uBlock Origin, Manifest V3, and the Changing Landscape of Web Privacy
AI created, human edited.
In a recent episode of Security Now, hosts Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte delved into the ongoing saga of uBlock Origin, one of the internet's most popular ad-blocking extensions, and its clash with Google's Manifest V3. This discussion highlighted the changing landscape of web privacy and the challenges faced by users and developers alike.
Google's move towards Manifest V3 for Chrome extensions has stirred controversy in the tech community. While Google claims this change improves security, it significantly impacts the functionality of content-blocking add-ons like uBlock Origin. Steve Gibson explained that the transition from Manifest V2 to V3 would make life "much more difficult, if not impossible" for such extensions.
The impact is so severe that uBlock Origin's developer, Raymond Hill (also known as Gorhill), has created a lite version called uBlock Origin Lite to comply with Manifest V3 requirements. However, this version comes with limitations, potentially reducing its effectiveness in blocking ads and tracking scripts.
For Chrome users, Gibson offered a glimmer of hope. He detailed a method to extend Manifest V2 support in Chrome until June 2025, giving users an additional six months of full uBlock Origin functionality. This involves adding a policy to Chrome using a simple registry file, which Gibson has made available through a shortcut (grc.sc/v2).
In contrast to Chrome's approach, Mozilla has stated they have no plans to remove Manifest V2 support from Firefox. This decision positions Firefox as a potential safe haven for users who prioritize robust content control and privacy protection.
However, the discussion revealed an unexpected twist in the Firefox story. Despite Mozilla's commitment to Manifest V2, uBlock Origin Lite faced issues with Mozilla's add-on review process. Hill's frustration with what he described as a "nonsensical and hostile review process" led him to cease development of uBlock Origin Lite for Firefox altogether.
The conversation took an interesting turn as Gibson and Laporte addressed the ethical implications of ad blocking. They acknowledged the complex balance between user privacy and the sustainability of ad-supported content.
Gibson quoted Raymond Hill's stance that using an ad blocker is not theft, but rather an exercise of the "inalienable right to privacy." Hill argues that ads are often just the visible part of privacy-invading technologies employed by websites.
Laporte, while using ad blockers himself, pointed out the contradiction in his position as someone who relies on ad revenue. He highlighted the challenges faced by content creators and news organizations, especially local news outlets, in sustaining their operations without ad revenue.
Both hosts agreed that the current state of web advertising and tracking is unsustainable. They expressed hope for future technologies that could balance the needs of content creators with user privacy. Gibson suggested that user pushback through tools like uBlock Origin might be necessary to drive change in the industry.
As the web continues to evolve, the debate around ad blocking, user privacy, and sustainable content creation is far from over. The story of uBlock Origin and Manifest V3 serves as a microcosm of these larger issues, highlighting the ongoing tension between privacy-conscious users, content creators, advertisers, and browser developers.
For now, users have options: stick with Chrome and use Gibson's method to extend Manifest V2 support, switch to Firefox for continued full uBlock Origin functionality, or adapt to the limitations of uBlock Origin Lite. Whatever path users choose, it's clear that the landscape of web browsing and content control is undergoing significant changes, with implications for privacy, user experience, and the future of the free web.
Download and subscribe here: Security Now
