Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.

Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.

The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.

Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.

Archive link

  • @ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    24 months ago

    Yeah, they can still tell that you’re Nat behind another router.

    But they don’t like it because it gives them less access to your network and more possibility for something to be wrong

    • Possibly linux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      44 months ago

      How would they do that? Maybe by looking at ports? You could just lie and say you only have one device.

      • youmaynotknow
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        The moment they see their ONT is registering only 1 device (the router) it’s clear everything is being routed via that.

        I have never not had a router natted behind my modem. They can see the amount of packets and data I use over the ISP, but that’s about it. On top of that my LANs and VLANs are all VPNd through NordVPN before anything hits the WAN and all DNS traffic goes though my Adguard Home and Quad9 as well, so there’s that.

          • youmaynotknow
            link
            fedilink
            34 months ago

            I trust any company that’s not in my country more than any local company. Or I should say, I distrust local companies more.

          • @psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            24 months ago

            They might be able to see if the data indicates the network has been though NAT (network address translation) twice, but that would look just like someone who has plugged their own wifi box into the modem

            • Possibly linux
              link
              fedilink
              English
              44 months ago

              But how would they prove that? I have high doubt. Also what benefit would it give them? It seems like a lot of work and uncertainty for little reward.

              • youmaynotknow
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                I can’t answer that. I guess you would need to be in their place to understand that backwards way of thinking.

    • @socphoenix@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      44 months ago

      I’ve never had an isp complain about me using my own router in the US, is this just common in other countries or have I just been lucky?

      • @ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        It’s a rarity afaik, I’ve only heard of one or two cases, but a concerning report to me personally.

        Though I’m Canadian so it’ll be a few years before it filters here (assuming it catches on)

      • @psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        There’s always NAT. You get one IP address, your router/wifi shares the network using NAT

        But ISPs aren’t looking for NAT, since everyone with wifi is using it