[ayushnix]

> If you're referring to MV3, then I think you've blown things significantly out of proportion

Have you read the blog post by AdGuard about their MV3 adblocker and, specifically, the limitations of that addon compared what we had before?

https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html

I wouldn't call it "blown things significantly out of proportion", not unless you're okay with compromised ad blocking capabilities, which some people seem to be in the name of security which is oxymoronic.

[nightpool]

I'm saying you're blowing things out of proportion by referring to companies, plural, and saying that any other ad tech company is at all associated with what Google is doing. Even if they stand to gain from it, they have absolutely no input into the process (it's not even an open web platform like other Chrome changes!). And as every single thread on the subject on HN has made excruciatingly clear, Google has nothing to gain from the MV3 changes ad-wise, since they serve all of their ads from the exact same domain they've always served them from, and they can be blocked with 1 (one) single filter rule. The limitations in MV3 primarily affect the sketchiest and newest adtech providers, exactly who Chrome is already seeking to block for user experience reasons and who Google Ads probably won't work with. There's no reason to believe that the MV3 filter changes are the result of any collusion or malicious intent inside of Google, unless for some reason they feel like taking revenue share AWAY from their ads business by helping companies they hate.