I know the submission title matches the title of the Reddit post, but both titles are misleading—Google didn't mention uBO by name, they just confirmed that all Manifest v2 extensions will be disabled.
Sure, but in the context of a headline/submission title, "Google confirms they will disable uBlock Origin" strongly implies that Google mentioned uBO by name, which they did not. The news articles that the Reddit post links to have more general headlines for that reason.
Plus, for me at least, there are plenty of other extensions I'd like to continue using, not just uBO :(
So whether a consequence of #2 is #1 doesn’t change the fact that #1 and #2 as headlines mean different things and imply very different ideas around the scope and intention of the action.
Yes, but the title of the Reddit thread is the title used here, so that complicates the situation. The title is accurate and not editorialized in that context.
People are talking about it because of the effects on uBlock origin. Nobody at large cares that Google is finally pulling the plug on v2 extensions.
While we avoid low quality re-print/syndication, it is normal to submit and discuss secondary commentary on HN. Think of all the “X did Y, here is why it matters” style blog posts.
Sure, but surely you agree there's a difference in implication, right?
Like, if a headline says "McDonald's Announces It Will Stop Serving McNuggets to Donald Trump", and the story was actually that McDonald's was discontinuing McNuggets altogether (and therefore also to Trump), would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?
If McDonalds sees a certain politician walking toward their register eyeing the picture of nuggets on the overhead screen, and they frantically rush to slap “sold out indefinitely” there… well, then I’ll think they had an agenda.
Chrome wants to get ad revenue on YouTube, but those ads are blocked. Now, it after many years finally decides Manifest v2 has to go? Suspicious.
> would you call that misleading or just an honest application of the transitive property?
The latter because McDonalds managers have been publicly discussing how and why they should stop serving nuggets to Trump in order to better protect their customers
Of course Google don't mention uBO by name. But this is the real reason they are doing it. Privacy is just a pretext.
uBO lite will still be available but it will be very nerfed.
Hopefully people move to Firefox, but I'm not so optimistic. It took a huge campaign to get people to move from IE6 to Firefox, and I'm not certain it can be replicated with Chrome.
Plus the new api don't even prevent you from peeking the traffic. Only prevent you from modify it. How is this able to improve privacy?
And the biggest user of traffic modification? You got it, it's all sorts of adblocks. They are literally not trying to hide it. Or they should probably also limit apis that are able to peeking the traffics.
Manifest v3 is killing current WebRequest API so you won't be able to filter requests on the fly (sort of playing man in the middle).
This means uBlock won't be as effective because once web request is done\page\script is loaded - it is impossible to stop it from loading other scripts.
Also it limits how many or what urls can be filtered at all if I'm not mistaken.
Switching to an extension providing a list of things to block or redirect to the browser rather than the extension having access to all content on every page that you visit.
I'd imagine that people don't vet extensions nearly as much as they should for the access they give them to all their web browser traffic. Not to mention an extension that is okay now may not be once sold to someone else (for those extension developers not as honorable as those of uBlock Origin and hoverzoom).
Oh man I've seen that happen before eg. a JSON parser
I feel the same. It's crazy what kind of extensions people just use, there is one called Snov or something, to add a pixel in emails... it's like dude, you gave this random company access to read your emails... idk.
which yeah... UBO but still that's open source at least. An extension you can view the source sure.
uBO is more exceptional than typical open source extensions. Its developers has shown themselves to be much more trustworthy and well-intentioned than Google.
I think, at some point, people should have the right to be stupid on their computers. What needs to change is holding them liable if their negligence affects others.
That sounds very similar to hiding behind sneaky talk in order to keep the practical effects in the background.
Almost no-one cares about the terms "Manifest v2 extensions" - because almost no one recognizes them for what they really are. Most people can understand it by its effect - that it will disable UBO. Only sneaky people will insist on using the technically correct, but obscure term in a PUBLIC announcement - clearly the aim is to make sure that the public overlooks the announcement.
