His thread is highly critical of Google's move. You're quoting it in a context of claiming folks are over-reacting in a way that implies it backs up that claim. Or at least that's how I read it...
Conversation
Replying to
My words speak for themselves:
twitter.com/DanielMicay/st
That's not what I said. I told people to read his thread criticizing what they're changing, rather than reading the fake news completely misrepresenting what is happening. The people spreading misinformation aren't helping.
Quote Tweet
An accurate/informative thread about the proposed changes in Chrome by the uBlock Origin developer, summarized in this conclusion:
twitter.com/gorhill/status
I recommend reading that thread and skipping all the fake news falsely claiming Chrome is removing support for ad-blocking.
Show this thread
1
The Chromium developers and Google are countering the claim that they're dropping ad-blocking support by pointing out that they aren't doing that. It was completely counterproductive to have this fake news cycle distracting from the actual issues with their proposed changes.
2
Replying to
It's likely that they *are* effectively dropping ad blocking support, especially if blocking anti-adblock depends on non-declarative filtering capabilities which it likely does.
1
Replying to
We'll see what ultimately ends up happening and the impact of it. The claim that it's motivated by business reasons is implying that their privacy and security engineers are explicitly lying about the motivations and design process behind the changes based on their responses.
2
In my opinion, a built-in content blocking engine with a declarative API is the right approach, rather than having asynchronous fallible IPC calls to an extension. For the current API, if the extension fails to respond in time, the content passes through without filtering.
1
2
You may have noticed this failure mode before, with ads slipping through if the extension screws up or crashes. I don't think doing it that way is the right approach. I don't think the programmatic API for it should be removed, but I definitely do want a robust declarative API.
1
1
So, I think they should be pressured to increase the number of rules substantially (at least 10x) and to improve the capabilities of the built-in filtering engine. It should be a solid implementation. It shouldn't use a sub-par algorithm or syntax but rather a fully capable one.
1
1
I think it's completely counter-productive to have a bunch of fake news claiming they are removing ad-blocking which they'll counter by pointing out they aren't, and then people will see they have not removed it, since it won't go away. What is going to be achieved by that?
1
2
2
It's only going to further reduce the credibility of the media / journalists and the people spreading this kind of stuff. Instead of pressuring them to actually do something good, people are handing them a victory, where they don't actually need to respond to hard questions.
1
2
I want to see their response to 's criticism and changes based on it, not a response to the claim that they are removing ad-blocking, since I already know the answer is that they're not doing that. How is the misinformation helpful to achieving anything productive?