| >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. |
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.