Google relents slightly in ad-blocker crackdown – for paid-up enterprise Chrome users, everyone else not so much

Freeloaders will be limited to less capable content filtering


Google Chrome users will continue to have access to the full content blocking power of the webRequest API in their browser extensions, but only if they're paying enterprise customers.

Everyone else will have to settle for extensions that use the neutered declarativeNetRequest API, which is being developed as part of a pending change to the way Chrome Extensions work. And chances are Chrome users will have fewer extensions to choose from because some developers won't be able to rework their extensions so they function under the new regime, or won't want to do so.

Behind the scenes

Manifest files provide a way for developers to declare that their apps will use specific resources, such as files and APIs. Google has revised its Chrome extension manifest specification over the years to accommodate changes in Chrome features and capabilities. Manifest v1 was phased out in January 2014. Manifest v2, the current version, is headed for a similar fate, once Manifest v3 gels later this year.

The v3 draft, announced last October and still in flux, alarmed developers of Chrome extensions earlier this year when people began to understand that Google's plan to deprecate the webRequest API and other proposed changes would break content and ad blockers, privacy extensions, and other browser add-ons that rely on intercepting content before it gets displayed in the browser.

In response to concerns raised last month by the developers of the EFF's Privacy Badger extension, Simeon Vincent, developer advocate for Chrome extensions at Google, last week published an update on the company's Manifest v3 plan.

Good news! Sort of

There's some good news: Various APIs will get more support for dynamic modification of web requests, request headers and URL parameters. This will make content blocking a bit less bad than the initial Manifest v3 draft suggested. But the basic problem remains: Manifest v3 will make extensions less effective at blocking unwanted content.

In his update, Vincent clarified that the original flavor of webRequest isn't going away for paying customers and that the API will continue to exist for the masses in amputated form.

"Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments)," he wrote.

Vincent said appropriately permissioned extensions will still be able to observe network requests using the webRequest API, which he insisted is "foundational for extensions that modify their behavior based on the patterns they observe at runtime."

But developer Raymond Hill, who created popular content control extension uBlock Origin, contends blocking capabilities matter more than observing. Losing the ability to block content with the webRequest API is his main concern.

"This breaks uBlock Origin and uMatrix, [which] are incompatible with the basic matching algorithm [Google] picked, ostensibly designed to enforce EasyList-like filter lists," he explained in an email to The Register. "A blocking webRequest API allows open-ended content blocker designs, not restricted to a specific design and limits dictated by the same company which states that content blockers are a threat to its business."

badger

Hands off Brock! EFF pleads with Google not to kill its Privacy Badger with its Manifest destiny

READ MORE

Google did not respond to a request for comment. The ad biz previously said its aim with Manifest v3 is "to create stronger security, privacy, and performance guarantees."

But Hill, in a note posted over the weekend to GitHub, observes that performance problems arise more from bloated web pages stuffed with tracking code than from extensions intercepting and processing content. And he argues that if the blocking nature of the webRequest API really represents a performance concern, Google could just adopt Firefox's approach which uses a technique called Promises to return a non-blocking/asynchronous response.

Hill says he believes Google's technical changes represent an attempt to deal with the revenue threat posed by ad blocking. He points to a 2018 10-K financial filing by the company as evidence of its concern:

Technologies have been developed to make customizable ads more difficult or to block the display of ads altogether and some providers of online services have integrated technologies that could potentially impair the core functionality of third-party digital advertising. Most of our Google revenues are derived from fees paid to us in connection with the display of ads online. As a result, such technologies and tools could adversely affect our operating results.

Hill said that the blocking ability of the webRequest API disempowered Google by putting control of content blocking in the hands of developers. With Chrome now the dominant browser, he contends, the company has a chance to re-insert itself into the mix.

"The deprecation of the blocking ability of the webRequest API is to gain back this control, and to further now instrument and report how web pages are filtered since now the exact filters which are applied to web page is information which will be collectable by Google Chrome," he said.

In his email to The Register, Hill said, "Google's primary business is incompatible with unimpeded content blocking. Now that Google Chrome product has achieve high market share, the content blocking concerns as stated in its 10-K filing are being tackled." ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading
  • Utility biz Delta-Montrose Electric Association loses billing capability and two decades of records after cyber attack

    All together now - R, A, N, S, O...

    A US utility company based in Colorado was hit by a ransomware attack in November that wiped out two decades' worth of records and knocked out billing systems that won't be restored until next week at the earliest.

    The attack was detailed by the Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) in a post on its website explaining that current customers won't be penalised for being unable to pay their bills because of the incident.

    "We are a victim of a malicious cyber security attack. In the middle of an investigation, that is as far as I’m willing to go," DMEA chief exec Alyssa Clemsen Roberts told a public board meeting, as reported by a local paper.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021