uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store
404 comments
·March 10, 2025bearjaws
gruez
>Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit...
Doesn't Safari have the same restriction, also ostensibly for "security/privacy" reasons? The only difference is that Apple doesn't have a web advertising presence, so you can't make the accusation that they're "abuse its market position to their own benefit".
Fluorescence
People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a raft of wildly illegal under-the-table measures this.
Imagine what it would cost Google's bottom line if Apple was truly user-focused and enabled ad-blocking on desktop, mobile and embedded safari views by default. Someone do the napkin math please!
gruez
This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.
fmajid
Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about their stalling phone, tablet and laptop revenues, that they hope to compensate with "services" revenue, i.e. App Store 30% racketeering and App Store search ads?
AstralSerenity
Firefox and its derivatives remain the only true alternative at this point.
jhickok
Do you have thoughts about Kagi/Orion browser? I've been using it for a bit now and I've been pleased with the ad blocking capabilities and the ability to have ublock origin on my iPhone and iPad. The browser definitely has scales but it's usable for me at this point.
fyrabanks
You can still install uBlock Origin in Brave, assuming you don't mind the crypto stuff and how they pay it out (or, rather don't) to site owners. Even Firefox feels a little weird now with the advent of Mozilla Advertising.
Very much a lesser of all evils situation.
bearjaws
Alright? Split iOS off from Apple, then split Apple Music off too?
I hate these arguments where people point to some other shitty thing a company is doing as some sort of gotcha.
zamalek
This is coming from an Apple antagonist, but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? This does vindicate Apple (but doesn't help in the other legitimate scenarios that this API is needed, which I have been told do exist).
gruez
> but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)?
No, content blockers are specific to Safari. Third party apps can show ads just fine.
judge2020
And ublock origin lite works just fine for me
kolanos
Not working as well on YouTube. The ad is blocked, but you still need to skip it. You didn't need to do this with UBO.
gerash
Exactly I’m so tired of this loud ublock origin crowd
echelon
It's time for a Google breakup from the DOJ / FTC.
They've gone well beyond what Microsoft did in the 2000s.
Google owns so many panes of glass and funnels them all through its search and advertising funnel. They've distorted how the web (and mobile) work to accomplish this massive market distortion.
Search, Ads, and Android should be broken up into separate units. Chrome shouldn't be placed with any of those units.
While we're cutting, YouTube should be its own entity and stand on its own legs too.
Apple, Amazon, and Meta need the same scrutiny. Grocery stores and primary care doctors should not be movie studios and core internet infrastructure. Especially when those units are wholly subsidized by other unrelated business units, and their under pricing the market is used to strangle out the incumbents and buy them up on the cheap.
klardotsh
Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this, so I hope we enjoy this digital feudalism only expanding, never receding, in the coming years.
blockme69
Well hopefully Google will pay the price for their greed soon enough.
https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-...
internetter
They won't under the trump admin
CharlesW
It depends on whether Google bends the knee, as Amazon and Facebook have done.
zdragnar
The trump admin got this ball rolling way back in 2017.
ehecatl42
Emacs Web Wowser for the most part, for me, and it basically works... except when it fucking does not.
The modern web, as we all know, is all kinds of shit. Anybody here compile Firefox recently?
6SixTy
Gentoo user here: all the time. Worst part is that Firefox depends on NodeJS which takes a good day to compile on my 2c/4t 3250U.
forty
So actually even Firefox depends on V8...
jcranmer
The NodeJS dependency is purely for running some tests. You shouldn't need it to actually build Firefox.
voytec
Why would you? Firefox is a spyware nowadays.
yard2010
It's funny how this behavior resembles the Chinese Party.
labster
The CCP is much better organized with its “Do nothing. Win.” strategy. If Trump did nothing as well as they do, America would still be a superpower.
null
lo_zamoyski
I'm surprised anyone expected anything different. Why would an ad company support something that assaults its main source of profit?
voytec
> It was never about improving peoples web experience.
I kinda appreciate that you still apply some benefit of the doubt.
jstummbillig
They had the market position and option to do that for years now. "Told you so" whenever a patterns matches, and ignoring the times when it does not instead of providing a good model that encompasses both, is a fairly lame way to reason about the world.
smt88
"They didn't immediately abuse their market power!"
Great. Very few companies do. What difference does it make?
We don't give bankrobbers credit for all the days they could've robbed a bank but didn't.
zanellato19
The position is always, Google's position is so strong they can do whatever they want even if it isn't beneficial to users, this confirms that. I'm not sure the "they could have abused this sooner" defense is a good one.
glenstein
Not only not a good defense, but practically indecipherable. What scale of abuse couldn't be excused by this? I'm not sure I even understand what the notion of abuse means to a person who thinks it could be excused by such a logic.
It seems to completely lose track of the face value significance of any individual instance of abuse because it gets lost in the comparative equation to hypothetical worst harms.
It also confusingly treats restraint as though X amount of restraint can then be cashed in for a certain amount of harm, rather than something that's supposed to happen by default under good stewardship.
And it shifts the whole question to whether or not that position is being abused when I think the criticisms are more fundamental about the fact that they shouldn't be in the position to have or not have that leverage in the first place.
So that, long and short, would be my detox from the assumptions at play here.
BiteCode_dev
I've never killed anyone, should I get your gratitude for it?
glenstein
It's funny that this line of defense is sincerely attempted here, as it's so absurd that it's actually the punchline of an SMBC comic. And honestly, one of my favorite ones that I find genuinely very funny.
>Lawyer: Okay, let's say my client killed his wife. What about the people he didn't kill?! That's six billion people! Don't they matter? Don't they matter?!
>Caption: In an alternate universe, Jeffrey Dahmer has a thank you parade every year.
freedomben
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, unlike the locked-down and hobbled Chromium ecosystem. I suspect they do realize this because they've been really leaning into extensions recently, but over the years I've worried that Mozilla's committment to Firefox isn't as serious as I would like.
Regardless, I'd love to see this give FF a big bounce in the stats. Something to reinforce that there are people out here that really want manifest v2, badly enough to switch!
jordanb
> I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions,
The problem is that Mozilla's customers are not Firefox's users. Mozilla's customer is Google. They pay Mozilla to exist and they are paying Mozilla to intentionally drive Firefox into the ground.
I think it's pretty clear that the TOS change basically coincided with the removal of manifest v2 change in chrome.
AstralSerenity
My understanding is Mozilla contracted its footprint substantially to remain sustainable in a future without Google's monetary contribution.
drpossum
Then they wouldn't be throwing money into open firepits on trash like a VPN service or how to comply with Google's advertising decisions.
Then they would let people contribute money to the browser (instead of to Mozilla Foundation which goes to enabling aforementioned trash fires) and to the salary of a multi-million dollar CEO after laying off developer staff and hiring more C-suite assistants.
Mozilla is a bad organization in every sense, a bad steward of Firefox, and the best thing that could happen is they do have their funding cut, they go out of business forever, and Firefox finds a good home chosen by the community.
bdcravens
Part of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search engine.
tomrod
Indeed. Kagi proves users are willing to pay for search (me included, recently).
bad_user
Which is why Mozilla are getting desperate to diversify their revenue.
Mailtemi
Mozilla diversifies by increasing the CEO's salary for nothing.
Wiki: In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, Baker's salary was more than $3 million. In 2021, her salary rose again to more than $5 million, and again to nearly $7 million in 2022.
The new CEO brings computing for AI money bleed that almost no one wants.
nottorp
If only their goal would be to provide an excellent privacy browser, instead of getting revenue :)
All they need is to accept donations that go strictly to the browser and not to the latest blockchain/AI hysteria.
MYEUHD
That would be a good thing. If Firefox is funded by donations, rather than by Google, it ensures there is no enshittification in the future. And yes, donations can fund a big project, as evidenced by Thunderbird and Ladybird.
bad_user
Nobody uses Ladybird, at this point it's vaporware. And Thunderbird is still based on Firefox.
The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. That's more than what Wikimedia can get from donations, and Wikipedia is a website that everyone uses. And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium.
And let's say that it manages to bring those costs down to $100 million per year or less and manages to get it from donations (when pigs will fly) … it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year.
mrec
Mozilla thus far have been very reluctant to take donations to Firefox specifically. AFAIK you can still only donate to the Foundation, not the Corp, which means that most if not all of the cash will get spent on random non-Firefox-related things that you probably couldn't care less about.
tombert
I mostly agree, but I am slightly worried that it would lead to slower progress in Firefox. As it stands, Google's funding of Firefox is enough to hire a bunch of engineers to make Firefox a pretty competitive browser.
JasserInicide
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions
Don't worry, they won't. They have more important endeavors like funding some new bullshit virtue signalling campaign and paying huge CEO bonuses.
drdec
My problem with extensions is it's another development team to trust and monitor. I need to know if the extension has been sold, taken over by a new lead, etc.
freedomben
Yeah that's definitely fair, I have the same concern. Currently I've reduced my extensions to just a few that I either trust (like gorhill's) or that I wrote myself. But I think it would be huge if Mozilla built out the tooling needed to keep a better monitor on them. It's an extremely hard problem to be sure though.
kelvinjps10
They already did? The have a list pf extension that are monitored by them as well authoring a few ones
nikisweeting
Luckily there's an extension for that: [Under New Management | Chrome Web Store](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/under-new-managemen...)
null
ar_lan
After the Great Suspender debacle, I feel the same. I try to limit plugins/extensions to as many minimal use cases as possible.
lotsofpulp
This is why I prefer Safari's content blockers. As far as I understand, there is no risk of content blockers sending out information.
null
ToDougie
Firefox has some weird slowness with DNS that I have troubleshot to death. I still use it for almost everything, but sometimes I'll have an entire day of 30s page loading times.
recursive
Apologies if this is elementary, but have you tried turning off DoH?
edoceo
I put this setting in ages ago on my FF profile and haven't seen DNS lag.
My biggest DNS lag was before I used PiHole and was relying on my router, which upstream to 8.8.8.8. I've just assumed that little thing was overloaded or that Comcast was just having a "hiccup".
jamesgeck0
I see glacial DNS resolution regularly when hitting the AWS authorization page with DoH disabled on my company's VPN. Resolves instantly in Chrome.
Underphil
Same here. Tends to be pretty inconsistent. DNS-over-HTTP(s) definitely disabled. 30s is a lot more than I've experienced, but there are times where it clearly struggles to look things up.
guappa
Disable DNS over HTTPS I guess.
Yeul
I wonder how much time not experiencing advertising on the internet saves?
Whenever someone says how fast Chrome is I think about this.
bravoetch
It would be enough if Apple realized the same thing. They're in a position to have the best browser, and coast along ignoring the opportunity.
badgersnake
Google will just slip in a few more “improvements” to Gmeet, Gmail and YouTube that happen to not work or perform very poorly on Firefox.
tech234a
This removal can be bypassed until June by changing some flags or setting enterprise policies: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1itw1bz/end_o...
crazygringo
Fortunately, at least so far, uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine on Chrome.
I know people have made a lot of arguments as to why it might not be as good in theory, or why things might change in the future. But so far, ever since I was forced to switch, I have seen exactly zero difference. Lists are updated often enough that I haven't seen anything get through. Adblocking works on YouTube. If anything, pages seem to load even a little faster. I've had no complaints.
creato
It's also great to not give basically unlimited permissions to an extension.
pmdr
I think people should be able to do whatever they want on their own machine. If the setting is there, then let me use it for whatever extension I see fit. Sure, make it harder to do so, but don't treat users like children. I can't even screenshot banking apps on my own damn Android phone now.
IshKebab
It's not about you being able to do whatever you want on your machine. It's extension authors being able to. Malicious Chrome extensions are a huge problem.
redox99
It's just a matter of time. Now that anti anti adblocks are way more effective, they'll become common.
naet
I saw significant difference using the Lite version, enough that I switched to Firefox with Origin instead. I expected it to be good enough and was surprised to see the difference.
caseyy
The new uBlock Origin Lite is compatible with Manifest v3 and has the featured flag on the Chrome Web Store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
croes
But is less capable than uBlock origin.
creato
And also requires far less intrusive permissions.
AstralSerenity
Capable enough for most users, however I made the jump as it no longer fit my needs.
caminante
Not really.
90% of users won't notice a difference.
Here's the feature diff. [0]
[0] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
ngomez
I've been trying uBO Lite myself for a few months, and anyone who uses YouTube will absolutely notice that it's worse at blocking. Lite tends to delay playback at the start of a video for as long as the blocked ads would've been, making the site feel slower, and once in a while an ad will slip past the blocker anyway.
FergusArgyll
I really really miss Zapper Mode
dhrm1k
i mean what's the breaking point? why is ublock no longer in the store whole the lite is?
mrkramer
Lite version works for me the same as the original. Blocks majority of ads.
phito
I hear so many people IRL complaining about this. I tell them to switch to firefox, that the adblockers still work there, and they still won't switch to it because they are "used to chrome". I really feel like google won this battle. People will through a lot of abuse just to maintain their habits.
crazygringo
The adblockers still work on Chrome though.
Pretty sure people are figuring out to switch to uBlock Origin Lite and ads -- including on YouTube -- are still being blocked just fine.
paulddraper
People didn't switch from IE to Chrome because it was better.
They switched because it was MUCH, MUCH better.
(And was part of the ecosystem, profiles, bookmarks, passwords, etc.)
---
For better or worse, no such disparity exists currently.
IshKebab
Well said. It also wasn't worse in any way. It was strictly better.
Firefox is definitely better than Chrome in some ways, but it is also worse in others. Notably performance and integration with Google's password manager.
stackedinserter
What's in Chrome that they are so used to? I use Vivaldi, Chrome, Firefox on every day basis, and can barely see a difference.
Spivak
[flagged]
topspin
> But in two days I have 4 new Brave users.
What happens when adtech decides this is a problem because the hoi polloi have arrived? Have you thought about that as you're cluing in normies?
Spivak
My only motivation is to help my friends who got the "uBlock Origin is no longer supported" notification get their ad blocking back in a way that sticks. To me that's the most important thing. Any what if's about the future can be addressed then.
The browser that is a literal drop-in replacement is the best way to do this. I think it's cool that other browsers are trying new things but now isn't the time. People have to be be in a place where they want something different in order to accept change. All of them got the notification while trying to something else and "install Brave, import, move Brave to where the Chrome icon used to be, and continue with what you were doing" is alarmingly effective.
hnpolicestate
You have to take the CEO's philosophy into account when choosing technology tools unfortunately.
I personally dmd Eich on Twitter during 2019-2021 ish. He's opposed to censorship, tracking, government lockdowns during COVID, and authoritarianism.
That is exactly who you want running your browser and search company if you wish to use an open Internet. It's anti chat control, anti governments choosing which apps it's citizens can install, it's free speech for all, including "hate speech". Open and free wild West Internet culture.
Analemma_
If one of my friends kept pitching cryptoscam shit to me I’d stop talking to them in short order. I suspect your IRL non-technical friends feel similarly.
Spivak
Literally the first thing anyone who recommends Brave says is to avoid the stupid crypto thing, myself included. Look Firefox doesn't exactly come up smelling like a rose here, when you recommend Firefox you have to tell them to turn off the ads in the new tab page, ads in the URL bar (https://imgur.com/a/EXtzhg4), and Pocket, in Brave the crypto thing is opt-in.
J_Shelby_J
At this point the backlash to crypto is more ridiculous than the actual crypto scams.
noman-land
It's learned helplessness, laziness, bordering on cowardice.
inertiatic
I use Firefox as my main browser and it's not a viable alternative to Chrome if you have the very common usage pattern of keeping tens of tabs open.
tombert
I was using Firefox exclusively for years, but when I sold my Macbook and bought a Thinkpad and installed Linux on it, I grew pretty annoyed by Firefox.
Specifically, I couldn't view my 360 videos or photos on Google Images or Immich at anywhere near acceptable performance. The videos, recorded at 30fps, would get maybe 5fps. This was weird, because I have a fairly beefy laptop, it should be able to handle these videos just fine (especially since my iPhone handled it just fine).
After a bit of debugging, it appears that there's a bug in how it's writing for the shader cache, and as such there was no hardware acceleration. I found a bug filed about my issue [1], and I didn't really feel like trying to fix it, because I didn't want to mess with Mesa drivers. I just installed Chromium and that's what I'm using right now, and it worked with my 360 videos and photos absolutely fine.
I want Firefox to succeed, but that really left a bad taste in my mouth; it's not like it's weird to want my browser to be hardware accelerated.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1921742 Looks like it might be fixed now, or at least they figured out it was an issue with Mesa
dewey
I use Firefox as my main browser and having "tens of tabs open" is something I do and there's zero issues with that.
nightpool
How big is your monitor? I can only see about 10-15 tabs on my 4k monitor before Firefox starts scrolling them off the screen. I regularly have 2-3x that on Chrome before tabs stop showing up.
Spivak
I regularly have 200+ tabs open in FF, no idea what the parent is talking about.
Right now I'm at 181 and it's still buttery smooth.
kingnothing
Firefox works great with dozens of open tabs. The only thing Chrome has going for it is tab groups. Firefox has Tab Style Tree, which is a decent substitute.
robin_reala
Tab groups landed in Firefox Nightly 3 months ago,[1] I‘d expect them pretty soon in the release version.
porker
751 tabs open right now and growing.
Firefox copes fine. Me? Not so much (:
Coffeewine
Surely this is hyperbole? I usually have hundreds of tabs open on firefox.
Ringz
I have no problem with hundreds of tabs on Firefox.
NoMoreNicksLeft
There is a "tab count" extension. Install it only if you want to learn some awful truths about yourself.
lawn
I constantly have way more than that open. On mobile it's also over 100 tabs.
null
dgacmu
I've been running firefox on my laptop for the last year, with Chrome on my desktop, as a way to head-to-head them. For folks contemplating the switch, it hasn't been bad at all. Some better, some worse, but overall I rarely notice major differences except for a very small handful of sites that won't work with FF.
And I still have all of my uBlock origin happiness. :)
knight_47
My biggest complaints with my switch is 1) no Chromecast functionality on Youtube and many other supported video platforms, 2) Very minimal page/text translation services (Arabic is missing), and 3) no search or translate from image (google lens) which I have gotten pretty used to. Oh and also, seeking videos is weird on FF, the mouse goes way past the scrubber when fast-forwarding or rewinding, just seems weird..
AstralSerenity
Add-on replacements: - Linguist for translations. - Search by Image for reverse image search (there are others that just use Google Lens directly, but I use this one).
Cast is a bit more cumbersome. There is fx_cast on GitHub, but it requires a companion app. Firefox seems to want to add cast based on a flag you used to be able to enable, but I'm guessing there are some restrictions from Google's end they ran into.
theteapot
What sites don't work with FF?
dgacmu
I can't login to the work-paid-for version of Microsoft Copilot with Firefox, for some reason. I've had one or two others - I think they were internal CMU website tools. And even more niche: My kids took a ski lesson last year at Snowbird and the website with their report card rejected anything that didn't identify as Chrome. It _worked_ with mobile FF, but it popped up a "YOU SHOULD USE CHROME" banner and wouldn't let me past.
So, small stuff. Maybe Copilot isn't working because of ublock, though.
DoingIsLearning
You can also disable ublock on specific 'trusted' domains.
kingnothing
I've been daily driving Firefox for several years. Everything I use on a daily basis works fine on FF, but every now and then you come across some random site that doesn't load or loads poorly.
venusenvy47
Expedia doesn't render properly in Firefox - some of the sections are missing, but it's not immediately obvious what is missing. It took me a while to figure out why my wife kept having problems with that site, and I had to move her to Chrome to allow her to use it.
I continue to use Firefox because I know when to suspect a website problem might be the browser, but she doesn't have the ability to analyze a situation like this. I have this conundrum with other family members that I support. I want them to use Firefox, but I hate to have them run into an issue because of the browser I recommended.
weberer
The Teams web app doesn't work (I refuse to install the OS level app)
fragmede
seems like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
rtgdfm420
[dead]
mrec
Amazon properties (the storefront, Prime) have been quite flaky for a long time now, but that may just be me.
paulddraper
Certainly no major site.
perihelions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43262531 ("uBlock Origin forcefully disabled by Chrome", 5 days ago, 204 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43099417 ("uBlock Origin Has Been Disabled", 19 days ago, 40 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299886 ("The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome", 2 days ago, 663 comments)
freedomben
I blacklisted Chrome in dnf (the Fedora system update manager) once we hit near the last version to allow manifest v2, but apparently it wasn't enough. They reached in to my system and deactivated/deleted my manifest v2 extensions anyway regardless, even though my version still "supports" them. I'm quite displeased to say the least. Ultimately it's probably for the best though as now my "slow fade" plan has to be accelerated. Time to rip the bandaid off.
tomrod
Proton and Kagi have most of the services I've personally needed to de-Google. GCP is nicer than AWS, so will probably keep that around as a paying customer. Only thing I haven't found a great replacement yet for Google Docs (MS office is abysmal, but also lack of testing of alternatives so far :) ).
haswell
After 10+ years as a primary browser, I've been 100% off of Chrome for about 1.5 years now as part of a broader effort to de-Google my life, and things have been going well.
It's interesting to notice how much my internal feelings have shifted over the years. There have been a few rare occasions where I had to use a Chromium-based browser, and I felt the same "ick" I used to feel when forced to use Internet Explorer for some reason.
Come to the Firefox (and variant) side. The water is warm.
alluro2
You've voiced my sentiment exactly. I really wish Firefox was more at the forefront of innovation and development, and there's a lot to criticise Mozilla for, but I wouldn't change it back for Chromium for anything.
I have a completely custom minimal layout with address bar and tabs at the bottom, all the extensions I need, and I don't notice the performance or compatibility differences almost ever, with few rare exceptions. I feel it much more as "mine", and it's a joy to use.
BuckRogers
>The water is warm.
Mostly because they're peeing in the pool. Mozilla deleted their promise to never sell its users' personal data.
haswell
This is why I mentioned (and variants). While I’m unhappy with the Mozilla situation, Firefox is still a significantly better option than Chrome at this point, and the various forks address any concerns with their privacy policy.
One can even self-host their own sync server if so inclined.
jmuguy
Related if anyone is switching over. I like to run Firefox Developer Edition[0] as my "work" browser, with work related bookmarks, etc. and then regular Firefox for nonwork. This makes it really easy to keep the two separate. I know there's a lot of ways to segment within the same browser but this works well for me.
noman-land
FYI developer edition has a ton of additional data collection that I don't believe can be disabled, if that matters to you.
eNV25
Isn't Developer Edition just a rebranded Firefox Beta that uses a different profile by default?
bangaladore
Chromium has a concept of "user data directories" which in theory keep all data isolated to a single folder. You can use a launch parameter to specify what the user data directory you want to use is (so a shortcut). I'm pretty sure Firefox must have an equivalent.
dpz
You can also just use Firefox containers. Or if you don't want to send all the data with dev use a fork of firefox
regularjack
Containers are firefox's killer feature, highly encourage you to try them. I wish Mozilla would invest more in developing that feature.
imroot
I've eliminated Chrome from my personal systems when uBO stopped working. Blocking v2 manifests also broke a few extensions that were being developed for my day job: they've spent the last few weeks working on Firefox extensions and are almost at the point where they're getting ready to wipe Chrome from our corporate machines.
caminante
Try uBO Lite [0]
[0] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit...
I migrated off Chrome as soon as this BS story about improving privacy, a joke coming from Google. Then the excuse was "well it improves performance", which they could easily do by marking extensions as low performance.
If Google wanted to improve this they have an entire search engine where they could re-rank sites based on privacy and performance.
It was never about improving peoples web experience.