[kyrra]

Googler, opinions are my own.

My understanding is they're doing this in the name of security, though it obviously has some benefit to ads. this policy more closely aligns with what Safari does today. And it prevents add-ons from scraping information since they have to put in the block list ahead of time.

I've been using manifest v3 version of Adblock and it's worked just fine for me. But obviously is not perfect, but it fell into more towards security and privacy of the user against malicious extensions.

[GeoAtreides]

Correct. They indeed do this in the name of security as announcing they do it for profit would probably be bad PR.

[zerd]

"We're doing it for your own good, pinky promise"

[9dev]

I primarily use Safari, and only switch to Chrome if a site misbehaves; every time I do so, I'm aghast by the ads and popups I suddenly get everywhere - despite having uBlock installed. I refuse to take that as an acceptable state of browsing the internet.

[dfabulich]

Safari has never supported MV2 uBlock Origin. Chrome with uBlock Lite is exactly the same as Safari with uBlock Lite.

[tzs]

Doesn't Chrome limit ad blockers to something like 30k rule each, and limit the number across all installed ad blockers to 330k, whereas Safari allows 150k rules per ad blocked and 900k across all installed ad blockers?

[9dev]

In Safari, I use AdGuard and Consent-O-Matic, which catches pretty much everything.

[dfabulich]

Others in this thread disagree with you! But, if they're good enough for Safari, then you'll find they're exactly as good in Chrome.

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-adblocker/b...

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/consent-o-matic/mdj...

[OkayPhysicist]

Blink 3 times if you're being held against your will, dude. "Trillion dollar advertising company neuters ad blocking because it wants to protect you" is some "I love Big Brother" stuff.

[summarybot]

Eh, Google controls the add-ons marketplace though. They control what add-ons are allowed, and they could even audit the add-ons for malicious code/behavior. Google, being a company that collects 75% of its revenue from ads, is being disingenuous by claiming this is a security-centered position. If security were the priority then the add-ons themselves should be inspected thoroughly, that much is obvious.

[siren2026]

Aaah the beautiful inability to see what is so obvious because your salary depends on it.

[dethos]

> they're doing this in the name of security

It is always in the name of security and good intentions.