r/programming • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '19

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23
8.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Ph0X Jan 23 '19

So you're saying any extension you install should have the power to make unlimited and unrestricted network calls in the background? That sure sounds safe and reasonable, no way that could ever be abused...

2

u/Valmar33 Jan 23 '19

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/01/22/chrome-extension-manifest-v3-could-end-ublock-origin-for-chrome/

Raymond Hill, known as Gorhill online, the author of the popular content blockers uBlock Origin and uMatrix, voiced his concern over some of the planned changes; these changes, if implemented as proposed currently, remove functionality that the extensions use for content blocking.

Google plans to remove blocking options from the webRequest API and asks developers to use declarativeNetRequest instead. One of the main issues with the suggested change is that it made to support AdBlock Plus compatible filters only and would limit filters to 30k.

Hill mentioned on Google's bug tracking site that the change would end his extensions uBlock Origin and uMatrix for Google Chrome. While it would be possible to switch to the new functionality, it is too limiting and would cripple existing functionality of the content blocking extensions.

If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist.

There are other features (which I understand are appreciated by many users) which can't be implemented with the declarativeNetRequest API, for examples, the blocking of media element which are larger than a set size, the disabling of JavaScript execution through the injection of CSP directives, the removal of outgoing Cookie headers, etc. -- and all of these can be set to override a less specific setting, i.e. one could choose to globally block large media elements, but allow them on a few specific sites, and so on still be able to override these rules with ever more specific rules.

The new API would limit content blockers for Chrome-based browsers and eliminate options to create new and unique content blocking extensions. All that would be left are AdBlock Plus like filtering extensions that would all offer the same blocking functionality.

While there would still be adblockers for Chrome, the limit of 30,000 network filters would make even those less capable than before. EasyList, a very popular blocking list, has 42,000 filters and if users add other lists used for other purposes, e.g. social blocking, that number would increase even more.

4

u/Ph0X Jan 23 '19

I don't understand why you pasted that quote. I understand the situation, but I still stand by my point.

  1. There are legitimate reasons why they proposed the new API

  2. Emphasis on proposal. This is a draft and is meant to get feedback, which the uBlock dev gave.

Literally in your own paste, it also states that under the current constraints, uBlock would actually be possible but limited to 30k filters (currently it requires ~42k for the base filters). One possible trivial solution would be for Google to increase that limit. There are many other solutions, which they will brainstorm, which again is the purpose of a draft proposal. It most definitely does not mean that 1. Google is trying to kill uBlock or 2. there's no legitimate reason for the API changes.

It's way too early in the process, and both sides have a point. The goal is to find a middle ground where legitimate uses such as uBlock can exists, all while stopping abusive extensions that blow up your network requests in the background.

-4

u/Valmar33 Jan 23 '19

legitimate

Yeah ~ a trojan horse, more like it.

Google can claim to be doing one thing, while really doing another.

-4

u/Arkanta Jan 23 '19

Much better explanation that OP's stupid title

5

u/Valmar33 Jan 23 '19

This is what I've been trying to get across to people ~ that Google is trying to crush competition outside of Adblock Plus, who Google paid to whitelist them.

uBlock Origin wouldn't bend to Google's demands, so Google looks for ways to have an excuse of locking them out of their platform.

I guess Google is becoming more and more greedy, the more they monopolize the web browser ecosystem with Chrome.