posted in Technology
Google Has Removed Manifest V2 Extensions From the Chrome Web Store, Including uBlock Origin
webiterate.dev/google-removed-extensions-ublock-origin-108/😡1
Anyone that uses Chrome doesn’t know what a clean non ad infested website looks like so they won’t notice the difference.
Replying to @Eternal192@anarchist.nexus
Not true. UBlock Origin Lite works just fine. They even recently added the ability to use content scripts so there is almost no difference between it and the original UBlock. Manifest 3 has had and still has some challenges, but you’re being so hyperbolic that I can’t take anything people like you say seriously. Might as well say… “I hate Chrome so much that I’ll make up random lies to prove how bad it is!”
Replying to @timewarp@lemmy.world
Literally, the creator of UBO Lite disagrees with you.
Why are you like this?
Replying to @ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
First, I don’t care if they agree with me or not. It is an open source project. They said from they never intended to try to make a 1:1 extension with UBO. They clearly lay out the positives of MV3 as well, and the scripts permission feature is a relatively new addition. You or anyone can contribute or fork it you want to add something.
I have spent enough time working on MV3 to know Chromium has solved a lot of the challenges. If you want to have a technical discussion about the APIs and differences or how you might do something with MV3, then let’s have the discussion. I never tried to claim MV3 is perfect.
I just have little patience for essentially non-technical cultists who go around spreading misinformation while acting like they know way more than they do. Prove it then… 99% of people like you never actually want to have a real technical discussion, because you spread your opinions based on feelings and not facts.
Replying to @timewarp@lemmy.world
Prove it then… 99% of people like you never actually want to have a real technical discussion, because you spread your opinions based on feelings and not facts.
This is extremely funny that you’re trying to insult me, based on your feelings and not facts.
My only participation in this thread was that UBO Lite creator disagrees with you, which he publicly stated, but you felt… Offended? (No idea) - and decided to insult me rather than to deal with facts.
There is a word for people like you.
Troll.
Replying to @ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
This is extremely funny that you’re trying to insult me, based on your feelings and not facts.
My only participation in this thread was that UBO Lite creator disagrees with you, which he publicly stated, but you felt… Offended? (No idea) - and decided to insult me rather than to deal with facts.
There is a word for people like you.
Troll.
Citing gorhill’s disclaimer that uBOL isn’t a 1:1 clone of uBO doesn’t prove Chrome is “ad-infested”—it conflates advanced power-user filtering with everyday ad blocking. Many limitation were Firefox-exclusive APIs that Chrome MV2 never supported in the first place.
Under the hood, standard filter lists compile directly into native C++ evaluation via declarativeNetRequest, while cosmetic element hiding and anti-adblock defusers run through the scripting and userScripts APIs. Furthermore, synchronous webRequestBlocking is still built into the Chromium engine for policy installs. Pointing out the architectural reality of how these APIs actually execute isn’t trolling; it’s addressing technical mechanics rather than hyperbole.
Replying to @timewarp@lemmy.world
Pointing out the architectural reality of how these APIs actually execute isn’t trolling
Cool. Except that you didn’t do that before. You’re doing that now, after the fact.