Technology

37736 readers

44 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

400

Chrome will block one of its biggest ad blockers (www.pcworld.com)

submitted 3 months ago by remington to c/technology

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

uBlock Origin will soon stop functioning in Chrome as Google transitions to new browser extension rules.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thingsiplay 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Its still the same extension, same source code, same logic, just less capable; hence the addition of "Lite" to the name. Originally they wanted release the Lite version with same name, but changed it Lite, so people don't get confused why its not longer blocking everything it blocked before.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

same logic

That's the point, it isn't. The good old version was built on logic where the browser would send the downloaded webpage to the extension, and uBO could weed out ads and trackers, and give you the sanitized version. uBOL works completely differently, as it has to ask the browser to clean it out, but the browser will ultimately decide what to actually do, and there are already limitations that impact ad blocking, as the browser won't accept enough changes to block all the different kinds of shit that comes through.

The other big difference in logic is distribution, uBO relies on outside blocklists to keep up with Google changing Youtube several times a day to keep sending you malware, in the new system, this is not allowed, so it's on Google to approve a new blocklist as fast as they do their changes - they won't.

It's going to be less capable, it's going to be exactly as capable as Google wants. It might as well be named the Google Ad Blocker if only that didn't discount the insane work the uBO team does to keep up with Google's shit.

[–] thingsiplay 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

@Kissaki@beehaw.org @baggins@lemmy.ca @ivn@jlai.lu Apologies. I think you guys are right about this, its actually killing the old plugin (in Chrome). Thanks all for explanation, now I understand why that is.

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't think it's the same source code (uBOL vs uBO). And it's definitely not the same logic, that's the whole point, blocking with MV3 must be done in a declarative way.

[–] Kissaki 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Its still the same extension, same source code, same logic, just less capable

the same… but not the same… ??

I think the technologies are quite different.

uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension. This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing -- uBOL's service worker process is required only when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages.

Are you claiming non-lite does the same, plus more?

You say it's the same source code, but it's a different source code repository. non-lite, lite.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

The developer specifically released the light version because they acknowledged that it is not the same and you need to make the explicit choice of what you want to keep using