Conversation

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.

Quote Tweet

I am not against the declarativeNetRequest API, and I am not arguing against the stated advantages -- they are legitimate. I am against the conversion of the webRequest API into a passive one and other changes crippling uBO's ability to seamlessly function as it does now.

Show this thread

1

1

8

The declarative filtering API is documented at developer.chrome.com/extensions/dec. They've stated that the limits are placeholders are subject to change. Increasing the static limit by 10x is probably enough. Introducing this API for the built-in content filtering is a very positive thing.

2

1

Replying to

You're seriously misrepresenting the thread you quoted, where UBO author says the new declarative filtering is not sufficiently powerful to implement UBO, regardless of filter count limit.

1

Replying to

I wasn't not summarizing what he said but rather adding some information which wasn't mentioned in the thread. You say that I'm misrepresenting what he said, but it's really you misrepresenting what I said right here. It's absolutely not what I said in those tweets.

2

Replying to

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...

1

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

Based on how they handled the sound API stuff last time, that was just an excuse to launder special treatment for YouTube, IMO the implication is fair.

1

Replying to

Which specific sound API stuff? The Media Source Extensions API? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web The main thing they do with YouTube is intentionally crippling it by not using the modern API. Chromium supports playing in the background on Android, but YouTube intentionally avoids it.

11:51 PM · May 30, 2019Twitter Web Client

Replying to

and

They decided playing audio in the background on mobile is a premium feature requiring a paid YouTube subscription and their official app. I find that to a pretty strange way of creating a business model, but it seems to have worked. They ban any apps bypassing it from Play.

1

Replying to

No, autoplay. They broke the API such that you need explicit interactions to enable audio rather than just having a browser UI for unmute (killing legacy games/art), and exempted "top sites" (YouTube) from the requirement.