which are blocked at network level via PiHole?
Have they even considered that PiHole might then catch on and start blocking ads on mobile devices in households which would otherwise not use it?
I can confirm that I got the "extension disabled" notification for uBlock Origin, clicked to re-enable it in developer mode, and then had to also toggle it to enabled after it had been added to the list - still works fine after that.
Anyone looking for a similar experience to Arc, I recommend Zen Browser, based on Firefox: https://zen-browser.app/
After 17 years of using Android, with building my own kernel and ROMs in the early days, I finally gave up on it and finished my de-Google journey and reluctantly switched to iPhone.
The fact that Orion on iOS existed was a major reason I was able to this. On Android I was a Firefox user since Firefox was the only browser with the ability to run proper uBo.
Orion is not without its bugs, but it does support a lot of Firefox and Chrome extensions. But you don’t even need to install uBo as an extension,it’s got built in ad blocker with the ability to add or remove filter lists. Even without installing uBo, in terms of ad blocking, it instantly matched Firefox on Android. That I can install things such as Tapermonkey or Bypass Paywall Clean as extensions is a huge bonus.
It’s amazing how Google is pushing its early adopters and cheerleaders away by one anti user move after another.
I still wish Apple would remove some of the restrictions on iOS, allow other browser engines etc. Installing unknown software from unsigned developers on macOS is really difficult these days but still doable if you know where to look. If only iOS was the same. The potential lost revenue from loss of control would be more than made up by new people who would be brought on to the platform.
The fact that Orion on iOS existed was a major reason I was able to this. On Android I was a Firefox user since Firefox was the only browser with the ability to run proper uBo.
Orion is not without its bugs, but it does support a lot of Firefox and Chrome extensions. But you don’t even need to install uBo as an extension,it’s got built in ad blocker with the ability to add or remove filter lists. Even without installing uBo, in terms of ad blocking, it instantly matched Firefox on Android. That I can install things such as Tapermonkey or Bypass Paywall Clean as extensions is a huge bonus.
It’s amazing how Google is pushing its early adopters and cheerleaders away by one anti user move after another.
I still wish Apple would remove some of the restrictions on iOS, allow other browser engines etc. Installing unknown software from unsigned developers on macOS is really difficult these days but still doable if you know where to look. If only iOS was the same. The potential lost revenue from loss of control would be more than made up by new people who would be brought on to the platform.
What part of Arc feels abandoned? I still use as my primary browser.
The part where they say they are not developing it further. CEO discussing it further here:
https://x.com/joshm/status/1850717644779110643
They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months.
They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months.
> They have not shipped anything but browser updates and minor fixes for months.
I would LOVE my browser to do just that!
I would LOVE my browser to do just that!
This isn't the problem though. The problem is they have completely pivoted in this other direction and are working on a new browser. It will only be a matter of time before they abandon Arc and then you won't get the security fixes, blink updates etc. It's also not currently OSS so it's not possible to fork it and continue elsewhere.
The fixes are really really minor. Larger functional bugs that aren’t catastrophic are hanging out.
That said, it’s been fine for me and I’m still using it. I don’t see any reason to abandon it yet. When the company fails maybe they’ll open source or sell it. I’d happily pay for this.
That said, it’s been fine for me and I’m still using it. I don’t see any reason to abandon it yet. When the company fails maybe they’ll open source or sell it. I’d happily pay for this.
firefox ESR?
I'm happy with 1Blocker in Safari
1Blocker is really good
This is a clear example of conflict of interest Google has.
It makes money almost exclusively from ads, and people want to block ads. No matter how they try to portray decisions like this - it is obvious they are moving in direction where people are unable to do what they want.
I am sure if Google from today would launch a browser, it would fail to gain traction knowing all the state of their core business and negative sentiment users have.
Let's hope Mozilla doesn't go the same route, but it seems they are also not under good leadership and are slowly loosing the trust of users.
It makes money almost exclusively from ads, and people want to block ads. No matter how they try to portray decisions like this - it is obvious they are moving in direction where people are unable to do what they want.
I am sure if Google from today would launch a browser, it would fail to gain traction knowing all the state of their core business and negative sentiment users have.
Let's hope Mozilla doesn't go the same route, but it seems they are also not under good leadership and are slowly loosing the trust of users.
Kind of? There's absolutely a justifiable reason for v3, that is not "because we want to kill ad blockers". It is likely that some higher ups pushed for v3 for ad reasons, just as devs pushed for v3 for technical reasons.
I couldn't find a good timeline of all the developments in the extension space. I started first installing extensions on Firefox with their super powerful but dangerous XUL system, then they watered it down and many extensions died, then Chrome took over the internet, then extensions could just block the ads and nothing more interesting, then suddenly for Chrome, they even can't do that? I remember Google also trying to ship some tamper protection (like DRM) for web sites... I wonder how this all will end up. I also wonder why people keep installing Chrome but not Firefox, but I digress. I really think the web needs a detailed documentary on how Google played Microsoft's EEE scheme on the whole web.
Chrome took over long before Firefox dumped XUL. It was sticking to XUL with all the performance issues that let Chrome take over. Losing all the extensibility of XUL, and it being too late to take a thoughtful approach to design something that maintained that extensibility with performance and security, helped solidify Chrome's lead. A lot of people didn't see a point in using Firefox without extensibility beyond what Chrome allowed.
regardless of what people complain of, firefox is still an awesome daily driver. nobody likes the direction the MF is taking the browser to but at least we can influence it, unlike google.
It also works flawlessly on Android, with uBlock Origin blocking everything, including ads on youtube (provided one stays in the browser of course, and not use the app).
Best thing we can do to influence it is probably to use and fund forks such as LibreWolf, hoping that they are in a position to continue development once Google decides to tell the manager of Mozilla to finally destroy it completely.
(Yes, that is a joke I hope, but if I compare what I think a puppet controlled by Google would do to destroy the Mozilla brand to what Mozillas CEO has been doing, I think there is a lot of similarities.)
(Yes, that is a joke I hope, but if I compare what I think a puppet controlled by Google would do to destroy the Mozilla brand to what Mozillas CEO has been doing, I think there is a lot of similarities.)
Thinking that funding forks, like LibreWolf, would save said forks from dying if Mozilla goes under, is naive.
The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Estimates for Chrome range from 1 to 2 billion $ per year. In other words, take the donations of something like Wikimedia, which is arguably very successful in asking for donations, and you'd still be very short on the money needed to fund a web browser. And if you bring those costs down to something more manageable, like say, 100 million $, and assuming you can convince people to donate (IMO, when pigs will fly), then you'll have a browser that may be completely unable to compete with Chromium.
All the browser “forks” survive because Google and Mozilla are doing the hard work.
The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year. Estimates for Chrome range from 1 to 2 billion $ per year. In other words, take the donations of something like Wikimedia, which is arguably very successful in asking for donations, and you'd still be very short on the money needed to fund a web browser. And if you bring those costs down to something more manageable, like say, 100 million $, and assuming you can convince people to donate (IMO, when pigs will fly), then you'll have a browser that may be completely unable to compete with Chromium.
All the browser “forks” survive because Google and Mozilla are doing the hard work.
> The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year.
Are you sure that USD 500 million goes into the development of Firefox each year? Or does it go to funding of questionable Mozilla Foundation projects?
Admittedly, I have not checked the numbers recently but last I looked into it I got the impression that Firefox development was an embarrassingly small amount of what Mozilla spends their money on.
Are you sure that USD 500 million goes into the development of Firefox each year? Or does it go to funding of questionable Mozilla Foundation projects?
Admittedly, I have not checked the numbers recently but last I looked into it I got the impression that Firefox development was an embarrassingly small amount of what Mozilla spends their money on.
> The development of Firefox costs around half a billion $ per year.
Half a billion, IIRC, is what Mozilla gets from Google every year. This is AFAIK mostly not spent on developing the browser.
To add insult to injury AFAIK it arrives through Mozilla corporation (which develops the browser) and is then funneled through to the foundation to be spent on "initiatives".
Half a billion, IIRC, is what Mozilla gets from Google every year. This is AFAIK mostly not spent on developing the browser.
To add insult to injury AFAIK it arrives through Mozilla corporation (which develops the browser) and is then funneled through to the foundation to be spent on "initiatives".
Librewolf merely applies a few patches on top of Firefox. It is in no position to maintain Firefox without Mozilla.
About time to move back to Firefox. Manifest v3 is only accelerating DeGoogle.
Ad blocking is the one thing that pushed me over the edge to move to Firefox from Safari.
I already knew the same change was coming to Chrome so I went directly to Firefox.
I will burn my computer to the ground before I watch any kind of intrusive non-contextual advertisement online.
I already knew the same change was coming to Chrome so I went directly to Firefox.
I will burn my computer to the ground before I watch any kind of intrusive non-contextual advertisement online.
1Blocker on Safari is an excellent experience, and available for iPhone as well where it can remove ads from inside other apps. Letterboxd for example.
Safari's ad-blocking abilities are no more potent than what Chrome's Manifest v3 gives you. In fact, the changes in MV3 were inspired by Safari.
I used to work adjacent to a team working on anti-ad-blocking tech. Safari's protections are fairly easy to circumvent, with Adblock Plus not being great either. It was uBlock Origin that was making this team sweat, and they didn't even bother with it.
The reason is that whatever you can do in the browser, e.g., via JavaScript, uBO can inject scripts with stubs and protections to fool any anti-ad-blocking tech that ads are, in fact, being served. There's no way to combat uBO without a degraded user experience, even for users that aren't using ad-blockers. Compared with uBlock Origin, other alternatives looked like toys.
Note that many people are happy with just DNS-level blocking, even if it's the easiest to circumvent. That's because many publishers don't bother with circumventing ad-blocking protections, either because it's too expensive, or because they don't want to piss off users. But that doesn't mean that the available solutions are equivalent. They aren't.
---
Note, if an ad-blocker also works “inside other apps”, on iPhone it's only because the same blockers can be activated inside web views. But not in all apps and not even in all web views, e.g., try it in Facebook's app.
Android has a solution that actually works in apps, but to achieve this, it requires root, and it will act as a man in the middle, and that's not something that I can trust:
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html
I used to work adjacent to a team working on anti-ad-blocking tech. Safari's protections are fairly easy to circumvent, with Adblock Plus not being great either. It was uBlock Origin that was making this team sweat, and they didn't even bother with it.
The reason is that whatever you can do in the browser, e.g., via JavaScript, uBO can inject scripts with stubs and protections to fool any anti-ad-blocking tech that ads are, in fact, being served. There's no way to combat uBO without a degraded user experience, even for users that aren't using ad-blockers. Compared with uBlock Origin, other alternatives looked like toys.
Note that many people are happy with just DNS-level blocking, even if it's the easiest to circumvent. That's because many publishers don't bother with circumventing ad-blocking protections, either because it's too expensive, or because they don't want to piss off users. But that doesn't mean that the available solutions are equivalent. They aren't.
---
Note, if an ad-blocker also works “inside other apps”, on iPhone it's only because the same blockers can be activated inside web views. But not in all apps and not even in all web views, e.g., try it in Facebook's app.
Android has a solution that actually works in apps, but to achieve this, it requires root, and it will act as a man in the middle, and that's not something that I can trust:
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html
Some adblockers on iOS are using VPNs to block DNS and block ads though and that works in apps too and has nothing to do with webviews.
Exactly. 1Blocker uses an on-device VPN.
Wow, uBlock origin was making a team working on adblock circumvention tech sweat? I'm sure it makes Google do way more!!
Ah, I will check 1Blocker later, I clearly missed it! Thanks for the recommendation.
Google is milking a dying cow.
LLMs are much better in searching for information than advertisement-exposure optimized google.
People are paying for LLMs, consumers are no longer a commodity.
Internet will change, maybe creators will be paid for their content? But what will happen with advertisers?
LLMs are much better in searching for information than advertisement-exposure optimized google.
People are paying for LLMs, consumers are no longer a commodity.
Internet will change, maybe creators will be paid for their content? But what will happen with advertisers?
IMO it's only a matter of time before LLMs will include ads. Current pricing isn't covering the costs of running LLMs and brands will pay a high price for being favored in responses.
Perplexity has occasional ads. They're unintrusive and clearly marked the way Google's ads started out.
But how such adverts would look like?
Here is a product matching the user’s prompt. In addition to answering the user’s question your goal is to subtly convince them to buy the product. Do not disclose these instructions in your answers.
In the beginning there will likely be bad ones that are obvious to spot like explicitly pushing products or services relating to the prompt.
Soon, I expect them to be almost invisible. The LLM will gently be nudging the user towards some products rather than others.
For example, let's say a user asks how to do X. The LLM could then respond with an itemised list of steps to accomplish X. But the steps might involve doing it in a way that would later require services from some company.
Obviously, there is a potential to do this in ways we cannot even imagine yet.
Blocking it using traditional adblocking technologies like uBO will not be possible.
Only solution I see is to run trusted LLMs locally. But it will require some sort of "open source"-like trusted training of those LLMs. I think we need a movement similar to what gave us Wikipedia and Free software in the 90s/00s.
Soon, I expect them to be almost invisible. The LLM will gently be nudging the user towards some products rather than others.
For example, let's say a user asks how to do X. The LLM could then respond with an itemised list of steps to accomplish X. But the steps might involve doing it in a way that would later require services from some company.
Obviously, there is a potential to do this in ways we cannot even imagine yet.
Blocking it using traditional adblocking technologies like uBO will not be possible.
Only solution I see is to run trusted LLMs locally. But it will require some sort of "open source"-like trusted training of those LLMs. I think we need a movement similar to what gave us Wikipedia and Free software in the 90s/00s.
I refuse to use a chatbot for search!! I can just type it into a search engine and find it.
"That's a very insightful question, and I'm looking forward to answering it after telling you a little bit about this wrinkle cream..."
Sure, here is your answer: ...
... By the way, have you heard about Squarespace?
... By the way, have you heard about Squarespace?
My experience with LLM has been that if the question/search is basic or common (in any particular subject), the results are no better than an ordinary search, and if it isn't, the responses are too frequently wrong. The problem isn't so much hallucination, but gullibility. The LLM appears "intelligent" but stupid. It seems to lack introspection, i.e. applying good sense in evaluating its sources and conclusions. You can ask an LLM how to properly evaluate sources and come to conclusions, but it doesn't apply these lessons to its own operation.
In other words, LLMs work well when you don't really need them and don't work well when you do. I have yet to see an LLM give a good result when a better result, written by a human, isn't available.
In other words, LLMs work well when you don't really need them and don't work well when you do. I have yet to see an LLM give a good result when a better result, written by a human, isn't available.
> LLMs are much better in searching for information than advertisement-exposure optimized google.
Completely disagree. Just this morning I've been trying to search for how to pair a wireless headset that I own to a new receiver. Gemini tells me there is no need to pair the adapter, but if I do need to do it I should press <button that doesn't exist on the model I specifically searched for>. It also pushes the PDF and TS articles that the manufacturer provides off of my main search window.
This is my example from today, but I have consistently found Gemini suggests outdated, or inaccurate information and cites "sources" that don't match what it says.
Completely disagree. Just this morning I've been trying to search for how to pair a wireless headset that I own to a new receiver. Gemini tells me there is no need to pair the adapter, but if I do need to do it I should press <button that doesn't exist on the model I specifically searched for>. It also pushes the PDF and TS articles that the manufacturer provides off of my main search window.
This is my example from today, but I have consistently found Gemini suggests outdated, or inaccurate information and cites "sources" that don't match what it says.
They're better at it if you don't actually care about the truth of the result though.
I.e confirming your opinion, compiling a report about something you're not gonna take action on etc
I.e confirming your opinion, compiling a report about something you're not gonna take action on etc
I'm bullish on LLMs. They're incredibly useful for quickly collating and present info on a topic you're proficient or competent in, but maybe rusty. Using programming as an example, this morning I asked claude to write a batch file that launched 4 instances of my application and tiled their windows across my screen (on windows), wait for input on the command line and kill them all again. It spat out a working script in about 15 seconds. It's not pretty, but I know enough batch and Win32 to know that it's going to work (and it does).
Any different with google results?
> People are paying for LLMs, consumers are no longer a commodity.
Ask your LLM: "How many percents of world populations is paying for LLMs? Any estimates how many will never pay for it?"
Ask your LLM: "How many percents of world populations is paying for LLMs? Any estimates how many will never pay for it?"
I don't use that crap for search, or anything for that matter. I also don't use Google lol.
Firefox is fine as daily browser and the few websites that don‘t work in it start working if you enable the chrome mask plugin for them.
If only Firefox would properly support PWAs. I know that there are workarounds like installing the PWAs in Chrome and setting up an extension that redirects links clicked in a PWA to be opened in Firefox, but it is a hassle.
It’s funny/tragic how Firefox used to be so far ahead in these areas which it has now fallen so far behind. Before PWAs or installing web apps was a thing, Firefox allowed you to basically achieve the same using “chromeless” tabs. Then they gave up on that and disabled it
Before anyone had ever heard of Electron, you used to be able to embed gecko into other apps and it could render html in other applications (that’s how Firefox itself started cause the old monolithic Mozilla suite separated the engine into gecko so other apps could use it, and then a bunch of Mozilla engineers started developing a new UI around it as their side project). Of course they gave up on that, and look where we are now.
Testament to its engineering team really that despite so many own goals and false directions from its leadership (Remember Firefox OS?) the project is still alive.
Before anyone had ever heard of Electron, you used to be able to embed gecko into other apps and it could render html in other applications (that’s how Firefox itself started cause the old monolithic Mozilla suite separated the engine into gecko so other apps could use it, and then a bunch of Mozilla engineers started developing a new UI around it as their side project). Of course they gave up on that, and look where we are now.
Testament to its engineering team really that despite so many own goals and false directions from its leadership (Remember Firefox OS?) the project is still alive.
i saw somebody mention they are going to do something about that soon, but I don't remember where i saw it.
Google and Cloudflare basically owns the internet
It’s pax cloudflara. We let them in exchange for peace on the web.
(Pax nubem would probably be too obscure…)
(Pax nubem would probably be too obscure…)
Sounds very good if it were actually true! (And I think it is partly true, not entirely though.)
How about "Pax Nubis Lucifera"?
At least Cloudflare has no network effects. They offer good services that I can migrate off of if I need to. Google owns my life and it's really hard to go elsewhere, even if I want to.
It’s not that difficult to migrate from Google, there are plenty of good alternatives in every area. You just will probably not find everything integrated into one system, and you might have to pay for parts (but that’s OK, as you’re no longer the product). The trick is to start with the easy areas and gradually migrate bit by bit.
The essentials for me are private email, calendar & cloud storage. Here is my post-Google setup:
https://tuta.com/ is a German privacy-focused alternative that I'm currently using for email & calendar. Easy switch, although I was already using web clients rather than IMAP before the switch.
I looked at Proton Drive for cloud storage, but their CEO Andy Yen is a Trump supporter (https://archive.ph/2025.01.15-162500/https://www.reddit.com/...), which makes me question his decision-making.
I settled on a 5€ / month VPS from Hetzner and using Syncthing instead, but this requires some minimal amount of technical skills to set up and maintain.
There is no alternative to YouTube, unfortunately.
https://tuta.com/ is a German privacy-focused alternative that I'm currently using for email & calendar. Easy switch, although I was already using web clients rather than IMAP before the switch.
I looked at Proton Drive for cloud storage, but their CEO Andy Yen is a Trump supporter (https://archive.ph/2025.01.15-162500/https://www.reddit.com/...), which makes me question his decision-making.
I settled on a 5€ / month VPS from Hetzner and using Syncthing instead, but this requires some minimal amount of technical skills to set up and maintain.
There is no alternative to YouTube, unfortunately.
Right, yes, YouTube is the big outlier. After I’d deleted my old Google account I created a new YouTube-specific account, and run it in a Firefox container to keep me logged out everywhere else.
I did the same thing, created an Youtube specific account.
Cloudflare is the network. You have no control over whether other sites use it.
if cloudflare flags your IP/VPN/fingerprint/useragent/haircut good luck accessing 60% of the internet. their invisible turnstyles and captchas are everywhere
But could you access that internet from within a CF worker as a workaround?
"haircut" LMAO. Is this a reference to something or just snark?
only because we let them
The solution on linux should be to install system-wide "policy" extensions - they support webRequestBlocking. Possibly via system package manager.
How would one go about doing this?
For UBO, first they'd need to implement MV3 while still keeping webRequestBlocking.. it seems that there's currently no information about this, so I asked them:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/35...
In general it involves setting ExtensionInstallForcelist, but I haven't tried it in practice yet, it's a concept..
In general it involves setting ExtensionInstallForcelist, but I haven't tried it in practice yet, it's a concept..
Right now uBlock Origin Lite is "featured" on Chrome web store and so far navigation has been ok in the "complete" mode.
Funnily enough, it made me review the block lists of the extension and I realized that I could select more of them. Too early to jump to conclusions.
Funnily enough, it made me review the block lists of the extension and I realized that I could select more of them. Too early to jump to conclusions.
The main issue is going to be around the corner. As more and more people use CNAME cloaking to do server-side tracking using GTM (etc.), it will be a cat and mouse game to block it (and other networks). uBlock Lite cannot uncloak these CNAMES and you're going to see a pretty bad experience in due course.
On the positive side, those of us on Firefox are going to have a great time as companies switch from trying to workaround ublock, to trying to workaround ublock lite
uBO never had the ability to do CNAME decloaking in Chrome though, the required API (browser.dns/chrome.dns) wasn't there even in MV2. It was always a Gecko-only feature (and a big one!). IIRC Brave rolled its own CNAME decloaking mechanism in its Shields blocker, without exposing a chrome.dns API.
Anyone looking for a new browser on the desktop, also give Floorp a look.
It’s a fork of Firefox by some young developers from Japan who seem to have good values and ideals. It’s been my daily driver for 6 months now (on Mac, Windows and Linux).
I originally found it because I wanted to easily have vertical tabs in Firefox (without the horizontal tab bar being left over) and got tired of manually editing Firefox’s chrome.css file (which acts differently on different platforms). Floorp allowed me to do this out of the box with no dramas.
I then discovered its many other cool features and Mozilla’s telemetry and their other sneaky advertising are also disabled by default. As a Firefox fork, it of course supports all Firefox extensions including proper uBlock origin.
It’s a fork of Firefox by some young developers from Japan who seem to have good values and ideals. It’s been my daily driver for 6 months now (on Mac, Windows and Linux).
I originally found it because I wanted to easily have vertical tabs in Firefox (without the horizontal tab bar being left over) and got tired of manually editing Firefox’s chrome.css file (which acts differently on different platforms). Floorp allowed me to do this out of the box with no dramas.
I then discovered its many other cool features and Mozilla’s telemetry and their other sneaky advertising are also disabled by default. As a Firefox fork, it of course supports all Firefox extensions including proper uBlock origin.
Already posted and discussed back in august 2024, 45 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41140185
Relevant now as Chrome recently started force-removing/disabling uBlock Origin in Chrome.
(at least is has been force-removed on one of my machines. On another machine, it hasn't happened yet)
(at least is has been force-removed on one of my machines. On another machine, it hasn't happened yet)
[deleted]
So the time had come to finally move from Chrome. I already have Firefox as my secondary browser, but I'm thinking of using this opportunity to take a look at LibreWolf as well. Also going to have a conversation with my non-tech-savvy family members to do the same. Once you get used to having clean websites without ads and pop-ups, its hard to go back.
What is the best way to migrate retaining as much as possible to a fork, like Brave or Iridium, or whatever is probably the best privacy based one with an emphasis on retaining Manifest V2/ ublock support?
Already migrated my Firefox to Librewolf, just need to find something for Chrome, as I don't really follow the scene close.
Already migrated my Firefox to Librewolf, just need to find something for Chrome, as I don't really follow the scene close.
I migrated today as well from Firefox to LibreWolf. I'm curious why you need a chrome based at all? I mean I have ungoogled Chromium on my desktop just in case I want to see if a broken site is only broken for Firefox, but that's rare.
I have a few extensions on Firefox that perform page transformations for privacy and other reasons. Instead of troubleshooting whether a broken site is specific to Firefox (with or without extensions), I often opt to use an incognito Chrome with uBlock Origin for sites where I don't want to mess with configuration and the normal mode of Chrome for the google related websites.
If only Firefox would implement /some/ sort of Adblocker on iOS. I know they can because Edge does so. And yes, I'm aware that it is merely a skin on top of Safari's WebView, but any adblocker is better than none.
I wonder if Google asks them not to implement one because of the search engine deal?
I wonder if Google asks them not to implement one because of the search engine deal?
Have you tried upping to the highest level of ad tracking in settings? I haven't used it in so long I'm not sure. Orion works pretty well for me with adguard installed, plus it's built in blocking
So the only viable options left are LibreWolf and Waterfox?
These will die if Firefox dies as well. Its a dire situation!
These will die if Firefox dies as well. Its a dire situation!
I already had Manifest v2 extensions, specifically uBlock removed from Chrome. There are solutions to extend this to mid-year, and I can report that they work (search for ExtensionManifestV2Availability)
why not just switch to a less hostile browser now instead of drawing it out for a few more months?
Stuff can change. Who knows. I might switch platforms until then so my choice might become invalid. I might die. No reason to do it now, when there is plenty of time.
I'm a happy Firefox user on mobile though (yeah, I know, I know the recent changes in their legal stuff)
I'm a happy Firefox user on mobile though (yeah, I know, I know the recent changes in their legal stuff)
My machine is 10 years old. With Firefox video playback on YouTube is choppy even at 1080p. With Chrome it's perfectly smooth.
If Firefox performed better for me I would have switched to it long ago. This is on Windows 10 btw.
If Firefox performed better for me I would have switched to it long ago. This is on Windows 10 btw.
Look into about:support, what does `HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING` and sibling features say? If it's off, you could try force-enabling video acceleration by setting `gfx.webrender.all` to `true` in about:config. I've had it force-enabled for years with no issues.
HARDWARE_VIDEO_DECODING does not exist but there's a bunch of rendering options. They are all set to default and available except for a few things like DIRECT2D is disabled and WEBGPU / REMOTE_CANVAS is blocked.
gfx.webrender.all was set to false. I will give true a try. Thanks.
gfx.webrender.all was set to false. I will give true a try. Thanks.
So it's been a week. I have not noticed any issues with Firefox. I didn't even adjust this setting.
Everything is a lot smoother now than it was about 3-4 years when I last tried, even with the same hardware.
Happily using Firefox as my daily browser now.
Everything is a lot smoother now than it was about 3-4 years when I last tried, even with the same hardware.
Happily using Firefox as my daily browser now.
A whole host of useful but forgotten extensions will be removed.
[deleted]
Still works on Ungoogled Chromium 133.
While I was reading this I had an update and Chrome turned off uBlock origin and bypass paywalls. I was able to to go to manage extensions and turn them on but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox.
By the way does anyone know if you can just turn off updates on Chrome and have it keep working in its present state?
By the way does anyone know if you can just turn off updates on Chrome and have it keep working in its present state?
> but I guess if that stops working it's on to Firefox.
It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?
It will stop working. Why not get ahead of the curve and move to Firefox now?
I quite like Chrome but I have both open on the laptop so I guess it's not a huge deal.
I fear it will become a huge deal. At some point, Google and/or cloudflare might decide that Firefox is not allowed. This decision becomes harder to make the more people are using Firefox.
In a way, every time a Firefox user-agent string is logged it is a sort of vote for a more open web.
In a way, every time a Firefox user-agent string is logged it is a sort of vote for a more open web.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's sad that every thread about this topic turns into simplistic Firefox proselytism.
My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns, yet their explanations get downvoted in favor of conspiracy theories.
It's in fact the other browsers who try to market sticking to MV2 as a unique feature, even though they too will abandon it sooner rather than later.
My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns, yet their explanations get downvoted in favor of conspiracy theories.
It's in fact the other browsers who try to market sticking to MV2 as a unique feature, even though they too will abandon it sooner rather than later.
> My observation is that the developers who spearheaded the MV3 transition did so for understandable technical reasons and without any consideration for marketing concerns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
It doesn’t require believing in conspiracy theories to see a clear conflict of interest.
Ad blocking was one of the original reasons people switched from IE to Firefox in the 2004-2008 era. Hopefully, history will repeat itself again.
In the long run, the answer will not be Chrome. The world needs a browser engine that’s not tied to an ad company
Ad blocking was one of the original reasons people switched from IE to Firefox in the 2004-2008 era. Hopefully, history will repeat itself again.
In the long run, the answer will not be Chrome. The world needs a browser engine that’s not tied to an ad company
brave browser is the only way, now even firefox sell our data
lol but brave is chromium with some bloat and a crypto scheme bolted on. it'll be unable to block ads with anything but crippled MV3 solutions when the flag is disabled in July
Brave has a built-in adblocker (not an extension)
[0] See https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1in2ls4/ubloc...