For a while now, Google has been working on changing the way Chrome extensions work. Among other changes, the Web Request API will be replaced by the Declarative Net Request API, which is stricter in the kind of data extensions need to function. However, current ad blockers also use the Web Request API currently, and the replacement API limits these extensions in what they can do.
Google has written a blog post explaining their reasoning. It concludes:
This has been a controversial change since the Web Request API is used by many popular extensions, including ad blockers. We are not preventing the development of ad blockers or stopping users from blocking ads. Instead, we want to help developers, including content blockers, write extensions in a way that protects users’ privacy.
You can read more about the Declarative Net Request API and how it compares to the Web Request API here.
We understand that these changes will require developers to update the way in which their extensions operate. However, we think it is the right choice to enable users to limit the sensitive data they share with third-parties while giving them the ability to curate their own browsing experience. We are continuing to iterate on many aspects of the Manifest V3 design, and are working with the developer community to find solutions that both solve the use cases extensions have today and keep our users safe and in control.
I don’t doubt that Google’s Chrome engineers are making these changes because they genuinely believe they make the browser better and safer. I’m concerned with the bean counters and managers, and Google’s omnipresent ad sales managers, who will be all too eager to abuse Chrome’s popularity to make ad blocking harder.
Thom Holwerda,
You know better than that Thom, the goal was always about giving google an advantage. Google’s privacy claim is a canard, extensions still have access to the user’s private data within page. Google’s intent is to make blocking extensions much less flexible and effective, and this method achieves that. We’re going from an API where extensions can implement their own blocking engine, to one where they must use google’s. This gives google a considerable amount of power to oversee and limit what can be blocked. Not to mention the hypocrisy of shaming extensions over privacy when google themselves will not commit to stop tracking us.
I don’t know if this is a coincidence, but ublock’s default blacklist currently has 143k entries (not including any of ublock’s extra filters). Google’s proposed limitations are already too limited to run ublock with additional lists or side by side with other tracker blockers like ghostery for instance. None of this should be up to google in the first place. If I want to block 500k resources, then that should be up to me! If I want to use a more sophisticated blocking engine, that should be up to me! I realize it’s completely futile to ask this of google or any other corporation, but please stop restricting the technology to advance selfish corporate interests.
Or there’s Opera, Waterfox, Brave, …
Kochise,
I’ve mentioned these many times myself, particularly in the context of walled gardens for extensions.
I’m all about using these alternatives and I encourage others to do so. However we need to realize that they don’t carry much momentum. Once google drops support for an API used by extensions, how likely do you think it is extension authors will continue to support the unsupported API into the future? You can build a fork that overcomes google’s restrictions, which is a good thing, but it’s not necessarily going to shield anyone from google’s effects on the market. We need critical mass.
It’s not like a big deal to switch to another browser, it’s not like switching from Windows to macOS, or Android to iOS. Just export your favorites and voila.
Kochise,
That wasn’t really my complaint though. It’s great to have alternative forks that respect user rights & choices, and sure people like you and me can install them (at least on unrestricted platforms). The problem is that without critical mass, alternative platforms don’t receive much developer attention and their APIs suffer from atrophy regardless of their merit and open nature. Google and mozilla are both guilty of replacing developer APIs in order to take more control for themselves. Should you install an alternative? Yes. Will these alternatives have a vibrant & viable extension developer base? This is where things get complicated for the little guys.
Unfortunately both Brave and Opera are Chromium forks and will have to fight an uphill battle against the massive budgets Google is willing to spend on this fight to the death by a thousand cuts. I.e. they will at some point have to yield and also pull in these ad-block breaking changes Google is so keen on implementing.
Waterfox is a fork of Firefox with XUL on life-support, but again there it’s an uphill battle against much bigger powers. Its support will dwindle, extensions of the old ways will go wither and ultimately forks like this will stop having a positive balance between advantages and disadvantages and will be abandoned.
So… Goggle is concerned that someone might get my “sensitive data”? How caring. Thanks, Google.
This is a blow to anyone using Chrome’s source. These changes are probably in the source code, so their either fork a version without this and keep maintaining and updating it without that, or bite the bullet.
This is a good time to start supporting Mozilla.