[charcircuit]

>It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking.

The goal is to increase increase the level of privacy of the entire ecosystem. While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors.

>This is true for any code that is running on the browser.

Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though. And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win.

>There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3

The downsides seem to be from wanting to be permissionless and not from not being able to replicate the functionally with manifest v3.

>Are you paid by Google?

No, I have never been paid by Google.

[yyyk2]

> While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors

By running arbitrary code on your computer you are inherently trusting the author of the code to be a good actor.

> Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though.

Tens of megabytes of bloat block pages from loading all the time.

> And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win.

uBlock speeds up loading because it blocks useless bloat such as advertisements. MV3 restricts the ability to block content, ergo it will slow down loading speeds.

It's not actually designed for privacy or whatever, it's simply a way to gimp adblockers so that Google (one of the largest online advertisement companies) can get more money from their advertisement business. You must be really naive if you don't understand this simple concept.

[charcircuit]

>By running arbitrary code on your computer you are inherently trusting the author of the code to be a good actor.

While you may be running arbitrary code, there is only so much it can do from within the sandbox it is in. Because we can't stop 100% of bad actors that shouldn't mean we should give up on security.

>Tens of megabytes of bloat block pages from loading all the time.

That is a separate issue from web extensions. Just because X is slow, it doesn't mean we should not speed up Y.

>MV3 restricts the ability to block content

No, it does not. You just need to use a different API / give it permission to do so.

>It's not actually designed for privacy or whatever

That is one of the reasons Google provided, so yes it is.

>it's simply a way to gimp adblockers

Then why did Google work with adblock extension developers to improve the API by adding things like dynamic rules? The reason is that this is for improving privacy / performance as opposed to trying to kill off extensions.

>You must be really naive if you don't understand this simple concept.

If Google wanted to get rid of ad blockers they would make them against the rules in their extension store. You have to realize that Chrome is software that is used by billions of people and not just you. Google has a responsibility to protect people's privacy and there are engineers who want to be able to move metrics like the number of malicious extensions removed each month or p99 page load speed.

[yyyk2]

> If Google wanted to get rid of ad blockers they would make them against the rules in their extension store.

You fail to understand the grand strategy. Outright banning ad blockers would be quite radical and may push people away from using Chromium. Simply progressively gimping ad blockers increases Google's revenue from advertisements while keeping all those users.

I do not use Chrome. I use Mozilla Firefox, since it supports a better webRequest API so that uBlock can block ads despite things like CNAME cloaking.

[charcircuit]

>Simply progressively gimping ad blockers

The goal is not to gimp ad blockers and Google is open to working with adblock extension developers so that they can continuing functioning with the new API.

>I do not use Chrome. I use Mozilla Firefox, since it supports a better webRequest API so that uBlock can block ads despite things like CNAME cloaking.

Chrome supports / is planning to support forwarding the domain of the CNAME record. This means that CNAME cloaking would no longer be a thing.

[8note]

The whole ecosyst includes the webpages that you view though. The loss of privacy is much bigger than the gain considering that ublock is up there on the only extension in use

[charcircuit]

>ublock is up there on the only extension in use

UBlock Origin is not the only extension that uses the webRequest API that people use. If that were the case they would not have removed it. Again ad / tracking blocking can still be done with the new API.

[jjav]

> UBlock Origin is not the only extension that uses the webRequest API that people use.

You are not required to install every extension in the world. Only install the ones you trust.

> Again ad / tracking blocking can still be done with the new API.

As the authors of ad blockers disagree with you, what evidence do you have to support your position?

[charcircuit]

>You are not required to install every extension in the world

Despite that there exist people who install malicious extensions for one reason or another.

>what evidence do you have to support your position?

Go and read the documentation. There is enough capabilities to implement one.