[twhb]

Don’t mistake this for victory. Google’s standard playbook when forcing things people don’t like is to spread the action out over a longer timeframe, exhausting the media and keeping the final blow mostly out of the news, and exhausting our individual outrage and will to keep fighting. It works every time, and it’ll work again if we become complacent again. Until and unless Google meaningfully commits to never neuter ad blockers, it’s still critical and urgent that we switch to Firefox.

[monopoliessuck]

I mean, it's not just Google that does this nor is this an Alphabet invention. This is merely Assimilation 101. The "Chinese patience" towards heterogeneous minority groups and their customs is a commonly referenced one, but this "boiling the frog" is really the only way to guarantee things change while mitigating serious rebellion.

Another good example is how the Rashidun Caliphate granted conquered Zoroastrian Persians Dhimmi or "people of the Book" status. I'm sure it seemed kind at the time since Zoroastrianism is obviously not "of The [Abrahamic] Book". This merely postponed persecution of the unconverted until such a time as they were disperse, weak and with less sovereign resolve. They got a worse and worse deal as the centuries wore on.

I'm not justifying Google here, but this is really every hegemon's SOP: corporate, tech or cultural.

I'm just as mad with Microsoft forces me to use a Windows account after juggling the slow creep Mojang deprecation, when Mozilla gives you fewer and fewer ways to install apps outside of their extension store until it's a Nightly-only feature, or when [your favorite app] is acquired by [your least favorite company] and starts down a path you'd *never expect*. It's all garbage.

[3OCSzk]

Sorry for getting out of topic somewhat, But how many users would benefit if Mozilla gives many more ways to install extensions from unfederated source? That sounds like browser malware disaster from 2010s to me

[wolpoli]

Google also likes to provide a feature flag to re-enable the old feature for a few versions. Parts of the community happily re-enable the feature, hence the media doesn't pick up on any outrage. By the time the feature flag is removed, it's a stale story.

[bakugo]

This has happened so many times in recent years, I've grown tired of warning people about it. It's such a simple trick but almost everyone falls for it.

[hparadiz]

Imagine working at Google on this nonsense and thinking you're actually doing something good for the world.

[bambax]

The wording of the blog is pure doublespeak:

> as we shift our focus to Manifest V3. This change will give Chrome users increased safety and peace of mind while browsing and installing extensions by providing more transparency and control over permissions, adding stricter protocols for accessing resources outside the extension’s context, and ensuring that extensions work well on all devices

It sounds like government gobbledygook, with even more lies (there are no extensions on Chrome on mobile, so what "all devices" means is anyone's guess).

I often wonder what goes on in the mind of people writing this. Are they happy? Why did they choose to work in tech instead of some administration, if BS is their thing? Is it just for the money?

[hailwren]

> Imagine working at Google and thinking you're actually doing something good for the world.

[kcb]

> Until and unless Google meaningfully commits to never neuter ad blockers, it’s still critical and urgent that we switch to Firefox.

Google doesn't want ad blockers to exist, the evidence is not that they make the majority of their revenue from ads. It's that the most popular version of Chrome already has 0 ad blocking capability! Ad blocking and extensions are legacy features.

[MarkusWandel]

I went to a lot of trouble preparing for a post GAFYD/Workspace future (I have a legacy free one from way back that's in active use for four family email accounts). Then they changed course and let me keep it after all. Death by slow boil, or they'll let me stay on it for another 10+ years?

[mappu]

I left GAFYD just days prior to them relenting and let people stay on it.

I regretted the decision for a while afterwards, but i've since realized i don't want this shutdown threat hanging over my head. Thanks for the 10+ years of hosting but i don't have to be treated like this, I'm better off without them.

[vosper]

> GAFYD

"Google Apps for Your Domain" for anyone who (like me) could not figure out what that acronym means.

[fny]

Meh. One day everyone will open Chrome, realize adblock doesn't work, wonder what happened, and switch.*

Do you really think Google is on some vendetta against adblock? Adblock has lived on the Chrome webstore for a decade, and many, many, many copies have appeared too. Google could have easily nuked any of them but hasn't.

MV3 is not about adblock. Maybe one day the web will turn into some WASM-driven advertising shitshow, but we're thankfully a long way from that.

*Google knows this, which is why they haven't stopped ad-blocking.

[HWR_14]

Yes, I think it's about Adblock. Chrome has a huge percentage of the browser market (they killed ie/edge as non chromium options!) and will never be as hedgemonic as now. So now is when you strike back at ad blockers if you're an ad company.

I don't see any other reason for the features they killed to be killed. Specifically the preload hooks that ad blockers used.

[xani_]

How do you got to conclusion that the change in features essential for adblocking, in browser by company that main revenue is ads, is not about adblocking?

"But they did not nuke it before" is not an argument btw. They didn't had utter market dominance before in case you somehow fucking forgot.

[kavalg]

Maybe they didn't make the move until now, because they an tolerate a minimal amount of ad blocking in their user base (e.g. for PR purposes). Or maybe they were not dominant enough until now. Or maybe the user base has reached the critical mass of ignorance and brainwashing.

[sneak]

> Do you really think Google is on some vendetta against adblock?

Yes, quite obviously. Google’s revenue is from advertising. Google is an advertising company.

[gnarbarian]

I'm here to recommend brave because it's not mentioned nearly enough yet.

https://brave.com/

fuck you Google!

[hypertele-Xii]

So what's all this then?

https://brave.com/brave-ads/

> Sponsored Images: Striking, high-definition images that are featured in the Brave new tab image rotation. Advertisers have the opportunity to feature their brand prominently in this coveted space in front of millions of consumers.

"Fuck Google, have Brave shove ads in your face instead!"

[ajvs]

It's not recommended because it contributes to Google's Chromium browser engine hegemony. Use Firefox for a real alternative.

[shbooms]

isn't Brave chromium-based? Have they stated yet if/when they will take MV3 into/remove MV2 from their codebase?

[sneak]

Apple did the exact same thing with the rollout of the clientside police informant that scans the local files on an iOS device.

[ls612]

As far as I’m aware that feature has not been implemented since the controversy last year.

[tempodox]

Exactly. It's just the old “let's cook the lobster more slowly”.

[dislikedtom2]

adblock or not, google already has too much power over internet so that reason alone is enough for me to use something else.

[ikinsey]

Can you provide an example of where this pattern of behavior happened in the past?

[wolpoli]

Example: In Chrome 69, Google made it so that each time you sign in and use a Google service like Gmail, Maps or YouTube, your Google account will be automatically logged in to the Chrome browser.

There were outrage but Google had provided a flag to turn it off. It was in chrome://flags/#account-consistency.

Edit: Google removed the flag shortly after.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Until and unless Google meaningfully commits to never neuter ad blockers, it's still critical and urgent that we switch to Firefox."

Why would Google ever commit to keep ad blockers working, unconditionally. It makes no sense.

I use Firefox in sometimes on mobile. I use Chrome for online banking and shopping. This usage is an extremely small portion of web use for me. (Does that make me an "actual user" under the Google employee's definition.) The majority of the time using the web I do not use a popular browser from a "tech" company. I use simpler software I can edit and compile myself, quickly and easily. I have all the "features" I need.

As such, 99% of the time I never see any ads. Google can do whatever it wants with Chrome. I still see no ads. I am not using it.

Unless and until one considers that there are other ways to access the web besides those dictated to us by "tech" companies, then one cannot seriously claim to be trying to avoid advertising. Firefox is funded by Google and other "search provider" profits from advertising services. Mozilla is against some forms of online tracking, but they are absolutely pro-advertising. I just watched their "Chief Security Officer" state this on video to the FTC earlier in the month. Are we supposed to believe there is some "standoff" between Mozilla and Google (or any other "tech" company, i.e., "search provider") over advertising. That would be pure fantasy. Mozilla (Corporation)^1 is like any other "tech" company. It has no business plan. It has nothing to sell that could sustain it as an employer of software developers. It only has its position as an intermediary, to assist with online advertising, in Mozilla's case to assist by sending search traffic to Google, and whatever else is required by their royalty agreements with "search providers".^2

1. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...

2. Mozilla even sells its own advertising services:

Advertising revenues - Mozilla also offers advertising services in three formats. The first is the New Tab advertising service, which places links to sponsored content when a new tab is opened in the Firefox web browser. The second format is through Pockets email product, Pocket Hits. Pocket Hits may include paid advertisements, which are placed in email newsletters that get delivered to global Pocket users. Lastly, Mozilla also sells web advertisement spots on content that Mozilla licenses and syndicates from publisher partners across the web.

Along with a "service" to remove advertising:

Subscription revenues -

Included in a Pocket Premium subscription are features like full text search on saved articles, removal of advertising from Pocket properties, the ability to create unlimited highlights and the ability to create a permanent library of everything a user has saved.

For me, playing both side of the coin, charging for advertising services and charging for advertising removal services, does not rank high on the scale of company integrity. But this sort of "playbook" seems quite common for "tech" companies. For example, Google does it with YouTube ("YouTube Red", now "YouTube Premium").

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< Why would Google ever commit to keep ad blockers working. It makes no sense.

We are the end users of this software and, while clearly a minority, we do expect things to work. If a useful feature is being neutered, it is considered bad for the users. Thankfully, Google is not, yet, in a position where it can just force its adoption. Thankfully, there are still other options ( including some recent moves creation of non-G and non-F browser; and interesting variants of Chrome ).

Those vocal end users ( and that includes me ) want things in one specific way. For two different reasons:

1. I recently was forced to browse net without adblockers and it was a horrid experience. I pity the poor souls that live without them. 2. I still basically do everything tech related around the house. If Google starts being annoying, I will drop it like a hot potato. Thankfully, I am not longer local tech guy for my extended family.

In other words, it still makes sense for Google to appease the people, who do the work of converting and then supporting their software, because people sure don't call Google, when it raining ads.

By the by, didn't we go through the exact period with infinite pop-up ads and agreed that it was a really bad idea? Why would anyone think users want it back?