this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
259 points (95.4% liked)
Hacker News
3871 readers
3 users here now
This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.
Rules
0. Keep it legal
- Keep it civil and SFW
- Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Have the uBlock developers been talking about this? I'd like to read up on that if so.
There is this resource: https://support.ublock.org/hc/en-us/articles/11749958544275-Google-s-Manifest-V3-What-it-is-and-what-it-means-for-uBlock-Users-
Here is a summary of a contributor in a Github issue about Manifest v3: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1507539114
So it really is a shadow of its former self.
Thanks! So yeah, I guess there will likely be an issue with YouTube ads, if what I've heard about it updating multiple times daily is true, but they don't seem to be expressing concern about it.
Right now I have two Chrome profiles with two different adblockers trying to get around YouTube ads in two different ways, and both of them are able to do so. One is uBlock, doing what uBlock does with an army of developers updating filter lists, and the other seems to be playing the ad in the background while skipping me ahead to the video. So I do think that even if uBlock's current approach fails, they will be able to find a way.
If things go awry and both my adblockers fail, even if it's just on YouTube, I intend to switch to Firefox, but it's not worth the bother yet.
That's the thing, it is literally impossible to find a way. Currently, they've implemented content-based blocking - the extension looks at requests made by YouTube, and filters based on them. They still need multiple list updates per day, but this filtering does most of the work.
This is completely impossible with Manifest v3. There is only declarative blocking with v3, which allows for max. 30k rules per extension. The uBlock developers will not invest work to circumvent the restrictions: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-1253893421
They will be able to block most ads. For more advanced sites like YouTube, they should be able to use the permissions API to request permissions for those specific sites, allowing them to use the scripting API to inject scripts to those pages, thus gaining better adblocking capabilities.
Also, the comment you linked to was a description of how uBlock Origin Lite works, not the issues faced in manifest v3. I didn't read through the whole thread because it was really long, but I did still manage to find those points in there.
Again: what APIs should they use with injected scripts? How do you intercept requests? You can't.
The comment I linked is a description from the uBlock developer on how his Manifest v3-compatible version of uBlock works. That is uBlock for Manifest v3, and there won't be another version.
Why do you need to intercept requests to block ads? Why can't you just hide them on the page?
There are multiple big advantages, but it's also kind of necessary to really block ads.
When a request is made to an ad location, you know exactly what it is. Once the ad has been injected into the DOM, you need to find a good heuristic that determines "this is an ad". This is very complex and can be easily circumvented by the developers. If uBlock started doing that with filter lists inside the extension, ad blocking would most likely fully stop working, since ad networks could really, really easily react to updates and slightly change their approach. This would also lead to many, many additional false positives.
And that's not to mention the unnecessary traffic and so on. There are good reasons no current ad blocker works like you describe.