back to article Chrome ad-blocker crackdown preview due late July. Here's a half-dozen reasons why add-on devs are still upset

An early version of Manifest v3 – Google's controversial revision of Chrome's extensions system that will affect ad and content blockers – should appear in about a month. Add-on developers remain concerned the internet advertising giant will remove too much utility from their extensions in the name of performance, privacy, and …

  1. RegGuy1 Silver badge

    Then I have to stick on Firefox

    If they are going to fuck up Chrome so I start to see annoying moving adverts, and get my data slurped again, after I've gone to the trouble of keeping ads and scripts off my browser (via adblock plus and no script), then I'll stick to Firefox, thank you very much.

    In *every* new install I always go to the effort of configuring a new browser before I use it -- NO EXCEPTIONS. And get DuckDuckGo set up as my search engine, too. It doesn't matter that they make the options more and more difficult to wade through, I will still make the effort. When it's too difficult, then Chrome will go in the bin.

    I -- me -- control my browser. Fuck off Google.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Then I have to stick on Firefox

      Even if Chrome managed to do a better job blocking ads than Firefox with any extension could I'd still stick with it, because I don't believe giving Google access to all my browsing data is in my best interest. At all.

      So while I hope Firefox continues being a better browser than Chrome, even if it was much worse I'd never use Chrome.

    2. pip25

      Re: Then I have to stick on Firefox

      Unfortunately Firefox's current mission seems to be copying Chrome as much as possible. You also no longer control your Firefox browser, either, at least not to the extent you previously could.

    3. David Shaw

      Re: Then I have to stick on Firefox...CABF

      pi-hole will make (many ads lighter) happy browsing

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The performance concern is real

    "Google Chrome security engineer Chris Palmer echoed that claim in the discussion thread, insisting: "The performance concern is real." He pointed to the resource cost of storing a large number of rules in a persistent browser or network service process"

    "The performance concern is real"...It sure the heck is!

    I am simply amazed at how fast webpages now load after they've been neutered by my script blocking browser extensions!

    And I get the added benefit of not being shown ads for things I've already purchased or my web browser refusing to close and telling me I need to contact "Microsoft Support" through some bogus fake virus warning.

    So, let me get this straight...for years Google has turned their web browser into it's own separate bloated OS and has quietly pushed experimental API's with dangerous permissions on each new build and is now all of a sudden worried about users security?

    (That reminds me, I need to donate to the developer(s) of the open source script blockers I use)

    1. Ben Tasker

      Re: The performance concern is real

      The thing is, even if he's right - there almost certainly are delays incurred - that's a trade-off I'm 100% willing to accept in order to block all the privacy sucking shit that I use these extensions to block.

      And that's completely ignoring the obvious, which is that you still end up with a faster load because you're now not sucking in a ton of tracking javascript.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The performance concern is real

        I think nobody at Google uses Google or they simply think small delays are more important than the ones they...

        Introducing the all new Nissan Altima for a $299/mo lease.

        [Skip in 14 seconds]

    2. Tim99 Silver badge

      Re: The performance concern is real

      Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can: Zawinski's law: Wikipedia.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: The performance concern is real

      I love it, when you buy something on Amazon that they keep trying to sell you the same or similar products...

      Our old dishwasher hit the bucket and we bought a new one. For a couple of months afterwards, I was getting recommendations from Amazon for other dishwashers. How many kitchens do they think i have in my house?

      If advertising was ever useful, it might be worth suffering, but I don't think I've ever bought anything through an advert.

      I now just block them at the DNS level.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Good-bye, Chrome.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ....

      We (the old school tech crowd) are being ditched by Google, Microsoft, etc. They want it that way, because we are no longer needed and cause them too much grief. They are now pandering to the hoi polloi because that's where the easy money is. We are now a cost, whereas the plebs bring revenue.

      Rather than be openly hostile to us, our environment is being made increasingly hostile. It is hoped that we f*ck of quietly.

      1. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Re: ....

        I seriously doubt tech people will f(e/s/u)ck off quietly. That never happens. We read the BOfH!

  4. Hstubbe

    How can these blokes, Vincent and Palmer, sleep at night? Surely they know they are lying through their teeth? I never used chrome, and never will. Google are evil, and the obvious lies and bullshit their employees spout just.confirm that they are a bunch of psychopaths who are only motivated by money. No ethical and honest petson would want to go public with incorrect and false statements like Vincent and Palmer do.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Because mattresses of money are rather soft and cosy?

    2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Tone it down.

      C'mon. Disagreeing about a technical API doesn't make you "evil". Being in favour of declarativeNetRequest won't prevent St Peter admitting you to everlasting bliss or add a milligram to your heart when Ma'at weighs it.

      I know we live in hyper partisan times. But there's no need to amp it up because one group of devs see things differently to your and want to make a different set of trades off to you. After all there are other browsers which are going to allow this API to persist, some of which are even based on the same codebase.


    Enough of the negativity already

    Chrome is shiny. Must have shiny things.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Enough of the negativity already

      I keep my ass shiny.

      1. Sanctimonious Prick

        Re: Enough of the negativity already


      2. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Re: Enough of the negativity already

        And metallic?

  6. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    It will be all right in the end

    Although the ire is strong - and I share it - in the end, it won't really matter. Google will force ads on Chrome, and users mindful of their privacy and security will stop using Chrome.

    Right now those same users, a small portion very likely, are blocking ads, so Google isn't "serving" them. Losing those users to another browser that allow ad-blockers won't make a dent to Google since, for all intents and purposes, they are already out of Google's ad space.

    So, by all means, let us rant and vent - but we know how this is going to end.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: It will be all right in the end

      Well, it's interesting if one considers the possible dynamics of the advertising market. At present there is a threat hanging over the advertising industry. If they take too many liberties the popularity of ad-blockers will increase. However, take that back pressure away, and then there's no need for self restraint on the part of the advertisers. And the web will become even more terrible.

      Also, isn't the original ad blocker (Adblock Plus? I've lost track...) now effectively a business that collects revenue from advertising companies in return for a whitelisting? They're not going to be getting much revenue in the near future.

      There's also the issue that Google are seemingly doing their level best to take control of the Internet through manipulation of the standards. With MS in the process of being chrome plated, in effect caving into this assault on the standards by Google, Google will have a huge amount of control of these standards. That'll be something we'll regret I expect.

      1. disorder

        Re: It will be all right in the end

        To judge by the average GDPR consent form of pages and pages of tracking partners, if now is not already the ad market taking too many liberties, nothing is; nothing is. For those aware enough to opt out, the next step is to begin to limit their (our) technical facility to. that is this.

        yes, we can already regret google.

        firefox + umatrix + ublock is, i'll acknowledge a pain. the modern web without it is so much worse, it can be measured in watts.

        1. bazza Silver badge

          Re: It will be all right in the end


 can be measured in watts.

          And that is certainly a non-trivial observation. The amount of electricity that goes into analytics, advertising servers, and other essentially pointless IT that no one really wants is likely quite significant in terms of CO2, etc. Remember all that fuss recently about Bitcoin? How much CO2 does Google emit?

          Personally I'm in favour of paying for services like search and maps, free of advertising and analytics, reducing the energy foot print of it all, having a minimum infrastructure required for all that, and just being honest about what it costs. It's all very well for the likes of Google to have green energy policies to run their server farms, but that's missing the point. Every Watt of green electricity put into Google's unwanted IT infrastructure is a Watt that wasn't put into something more vital, like keeping my fridge running. The biggest problem renewables has is meeting the energy demand - basically it can't - so reducing that demand is something that Governments probably wish they had more control over.

          1. Richocet

            Re: It will be all right in the end

            Great point about the waste of electricity.

            Our internet and mobile data limits are also getting consumed downloading ads and uploading tracking data. We have a right to block this since we are paying for it, and aren't being asked.

            With the recent revelations of how many app track us (over 90%) and how often they independently send data to the mothership, this is getting ridiculous.

  7. Dwarf

    Performance and security

    My performance on my computer is best achieved when I choose the apps and add-ons that best for my need by not having to download and watch things that are irrelevant. I trade my computer doing things so I don’t have to. No developer can measure my effectiveness, nor define it as “browser performance”.

    The same goes for security, I’ll choose the products I trust to secure my life - from the locks on my doors to the browsers and add-ons, to a non-slurpy OS, it’s really not a difficult concept for people to grasp.

    As a company, you might want to try and control me by making choices for me, but I can tell you that I’m far more stubborn about what I will and won’t do than you are.

  8. ken jay

    we make the rules

    when will these multinationals realize they are where they are because we actually trusted them to give us the most safe and secure browsing experience, we now need adblockers to stop attacks on our system by meddled with graphics and video, we need a vpn to keep us safe from snooping and even today we need antivirus to stop not viruses but malware attacks.

    maybe its time to stop our computers sending ANY data outside our own networks that we do not initialize like we did in the late 90`s.

    i have blocked every advert for the last 28 years because if i want something i will research it why should noobs be able to profit from someone looking for information.

  9. stiine Silver badge

    What if DelcarativeNetRequest() had options for allowads=false and allowtracking=false ? If it did, not only would we be saved by not having to see ads/load tracking code, but their code/ads would never be downloaded in the first place.

    I think that would be a win/win.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Except Google's main revenue stream is from adverts - so even if you set allowads=false what stops Google from saying "oh this ad that we are serving is NOT an ad for the purposes of this method".

      I bit like the adblock plus "allow acceptable ads" option which I always make sure is switched off even though according to them (last time I read about it) I'm one of only 1% of people who do.

  10. karlkarl Silver badge

    I personally hate when people recommend to me a trendy "fork" of a piece of software but this one is different; hear me out! ;)

    Iridium is a Chromium based browser that focuses on security and privacy (including mechanisms to actively discover Google tracking so they can permanently disable it in the browser).

    Normally I would chuckle as I close the browser tab but the OpenBSD project has also embraced it and have integrated it with the pledge(2) system. The fact that they are interested in it does show good promise (they know more than me about security!). The development team is also quite big.

    It will be interesting if Iridium will simply reject the patch that artificially cripples ad-blockers. If it does, then I could imagine it becoming even more popular.

    1. NetBlackOps
      Thumb Up

      Iridium is my goto privacy browser for now. I'm also in a wait-and-see mode on where they're taking it after Manifest v.3.

    2. GrapeBunch

      Separation of Ch and St

      In a similar vein, both Opera and Vivaldi (admittedly both Chromium-based) are better than Chrome, which I deleted from my machines some years ago. Neither Opera nor Vivaldi will fiddle their offerings to increase the weight of black ink at the bottom of Google's financials. Simply not using Chrome, shifts this problem from being worrisome to being remote enough to ignore.

      1. Updraft102

        Re: Separation of Ch and St

        Still waiting for one of them to mainline the patch to remove the block Google put in to prevent Linux Chromium from using hardware video decoding using VAAPI (video acceleration API). The code is already in Chromium to do it, and it works gloriously in patched Chromium... but Google is Google, and they're not happy just having the option be a flag that is off by default. No, they have to hard-code the block, just in case we didn't get the memo. (The version they ship with ChromeOS has VAAPI enabled, though, as you might guess.)

        Firefox doesn't have hardware accelerated video in Linux either, so right now, any de-Googled browser that adopts the patch will be a potential candidate for my not very powerful thin and light laptop, the only one I regularly use on battery. It can't handle 1080p60 video very well in existing Chromium or Firefox browsers, just about maxing all four cores and stuttering and hitching badly if any background process dares to use any CPU time, but the patched Chromium is glassy smooth, zero frame drop, and uses only about 25% CPU. Power consumption is much lower too, of course.

        I don't know if any of the Chromium versions available with the VAAPI patch have been degoogled, so until that changes, I use Waterfox with the extension that allows a one-click launch of the video in VLC. How this is not a no-brainer to any of the non-Google browsers is beyond me, but none have as yet added the patch despite requests... even if VAAPI is sometimes problematic as Google claims, it's in a flag that is off by default, so it's not like they're going to be causing mayhem by unleashing a VAAPI version that doesn't work right in all PCs. That's why they call the features hidden behind flags "experimental" and warn people that they're, er, "experimental."

    3. I Am Spartacus

      Thank you

      Iridium to replace chrome. It loads the two extensions I need to have (AdBlock+ and LastPass), and is fast.

      Chrome is becoming a bloated and opinionated software monstrosity.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The option i want...

    Is to be able to block the javascript that detects I'm running an adblocker so I can browse ad free without being nagged "unblock us on your blocker"

    1. DCFusor

      Re: The option i want...

      But it could be someone smart wrote that - and the way it'd work was if the site *didn't* receive something from JS in an ad - it'd know you'd blocked the ad.

      Dead man switch, roughly speaking. Those can be hard to circumvent. It would take a lot of perhaps risky work to see what it *would* have done had you let it run.

      1. Updraft102

        Re: The option i want...

        From the client side, the "did we serve you our ads" checkers would have to run on the host site's script rather than third-party scripts (which can be blocked generally without harming the site's functionality), which would upend the whole web advertising paradigm. The host script would have to be aware of each and every ad being injected by one of the third party scripts in order to make sure it has been requested/served, and that's not something it would usually know.

        As soon as you pass that "did you get my ad?" functionality off to a third-party script, it makes it blockable without completely breaking the site, generally. To avoid that, the checker for ads would have to be in a script that is necessary for the site to function, so that blocking the checking script breaks the whole page... but that could just lead the adblocker user to conclude the site's messed up and go elsewhere, so there's still no ad revenue.

        When I find a site that fails to work with my ad and script blockers, I won't work very hard to get it functioning once again. If there are one or two scripts that have been blocked, I may try enabling them one by one to see if the site works again, but if there are ten scripts that have been blocked, I usually just close the tab.

        A big part of the problem with web ads is that they are delivered and hosted completely by third parties, leaving web site owners no control over the ads that appear within their content-- including trackers and analytics, even if the site owner is not okay with allowing the users to be tracked. If the site owners want to cover hosting costs and maybe even get paid for having a quality site with paid employees, they either have to get with the ad program the way it is, or else do something like institute a paywall.

        There are companies out there that claim to be able to do this on the fly to sneak ads through someone's adblocker, once it's detected, but I've visited those sites listed as customers of this technology, and I breezed right in with no ads and no adwalls.

        I'm doing some guessing here, as I don't have any direct experience with web ads from a site owner's perspective (I just know about getting rid of them from the client end), but it seems to me that it would be difficult to execute such "did we send our ads" checks from the server side, since the ads aren't hosted there, and the host site would not be expected to be aware of the specific ads that were supposed to be requested and served. It's not that it could not be done, but it would require changing the way the ad slingers do business that de-emphasizes their own autonomy in sending any ad they like to any site that has contracted with them for monetization, and they're not likely to do that.

        The ultimate solution, from the site owner's perspective, would seem to be hosting the ads locally and making the ads indistinguishable from the content, but that would cut out the ad networks, and that's even worse for them than losing revenue from adblocking.

        Ultimately, the solution, from the site owner's point of view, would seem to be to make the content inseparable from the content, as it is with a magazine print ad. That would take a big shift in the way web advertising is done, and it would weaken the position of the ad brokers, so in their minds, that may be a bigger evil than adblockers taking away some of their views.

        1. Steve Graham

          Re: The option i want...

          "Ultimately, the solution, from the site owner's point of view, would seem to be to make the [ad] content inseparable from the content, as it is with a magazine print ad."

          It's usually still possible to remove such stuff. Typically, it's a piece of HTML/CSS which can be identified and set to "display: none" by your blocker. Facebook seems to use obfuscated identifiers in the CSS to try to avoid being detected, but clever people always foil them.

          (Oh, for magazines, you need a big black marker, not an extension.)

    2. Updraft102

      Re: The option i want...

      Use an addon like TamperMonkey or ViolentMonkey to add a userscript called Anti-Adblock Killer by Reek, available from your favorite userscript repository. In conjunction with uBlock Origin and NoScript, I very seldom see any "turn off your adblocker" nonsense, and I never see ads.

      1. Craig 2

        Re: The option i want...

        Or, just don't ever revisit annoying sites that nag you to unblock...

  12. Anonymous Coward

    I guess MSFT could keep this in Edgeium?

    Now that MSFT is testing Edge based on Chromium source, what's to stop them retaining this API? Would be a chuckle if they shipped Edge with UBlock pre-installed to hammer Google's ad-revenue.

    1. iGNgnorr

      Re: I guess MSFT could keep this in Edgeium?

      "Now that MSFT is testing Edge based on Chromium source, what's to stop them retaining this API? "

      MS adopting Chromium is interesting because they (MS) share some of the objectives of other privacy-minded browsers also based on Chromium, like Vivavldi and Brave. Those shared objectives primarily involve de-Google-ing Chromium, from which perspective more eyes looking at it the better, and MS has a lot more resources to do so than those other browser makers.

      I'll be taking a close look at Edge for the first time once it is Chromium-ified. If it isn't as glitch ridden as Vivaldi has become, and actually installs unlike Brave, I might just use it along with Firefox for the times when that doesn't work too well. (I'll say one thing for Chrome though: when I used to use it, it actually worked far better for me than any of the alternatives, but then Google got really stupid and started forcing logons. Straw and camel's backs.)

  13. jmecher

    question is

    Is there going to be enough fallout to force them to back track?

    It's obvious to privacy minded people that this is google trying to take advantage of the situation to score against add blockers, but I personally think that google is testing the waters and is ready to retreat if too many defect.

    If only enough people will do it...

    1. DropBear

      Re: question is

      I hereby posit DropBear's Rule of Crowds: No sentence starting with "if only enough people..." is worth finishing: nope, not gonna happen.

  14. Aynon Yuser

    Having surfed the web through so many iterations of browsing software on my PC's, Chrome used to be my darling. I extolled the virtues to so many others often.

    Now I've ditched it and went back to Firefox. I can use whatever plugins I want, and not have Google play the constant cat and mouse with what I want to do whether it be blocking ad videos with sound, etc.

    I'm done with Chrome. Good bye.

    With Chrome on my Android phone and the blaring videos and loud ads that play before them videos, something is seriously wrong with this. While I'm taking a break at work and then surfing CNN and then have ads suddenly blast out of my phone? Fucking rude as hell. All so CNN can generate their ad revenue, and there's no way to stop it.

    Fuck you Google.

    1. Michael Kean

      Firefox on Android?

      How are you finding Firefox on Android?

      For me it's not as fast as Chrome. It's getting better but it's not on par yet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Firefox on Android?

        Been using it for last 3 years - yes not as fast as Chrome, but feel more secure

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Firefox on Android?

        For me, after many years of Firefox on Chrome, the browsing experience has only gotten better. Over the last year I attribute this mainly to the ability to run uBlock Origin. Without that, browsing most sites in Chrome has become painful, usually causing me to give up on the site altogether. In essence, Chrome becomes unusable. The problem is really mindless, box-checking marketing execs who pay for those advert services, and then pay Google for the analytics that justify those choices to even more clueless board members and shareholders. Eventually they'll kill the businesses that employ them, but will be able to pull the ripcord on their golden parachute to land at another: where they'll start the whole destructive process over again.

  15. Stephendeg

    Fox. Henhouse

    What could go wrong?

  16. Starace


    Certain people should really learn how to lie convincingly if they're going to do it so often.

    The first thing is to have a story that is at least vaguely believable.

    The second thing is to keep things simple and consistent.

    The third thing is to at least try to sound like you believe it yourself.

    The stories from the Googlers fail on every count.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just stop using it

    Let Google get their spy data some other way. /s

    There are alternatives that are IMHO better than Chrome.

  18. Martin-73 Silver badge

    Chrome is still unfinished

    Many years on, and there's still no menu bar. Looks like half a UI, at least on windows.

    You think they'd concentrate on the basic UI?

    1. Updraft102

      Re: Chrome is still unfinished

      Instead, everyone else seems to be copying them. I don't think Edge had one either, did it?

      Firefox got rid of the status bar completely (cause Chrome doesn't have one, so a status bar must be bad, mmkay), but fortunately, for now at least, they only hid the menu bar, so I guess those of us who still know we're not using phones when we use desktop browsers can at least be happy for that.

      Mozilla seems to think that if they just lop off enough features, people will finally see so little of a difference between Firefox and Chrome that they'll... er, wait, how was that supposed to attract Chrome users to Firefox again? Was the idea that they would somehow accidentally install Firefox, inadvertently import their Chrome data, then unintentionally start Firefox and not realize it wasn't Chrome... every time they browse, from now on?

      Even if they make Firefox so similar that Chrome users don't even notice a difference, what would be the incentive to make the move, even if it was effortless? It's not privacy... most people quite evidently do not care (in other news, Android has nearly the whole smart phone market), and those few that do already don't use Chrome proper.

      Mozilla has been trying to copy Chrome since 2010 or 2011, and their market share has been in freefall ever since. Feature after feature cut off to be like Chrome, and the biggest of all (so far?) is to adopt the Chrome addon API and abandon their own classic addons that were more powerful, but they're not done yet. They obviously haven't removed enough features, 'cause if they did, Firefox would presumably be increasing in market share, not continuing to drop for the ninth straight year.

      The "1. Copy Chrome, 2. ???, 3. Profit" underpants gnome strategy hasn't worked since they started it nearly a decade ago, but one of these days... hope springs eternal in Mozilla fantasy-land!

      1. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Re: Chrome is still unfinished

        Indeed, the messing with firefox moved me to palemoon yonks ago :(

  19. J.Smith

    Probably missing something

    I'm probably missing something here, but why are people complaining about lack of privacy in the future of Chrome? As soon as you install and start using Chrome, you're giving Google a tonne of data, by that very fact. So I'm surprised people are surprised at lack of privacy... on Chrome.

  20. TheSmokingArgus

    Google Chrome is Garbage

    Google Chrome is garbage, how many times do people have to learn Google is tracking your browsing, leaving backdoor access to camera/mic, etc before it sinks in that THEY the user is the product. A product to be packaged, distilled, and sold off to the highest bidder.

    Vivaldi, Opera, and Brave all are based on Chromium, will ignore the new restrictions on ad blockers so there ae certainly free alternatives to choose from in replacing Google's spy-browser.

  21. ThatOne Silver badge

    First they came for the Adblockers...

    Then (for your security of course!) they limited the sites you can visit to only those who had paid Google for the privilege...

    The worst part is most people won't even notice, much less mind.

  22. Haku

    Popup says: "Turn off your adblocker to visit our site!"

    My response: "No! I shall find the information I was looking for elsewhere."

    *closes tab*

    1. DropBear

      Re: Popup says: "Turn off your adblocker to visit our site!"

      My response: *starts HackTheWeb* *moves mouse over opaque popup which highlights with red frame* *presses R for "remove"* *presses Q for "quit HackTheWeb"*

      Or, if they remove the content server side then yeah, your plan B.

  23. MrMerrymaker

    Don't use chrome!

    It already slurps you

    This news is terrible

    Use another browser. Firefox with NoScript for me, but Chrome isn't the best and isn't the safest

  24. Anonymous Coward

    Privoxy the non-caching web proxy

    Privoxy is a non-caching web proxy with advanced filtering capabilities for enhancing privacy, modifying web page data and HTTP headers, controlling access, and removing ads and other obnoxious Internet junk. Privoxy has a flexible configuration and can be customized to suit individual needs and tastes. It has application for both stand-alone systems and multi-user networks.”

  25. js6898

    Why bother about ad blocking extensions anyway - can you not just use the HOSTS file ? (genuine question)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Welcome to Slashdot.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I just tried that, got the list from and it works but unlike my adblocker doesn't remove the space where the ad was so you are scrolling through a lot of extra space where the ads were. So as a last resort it is fair enough but not as good as a blocker. I can't recall what pi-hole does in this respect.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "With the blocking version of webRequest, Chrome has to serialize a lot of data (the request itself and request metadata, etc.) and send it to each extension," he said. "This results in significant costs from type conversions, copies, interprocess communication, (de)serialization, etc. for each listening extension (which are usually in separate processes)."

    So allow plugins to subscribe to the data rather than throwing it at all of them. There are technical solutions to this.

    Fortunately for me I recently switched to Opera.

    1. cmaurand

      Opera uses the chromium engine. The only browser thaf doesn't right noe is firefox.

      1. NomadUK

        Um, Safari. But, yes, on macOS and iOS only.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Opera also has a built in ad blocker so it doesn't depend on extensions.

  27. binnyrog

    Opera Browser works perfectly fine for me. With inbuilt ad blocking, i don't have to worry about Manifest V3 or anything.

    Although my only concern is that Opera is based on Open-source chromium project, so the future is uncertain for the adblocking on Opera too.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like