from Hacker News

uBlock Origin is no longer available on Chrome web store

by sharno on 9/16/24, 2:34 AM with 126 comments

• by peutetre on 9/16/24, 2:38 AM

  It works better in Firefox anyway. Use Firefox and be happy:

  https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

• by rirrirler on 9/16/24, 3:07 AM

  Link seems to be incorrect, should be: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/s/dGGy8PXAMG (www.reddit.com, not old.reddit.com)

  Which is this now removed post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1fhsai3/rest_in_pea...

  That had the title "Rest in peace" and contained this image: https://i.redd.it/ng75ptntl2pd1.png

  Which is a screenshot of the uBlock Origin page in the Chrome Web Store, displaying the message "This extension is no longer available because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions.": https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...

• by tech234a on 9/16/24, 4:10 AM

  My guess is that the user took the screenshot from a Chrome Beta/Dev/Canary build which is following an accelerated timeline for disabling Manifest V2 extensions [1].

  Also, note that there is an enterprise policy that can enable Manifest V2 extensions through June 2025 [2].

  [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...

  [2]: https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV...

• by danpalmer on 9/16/24, 4:11 AM

  uBlock Origin Lite is available here: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...

  It does the same basic content blocking with no permissions required. Then you can opt-in sites for it to do more blocking, including I believe opt-ing in all sites for what appears to be the same blocking as regular uBlock Origin.

  Positive side: faster, fewer permissions by default, more control over permissions.

  Negatives: less blocked by default, requires opt-in for more blocking.

• by pan69 on 9/16/24, 4:54 AM

  I was browsing some website this morning and noticed it had "shit" plastered all over it. Turns out those where ads, something I hadn't seen like that in quite some time.

  Checking my Chrome extensions, uBlock origin is gone.

• by magicalhippo on 9/16/24, 5:51 AM

  In my view there has been enough successful attacks which used ad networks to launch the attacks that I consider ad blocking primarily as my first line of defense.

  For example, some years ago here in Norway a fairly popular site got their ad network exploited to serve an exploit which installed malware that hijacked the pages of the largest bank. When you think you sent money to your kids or paid a bill, you ended up sending the money somewhere else entirely.

  So for me, it just isn't worth the risk, and I won't surf without an ad blocker.

• by mh- on 9/16/24, 3:01 AM

  I see it, and it shows up as installable, at https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal...

• by btown on 9/16/24, 3:38 AM

  Are there any good solutions for reliably rolling out an pre-review/unreviewed Chrome extension to a team (other than controlling all their users' Chrome profiles with an enterprise deployment)?

  I found https://docs.plasmo.com/itero but haven't used it - it seems to provide a downloadable installer that installs and maintains an extension on testers' systems via policies. Unsure how well it works though, or if anyone's deployed it.

  There are so many things wrong with the state of affairs with the MV3 rollout that it's hard to know where to begin. If there's a silver lining here, perhaps it's that there will be renewed attention towards finding workarounds to the walled garden.

• by treebeard901 on 9/16/24, 5:19 AM

  Forcing advertisements on everyone is about so much more than money.

  It is about money too obviously. I just think the general public is unaware what ads and ad network control over your online experience actually can accomplish.

  After seeing aspects of it weaponized against me, the impact it has on someone unaware of the technology and psychology involved honestly seems like a danger to the public itself.

  This may sound extreme if you have not experienced it.

• by seneca on 9/16/24, 4:53 AM

  Google is really an awful company at this point. We need to build some viable competitor to the anchors they still have.

  Firefox and Brave are fine as chrome alternatives. Google search is dying a slow death. We need a viable alternative to YouTube.

  I dread Google getting a new lease on life through Waymo.

• by hereme888 on 9/16/24, 5:54 AM

  Given that Brave is chrome-based, and Brave won't stand for ad-blockers being disabled, I wonder what they're planning.

  I do find uBlock Origin to be better than Brave's built-in blocker.

• by thisisjaymehta on 9/16/24, 4:25 AM

  What is worst, mods deleting this reddit post or google blocking UBO?

• by sexy_seedbox on 9/16/24, 11:13 AM

  Surprising nobody has mentioned Zen Browser in this thread?

  https://zen-browser.app/

• by owenpalmer on 9/16/24, 6:22 AM

  Firefox mobile allows you to install extensions, including uBlock Origin. I've been using it on my phone for the past few months and it's been great. Firefox in general is great.

• by solardev on 9/16/24, 3:39 PM

  What's a good alternative Blink or Webkit browser? Meaning not Firefox (too many issues in my experience, and built-in ads are annoying, and I don't trust Mozilla).

• by Sytten on 9/16/24, 3:38 AM

  Give me decent multi-profile support in firefox and I won't need a chromium browser anymore

• by teo_zero on 9/16/24, 5:40 AM

  Apart from personal opinions, is there any evidence this is due to Google sabotaging uBlock rather than a legitimate technical concern (V2 vs V3 manifest)?

  Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality?

• by notepad0x90 on 9/16/24, 5:26 AM

  here is an idea: take the power away from google and browsers and let's go back to a desktop/native solution of intercepting all network traffic. Browsers can't resist that, because corporate networks need to do TLS inspection (sometimes, they are legally required to do so).

  Another idea is, for the filtering system to operate a shadow DOM or an entire browser (like a selenium driver) that renders everything unfiltered. But the browser the user is using only sees filtered content. That way, it would become significantly more difficult for advertisers to detect the AD is being blocked. This could be done in a local sandbox and optionally in a cloud sandbox. Outbound network requests from the user facing browser can be blocked or filtered.

  Or, just use Firefox. but I doubt Mozilla can resist doing the same thing, given the anti-trust issues Google is facing.

• by mfiro on 9/16/24, 6:51 AM

  I wonder how many will switch to Firefox after this action. But it may be a small number because I assume that not many people use adblockers and most of those who use them already had Firefox, but I may be wrong.

• by grahamj on 9/16/24, 4:19 AM

  please stop using google anything

• by lfmunoz4 on 9/16/24, 4:19 AM

  not sure how ublock origin works but would it be possible to take the block list from ublock origin and block at router level?

• by senozhatsky on 9/16/24, 1:41 PM

  I wish they offered a paid version of the browser that would have ublock enabled.

• by Canada on 9/16/24, 4:08 AM

  This link wants me to login.

• by Meekro on 9/16/24, 5:00 PM

  Guys, this is (currently) not true. Please check for yourselves.

• by Dwedit on 9/16/24, 4:19 AM

  Checked Chrome Web Store using Brave, it's still there.

• by ikekkdcjkfke on 9/16/24, 4:50 AM

  Just to be clear here, the FBI recommends adblock.

• by daft_pink on 9/16/24, 4:30 AM

  on another note, they won’t let you into the reddit unless you are logged in, which I just realized by clicking on the link :(

• by bigtex on 9/16/24, 3:40 PM

  Brave still works with the older plugins.

• by misonic on 9/16/24, 3:03 AM

  being redirected to submit a link...

• by denkmoon on 9/16/24, 3:04 AM

  and the reddit post is behind a login wall, ha ha. The enshittification continues.