The end of uBlock Origin for Google Chrome?

Martin Brinkmann
Oct 12, 2019
Updated • Oct 15, 2019
Google Chrome, Google Chrome extensions

There has been lots of talk about Google's proposed changes to the Chrome web browser's extensions system and how these changes would affect content blockers and other extensions.

The new manifest file for Chrome extensions could end extensions like uBlock Origin for the web browser. Google changed some parameters after it faced heavy user and developer criticism but did not revert the course completely.

Update: uBlock Origin Dev is now available again on the Chrome Web Store.

Raymond Hill (gorhill), the developer of uBlock Origin revealed recently that Google rejected a new developer version of the extension. Developers upload new extension versions to the Chrome Web Store to replace existing versions; Google runs automated scans of these tools and may also look at the uploaded extensions manually before allowing or rejecting them.

via Raymond Hill / GitHub

In an email to the developer, Google stated that the extension violated one of the Chrome Store's policies that prohibits the bundling of unrelated functionality in extensions.

The email provides no information on the actual violation other than that, a practice that Google has been criticized for in the past.

Hill, a long-time developer, had no illusions that Google would provide actionable information about the rejection.

No point speculating one way or another, my experience with the CWS in the past is that we will never know why it was labelled "REJECTED", they never disclose the exact "why".

The developer version of the extension is used by fewer users than the stable version which means that the rejection does not affect the bulk of users of the extension yet. The main issue with the rejection is that the next stable version of the extension will be more or less identical to the rejected developer version.

While there is still the chance that it will go through, it is more likely that it too will be rejected by Google and that this could effectively end uBlock Origin for Google Chrome.

Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0.

Hill recommends that users find another browser that continues to support uBlock Origin if they want to continue using the extension.

The latest version of the extension is available for many major browsers including Mozilla Firefox and other Chromium-based web browsers.

Closing Words

It is impossible to know why the extension was rejected from the Chrome Web Store unless Google would provide further information on the issue. While it is certainly possible that the stable extension update would be allowed by Google, it seems more likely that it will be rejected as well by the company.

Now You: What is your take on the development?

Article Name
The end of uBlock Origin for Google Chrome?
Raymond Hill (gorhill), the developer of uBlock Origin revealed recently that Google rejected a new developer version of the extension
Ghacks Technology News

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. Anoir Ben Ben Tanfous said on March 20, 2023 at 2:39 pm

    I don’t understand why nobody here is discussing the idea to load the extension as unpacked or install the crx from GitHub by whitelisting it… it works the same and get auto-updates too, so gorhill will just have to release the extension to GitHub then you download it from there drag and drop it on extensions tab after applying to windows registry its id and that’s it.

  2. aasdf said on December 10, 2019 at 4:57 am

    People whining about privacy and ads on google chrome, certified spyware. Lolz

  3. Anonymous said on November 4, 2019 at 1:24 am

    Tom Hawack, I find your line of reasoning hard to follow – I’m not entirely sure what exactly it is you’re saying as I find your opinions incoherent and nebulous.

    Are you claiming that I’m setting myself up as a guru? Seems an odd choice of word.

    As for Doubleclick, it doesn’t respect user privacy, so I’d say I’m prefectly entitled to express my opinion that it should be removed from this page (and every page on the web). Any tracking mechanism that ignores Do Not Track, not just once but three times, has no legitimacy.

  4. Anonymous said on November 3, 2019 at 2:21 am

    I’ve used Firefox and uBlock Origin for years. And it should be said that uBlock Origin (not to be confused with uBlock) is not just an adblocker, it does far more than just that. It DOES block ads (including malicious ones), but it also blocks trackers and malicious sites out of the box, as well as having many other advanced features. In its basic setup it will provide good protection to even non-tech-savvy users without breaking sites, but if someone wants to read up on how it works in detail at then it provides many useful features to make you even safer online (e.g. blocking third-party frames will block a lot of malware). The more advanced features are a bit of a steep learning curve, but they’re well worth learning about.

    It’s pretty obvious why Google would want to do away with ad blockers, but not only are ads an annoyance, malicious ads are a security risk, so I view a strict adblocker an essential part of a layered defensive setup. (And talking about annoyances, I also use the add-on “I don’t care about cookies” so I’m not pointlessly and idiotically told by every other site that it uses cookies.)

    I’m not averse to ads in principle, people need to make money after all, but things have got way out of hand and as far as I’m concerned the ad industry is completely out of control and has shown itself to be totally unwilling to self-regulate. I also have a low opinion of any website that attempts to load content that has nothing to do with the functioning of the site. So Disqus for comments I can understand for example, but tracking cookies, other types of tracker, analytics and fingerprinting without user knowledge or consent I totally disagree with. As for sites trying to load requests for totally unrelated sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Amazon ads, anything Google related, etc, that’s just completely messed up imo — I block all that stuff globally using uBlock Origin and only allow it on sites where I need it (e.g. Google resources are only permitted on Google search, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, etc, they’re blocked everywhere else).

    This page uses Doubleclick, which doesn’t respect user privacy, and should be removed from this page imo. How do I know it doesn’t respect user privacy? Because I use Privacy Badger to mop up any trackers that uBlock Origin misses. It sends a “Do Not Track” signal (which many sites ignore) and if a site is caught ignoring “Do Not Track” 3 times then Privacy Badger blocks it. It’s currently blocking
    DoubleClick (owned by Google) doesn’t honour “Do Not Track” and therefore is scum, as is any other tracking mechanism that ignores “Do Not Track”.

    If ads were static text or static images, non-intrusive, clearly labelled as ads, didn’t track users, were simple hyperlinks and didn’t present a security risk, I could live with them, but that’s not the current state of affairs at all and so I’ll continue to use uBlock Origin. If Google goes the whole hog and removes ALL adblockers from the Chrome Web Store, then it will be doing its Chrome users a massive disservice. Chrome has a sandbox that may or may not protect its users from malicious ads and redirects to malicious sites. It would be far better however never to see malicious ads in the first place.

    1. Tom Hawack said on November 3, 2019 at 12:32 pm

      @Anonymous, I basically agree with all of your comment but I’d like to add this:

      One’s attitude in the face of advertisement, malvertisement, trackers can be social or personal, so to say. I believe in liberty and responsibility as well as in deployment of life accordingly : what I mean by this is that those who get trapped because of either ignorance or disinterest balance those who fight and struggle for their privacy : let it be. This equilibrium allows everyone to live, to live free : I wish not and dislike gurus who care for others who themselves don’t care.

      This concerns neither children nor security, only mature minds facing their privacy, be it in life or on the Net.

      There has been a time in my younger years when I believed it was my responsibility to take care of those who seemed irresponsible, to later discover that it wasn’t helping them, essentially because they didn’t care. If anyone asks for help then help, otherwise leave him/her alone. I don’t believe in whatever proselytism, be it social, political (not to mention religious).

      When you write that Doubleclick, which doesn’t respect user privacy, should be removed, I’m not sure it’s really any of my business to mention it; my business it to circumvent it, period. If someone asks me “hey, i’m fed up with trackers, please help me” then I’ll embark in his worries, not otherwise.

      I’d be cynical if I mentioned that those who don’t care for their privacy help the show to go on, sites to live (or survive) with advertisement. Too bad for them, good for us who do care. I don’t have the authority to guide people and the world. Not to mention that interfering in other people’s life is arguable for the least. I remember having written on a forum somewhere that the only guru’s speech I’d accept would be one stating “I’m not telling you where the truth is, I’m not a guide, I’m only asking all of us to exercise awareness in order to find their truth lucidly” to what someone answered “And what if I want to be manipulated, in what is it anyone’s concern?” : so you see, you don’t make people’s happiness, it’s up to each of us to decide even if happiness is an aim, even if intellectual liberty is a mean”

      This said, for myself, what I’ll never accept is not privacy invasion (in that it sustains business) but sites leaving no choice : “accept or site is closed for you” in which case I move my way. Maybe can I add that there is a quasi subliminal tradition in American civilization which is to leave a slight, quasi imperceptible sometimes opening offered to those who face what could be perceived as a totalitarian power of business, in order for them to circumvent “the trap”. I’ve often noticed this that I explain as a mysterious will to combine the force of the strong with the will and wisdom of the smart. What happens for those who are neither smart nor willing? They help the business carry on, that’s all. But sites who don’t offer the slightest anti-privacy workaround are definitely totalitarian, and this hurts a lot the American tradition of liberty.

  5. Mihai said on October 28, 2019 at 11:50 pm

    Google Chrome still exists and it has users ? I moved years ago from Chrome to Firefox, with uBlock Origin installed, and I am very pleased with Firefox.

  6. Sol Shine said on October 17, 2019 at 2:46 am

    Maybe Raymond Hill can publish his extension as a crx file on github.
    I download extensions from the Google store as crx file and then import them into Chromium ungoogled which has no support for the Google Store as all the Google services api’s has been removed to stop the spying.
    The problem remains that in time Google will change Chromium so much that uBLock Origin will no longer work properly. That code change will also be in Chromium ungoogled, so it will not work there either.

    The long term solution is to move to Firefox, if it is still around and if it does not do the same as Google as Firefox behavior has been bad lately.

    The last resort is to use a host file or Privoxy or pi-hole to block ads in combination with extensions like uMatrix that let you block javascript and other resources from third party sites.

    Google can do what they want to block adblockers, but as malware keeps spreading via ads and privacy problems keeps arising from tracking people, there will always be people who will use various ways (host file, privoxy, javascript blockers, Firefox successor) to block ads for themselves and the people in their social network.

    1. zyme said on October 29, 2019 at 5:57 am

      “Maybe Raymond Hill can publish his extension as a crx file on github.”

      –My first thought exactly, I do this all the time with extensions removed from the chrome store that don’t have an alternative;

      **Although** Chrome has a habit of blocking them with some semi-random error message for (either no real reason or because the browsers functionality could in some cases have changed in some way to be incompatible) — However (Strangely?) they always seem to work perfectly (without errors which I set to collect out of curiosity) when I extract them (just rename .crx to .zip usually works if your unfamiliar) and choose “Load unpacked” ( Shows up when you enable Developer mode on chrome://extensions )…

  7. beergas said on October 15, 2019 at 4:01 pm
    Reply for search and/or both privacy oriented

  8. JaySee said on October 14, 2019 at 1:47 pm

    This is great news! Hopefully users get off Chromium browsers and switch to Mozilla-based browsers.

    1. greg said on October 15, 2019 at 3:30 am


      I would love to return to Mozilla Firefox, but it is a piece of CRAP. There is a reason why everybody has dumped Firefox. I used Firefox exclusively from v2.0 to whatever was out in 2015. I finally gave up in 2015 on Mozilla. One example of why I gave up on Firefox: there is STILL a useless titlebar in Linux implementations of Firefox. It’s simply inexcusable. Here’s just some of the use-critical bugs that drove me away from Firefox and these bugs are STILL open in Firefox, note a lot of these bugs have been open for YEARS, one for 18 years. Chrome has none of these bugs.

      1. Anonymous said on October 15, 2019 at 11:44 am

        You can remove title bar,quite easily.I’ve done this in linux mint.I guess you couldn’t figure it out.

      2. Jojo said on October 15, 2019 at 8:00 am

        Browser titlebar is not useless. I like to see the title of the page I am on. I also have a date and clock running in the titlebar.

        And I hate Chrome taking the titlebar over to stick their tabs on it.

    2. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 3:31 pm

      This time public outcry pushed Google to unblock ublock origin, so this isn’t going to push users to Firefox. But to raise the selling price of their userbase to their real customers, Mozilla has not yet communicated publicly on how far they intend to follow the webextension manifest v3 that would kick ublock origin out if fully complied with. Wait and see.

  9. Kubrick said on October 14, 2019 at 12:22 pm

    Just out of interest what were chrome users doing prior to the inception of ublock origin.?..

    1. JohnWold said on October 14, 2019 at 4:27 pm

      Seeing ads.

  10. Wayfarer said on October 14, 2019 at 10:44 am

    Unlock gone?
    Google browser gone!

  11. bfoos said on October 13, 2019 at 10:03 pm

    I went back to my first wife, Firefox months ago when this issue was first reported on. Thankfully, she welcomed me back with open arms. I don’t remember why I left her all those years ago for Chrome, but I’m very happy she (Firefox) was still there for me.

  12. ipnonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    Should this happen..
    …. ‘where’ will google be preventing Ublock?

    ..from being available in the store or
    ..will Ublock the extension be prevented from installing entirely?

  13. Pierre said on October 13, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    Is it impossible to make Ublock Origin for Chrome work with new Chromium/Google specifications (the new API) ?
    Otherwise there are other ad blockers, The very popular Adblock, for instance (not so good as Ublock Origin, that’s right .
    When will the evolution be effective ?

  14. JohanB. said on October 13, 2019 at 4:36 pm

    I stopped using Chrome after the new look wich I absolutely don’t like, but no adblocker is even more reason to never use it again. But Firefox has been my browser of choice for years anway.

  15. fatty said on October 13, 2019 at 4:31 pm

    Just another reason to keep in mind when I consider moving to Firefox again rather than dealing with it and maybe grabbing an old raspberrypi installing on it to handle ad blocking.
    Currently I use google services and stuff for everything and I’m kinda thing that my not be the best way to go.
    Blame the zero talent cut and paste web developers for putting stupid ad scripts on there websites I guess.
    Use links web browser.

  16. chesscanoe said on October 13, 2019 at 3:15 pm

    For now, why not turn off uBlock Origin 1.22.4 and install its development version from the Chrome Web store? Seems to work for me.

  17. Elsee Sea said on October 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm

    I’ve been using Ghostery for years, & it works well.

    Hope it doesn’t get rejected by Google next time.

    I also use Disable HTML5 Autoplay for stopping videos from automatically playing.

    1. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 12:33 am

      Ghostery is Cliqz’s property. Avoid.

  18. Harry the D. said on October 13, 2019 at 2:13 pm

    I use Edge Dev Chromium when using Windows and Chromium when in Ubuntu, both of which support Ublock Origin. The reason I use Chromium-based browsers is that I rely heavily on the built-in print-to-PDF function they contain. Firefox has no such feature without installing an extension.

    1. John said on October 14, 2019 at 8:34 am

      You can set print to PDF as your default printer system wide on Windows 10 and, when you hit print, you wind up with a PDF file saved to your hard drive instead of something printing off a printer in dead tree format (You can manually switch back and forth between this and a mechanical printer via a dropdown menu in the box that pops up confirming a few things between selecting print and the click that actually prints, if so desired). This is entirely compatible with Firefox- no extension needed. I use it myself (In fact, I *only* use Print to PDF as I have no traditional printer). It works great.

      No browser extension is required for the above on Windows 10 (And this should work with everything you use that has a print function- not just your web browser).

      I am not sure whether Ubuntu has a similar feature or not. If not, you might need an extension. And, hey, if having Print to PDF *and* not installing an extension to Print to PDF are both requirements to you that outweigh having the best content blocker out there, and one of your operating systems doesn’t have the feature built in, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you have the freedom to choose even if some folks (Myself included) don’t really understand why you’d make that particular choice.

      It looks like for now you can still use UBO with Chromium and beta-Edge anyway with the issue that sparked this article seemingly resolved. However, it’s probably only a matter of time before you can’t- Google keeps pushing this in various different guises. They backoff when there is backlash, but that won’t last forever.

      My concern is that there may be no Firefox or just a Chromium/Blink based Firefox left by the time Google turns the screws. Firefox is the last major browser left that isn’t somehow related to Chromium and/or Blink and its marketshare is getting pretty low. People who plan to wait to switch may want to consider that there may be nothing left to switch to by the time this happens for real, if Firefox isn’t supported now or soonish.

    2. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 10:28 pm

      If you want to use Edge Dev Chromium or Chromium or whatever Chromium-based browser with uBlock Origin, Google has to accept uBlock Origin for its webstore.

      So if Google rejects or sabotages uBlock Origin then there is only one way to go: Firefox.
      Every other browser (based on Chromium) will be impossible to use with uBlock Origin.

      1. Yuliya said on October 14, 2019 at 11:25 am

        >Chromium-based browser with uBlock Origin, Google has to accept uBlock Origin for its webstore
        >Every other browser (based on Chromium) will be impossible to use with uBlock Origin
        Uhm, what are you talking about?

  19. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    This seems to be something that happens often, Google banning software without giving a reason, and making it very hard to talk to a human being to have more information on how to solve the problem. If it’s not intentional, it’s still a serious power abuse. But was is not intentional ?

    If it’s automated, it’s still not obvious that it was not intentional. For example I could design new automated rules that only allow extensions to do ad network request filtering if the extension does not also, let’s say, prevent WebRTC IP address leaks. I could then imply in vague terms that I banned UBO because it “bundles unrelated functionalities” like malware extensions do. UBO would be banned and as a bonus it would have to deal with the defamation. They already know that UBO is going to leave the store by itself when they enforce manifest v3. It would look better for them if it leaves the store before that because it’s falsely accused of being malicious, or because the author has been discouraged to fight the false positive machine (and we were very close to that point this time).

    I could even design this “no bundle” rule not even with the excuse to fight malicious behavior, but just with the excuse that the store would be better organized like this, one extension for one function. And this would allow me to prevent very popular and trusted extensions like UBO to add defensive features in the future that are a little away from its core functions. The extension developers would be forced to add these protections in other new extensions that would take lots of time to be known and installed massively, if ever.

  20. Kubrick said on October 13, 2019 at 12:08 pm

    aha after all the derogatory comments aimed at firefox forks like palemoon and waterfox and then this happens.Not an issue with the browsers i use which are FF,palemoon and seamonkey is installed.
    I guess the legacy versions will get more attention now.!.Funny how things come around and bite you on the butt.

  21. Benjamin said on October 13, 2019 at 9:35 am

    If one can not convince one starts to fight by law. It’s possible variations, interpretations are without any limit, the financial and other costs are unlimited as well eating ressources.

    Corporations like Google are authoritarian and as far away from any democratic systematics and majority vote as possible. One should avoid them where ever possible. They lead us all into dystopia.

    They avoid paying taxes, they do not anything good for anyone except them selfs.

  22. name said on October 13, 2019 at 8:43 am

    People should use wildcard DNS servers like AcrylicDNS.
    instead of having to block milions of, you can block them all with >
    Its a light windows program and easy to use.(also get Acrylic DNS Proxy monitor for an interface)

  23. ULBoom said on October 13, 2019 at 3:38 am

    Since AdGuard seems to be bit misunderstood, there are browser add on and extension versions of it (free) and standalone programs that filter at the system level (not free but cheap.) Their standalones are OS specific; extensions, browser specific.

    Google can do whatever they want with their Chromia and ads, trackers, etc. can still be filtered at the system level. This works far better than a browser extension; ads other programs beside browsers display can be blocked, too.

    Brave uses a proxy to do the filtering that Chromia won’t allow, similar to how Adguard System works.

    Host filters block by domain names at the system level in the Windows hosts file, reassigns them a go nowhere IP. From my hosts file, a few blocked analytics domains:

    Filtering at the DNS level is similar, rather coarse; domains with some desirable parts and some bad ones can have all of them blocked. Blocking all of YouTube vs. junky channels may be overkill. Same with google. It’s possible at the DNS level (and in hosts file) to individually block URL’s but better for users to do so themselves with an extension, system level blocker, or their own custom rules.

    AdGuard offers DNS level filtering but doesn’t really recommend it because of its’ lack of granularity. The plus side is blocking is done upstream of users’ devices in servers not in their devices.

    Many different ways of doing similar things.

    Not sure but I’ll bet Googles new improved blocking philosophy is buried in the unchangeable portions of Chromium so going forward, blocking similar to today’s will have to be done outside the various Chromia.

    MS’s Chromedgium is gonna be a mess, especially if they update it, which they will do and it will break. Har!

    Block lists used in various software are easy to find and more or less, the same. Hosts lists, ditto. Get something that does what you need and works; doesn’t matter whose name is on it.

    I use a hosts file and AdGuard. I used AdBlock until it became a gigantic, sluggish monster; then AdGuard’s FF add on, then switched to their system level blocker when it became clear browsers would become less and less open.

    I use FF ESR and an old version of woolyss chromium that allows webRTC to be disabled.

    Maybe Raymond Hill will develop a system level version of uBlock Origin. People would gladly pay for that!

  24. Darren said on October 13, 2019 at 3:35 am

    I can’t believe people are suggesting others should switch to Opera.

  25. tasukun said on October 13, 2019 at 3:20 am

    Welp, time to get pihole or adguard if it comes down to it.

  26. Hugh said on October 13, 2019 at 2:09 am

    fyi it has already been reinstated already.


    seems like it was an error on behalf of the Chrome Web Store team which has now been rectified.

  27. spectator said on October 13, 2019 at 1:39 am

    @VioletMoon Wow… You comment above was one of stupidest I’ve read on the subject. You either have a reading comprehension problem or some cognitive issue. How can one seriously draw a conclusion of “may really have “malicious” code injected” or “[has] a way to collect user data or some such privacy violation” from the absolutely neutral “bundling of unrelated functionality” phrase (quoting Google)? The rest of your brainless rant and insinuations towards the widely well-respected developer is an utter BS, too.

    Stop spreading your FUD. You know nothing you’re talking about. The issue at hand has been successfully resolved already with the quick help from two Google employees: /u/pkasting and /u/dotproto (Simeon Vincent). Though, _nothing_ has been changed in the code of uBO to go through manual validation — it was just a case of automatic false positive and a communication problem.


  28. Anonee said on October 13, 2019 at 1:00 am

    Say sike right now.

    Anyway, that’s not a problem for me. If they won’t allow uBlock anymore on Chrome, then I’ll happily switch over to the new Edge on my Windows machines (still using Safari on my Mac, obviously)!

  29. Peterc said on October 12, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    “What is your take on the development?”

    It confirms my decision to use Google Chrome *only* for sites I *really* need or want to visit and that I can’t get to work properly in Pale Moon or, failing that, Firefox. (I’ve been … let’s say “unenthusiastic” … about Brave ever since I read that it undefeatably whitelists Facebook scripting. If that’s changed and anyone can prove it, I’m all ears.)

    I’m one of those people who disables ad-blocking on sites I find worth supporting, so — based on my limited technical knowledge — I find browser extensions more suitable than other, external ad-blocking solutions.

    1. Sebas said on October 14, 2019 at 12:29 pm

      About Brave: I use the Block Facebook extension:

      I don’t know how much use it is has but it blocks at least Whatsapp Web in Brave.

  30. Yuliya said on October 12, 2019 at 11:07 pm

    chrome://extensions/ > Load unpacked
    Done. The solution to all this drama 🤷🏼‍♀️ Extensions of not, and that includes uB0, nothing will ever make me to install malwarefox again on my PCs. It belongs in a VM, far away from the host OS, if I ever have to test anything for that 9% of constantly shrinking population. One it reaches below 5%, and by the looks of it it’ll be sooner than later, I’ll wipe the entire VM off my drive. Wasting expensive SSD space with it anyway.

    PS: Primarily you should rely on hosts filtering. Broeser adblockers should be a secondary mean of filtering, simply due to ease of updating and cosmetic filtering (which imo matters very little anyway). Realistically you’re not going to update your hosts file on a daily basis + flush the DNS cache, it’s just absurd imo; here is where browser adblockers come into play.

  31. SJ said on October 12, 2019 at 10:42 pm

    “Welcome home, welcome home. This way to de-briefing…”

  32. uBlock-user said on October 12, 2019 at 10:32 pm

    uBO dev build has been approved and the latest dev build is now available in CWS.

  33. Peter said on October 12, 2019 at 10:00 pm
  34. Mike Barlow said on October 12, 2019 at 9:58 pm

    Edge is becoming a Chromium based browser. Download Edge Insider Build. It’s in beta and I’m not sure when the final version will be released but it’s much like Chrome, and they have left options intact which Google has sworn to remove, such as Reopen closed tabs etc.

    It also has its own extensions store, and uBlock Origin is available. That’s most likely what I’m going to be using in the future, unless something changes.

    1. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 4:28 pm

      No, I don’t like Bing ads. There are better options than microcrap.

  35. allen said on October 12, 2019 at 9:41 pm

    If so, then this new “manifest policy” would be the end of my “association” with Google Chrome. Call it the last nail in the coffin created by Google policies.

  36. Alan Grossberg said on October 12, 2019 at 9:04 pm

    “It is impossible to know why the extension was rejected from the Chrome Web Store unless Google would provide further information on the issue.” Hmmm….let me take a wild guess: Could it possible have something to do with the fact that 85-90% of Google’s revenue comes from advertising?

  37. BM said on October 12, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    Is uMatrix also affected?

  38. VioletMoon said on October 12, 2019 at 6:10 pm

    Since we haven’t read the email from Google to the developer or his reply or any further correspondence in either direction, we really can’t make any sort of assessment or prediction because each side has a “perception” of the situation that only favors one side.

    “Google stated that the extension violated one of the Chrome Store’s policies that prohibits the bundling of unrelated functionality in extensions.”

    Google makes the above statement, and Raymond Hill would know EXACTLY what he changed in coding that is considered “prohibited bundling.” Honestly, Google only reveals to all users that the Development version contained code that is considered, perhaps, a way to collect user data or some such privacy violation.

    The following is a perfect example of propaganda on Hill’s part, a technique used to gain user support that will attempt to annihilate Google for such a REJECTION {some people can’t handle it}:

    “Hill recommends that users find another browser that continues to support uBlock Origin if they want to continue using the extension.”

    It reads like a sob story: “Poor me and poor you; it’s Google’s fault that I don’t know how I deliberately changed my code that included a prohibited snippet, and I don’t know how to fix it. Poor me . . . poor you. Google has screwed us again.”

    Let EFF check the code–or some other third party.

    Although I use uBlock, it’s not the only ad-blocker in the browser realm. I can easily remove uBlock and use AdGuard or Adblock if and when I am using Chrome, which I rarely use.

    Mozilla sort of did the same thing with the change in Extensions a few years ago. Most developers did whatever they could to keep up with evolution, and most extensions [or those that matter most] are still available.

    Any developer who refused to evolve [lazy, really doesn’t know or want to learn new techniques for coding extensions], was gladly moved aside and another developer created a superior product.

    Actually, Google could be doing users a favor: 1) Hill’s extension may really have “malicious” code injected in the extension; 2) The loss of uBlock opens the door of opportunity for other ad blocking extension to enter the vacuum {nature abhors a vacuum}; 3) Hill’s reluctance or inability to change the extension’s code to something that isn’t prohibited let’s users know important information about his character and his ethical code.

    Question never asked or answered: “Why is Hill changing the extension in the first place?” Because . . . he wants to evolve?

    Anyway, now that I know more about Hill, I may stop using the extension altogether or until Google gives him permission to list the extension with the changes in the Google extensions listing.

    1. Jamesf said on October 13, 2019 at 5:10 pm

      uBlock’s code is public. Saying “someone else should check this”, “what if there’s something bad”, “maybe it’s good it isn’t accepted” are weak arguments when it’s in plain sight and shown to be efficient.

    2. John said on October 13, 2019 at 7:59 am

      This attack on Mr. Hill comes across as disingenious and, in any event, makes reference in some places to facts not in evidence, and in other places is simply factually inaccurate based on publicly available documents.

      Github lists the actual code that was changed between the previous developer version and the rejected developer version. There is no evidence that Gorhill did anything in particular to trigger this and there certainly is evidence that there was nothing malcious in the update- its open-source software and all edits have been published!

      Gorhill has also made his correspodence with Google on this issue public, and he is basically getting form letters from a computer algorthym. At no point did a real human write him an email, or respond to his email, with an actual discussion of what their problem with his extension update is.

      That Gorhill has in the past mentioned that he won’t make major changes to neuter his extension in response to changes like Manifest v3 is a sign of character, but not in the way that you imply. Rather, its a sign of good character. Of course some effort should be made to accomodate reasonable small changes to browsers and extension formats (And he has done that already- UBO for Chrome does not have all the features it does in Firefox), but when something threatens to gut an extension, not going along with it can be a good thing. He has a brand and users who associate certain quality standards with UBO and isn’t going to let his extension’s functionality be gutted and continue on as a zombie extension. He’s willing to maintain his extension for browsers and AMOs that will let him write the extension he wants to write but won’t compromise quality to stay in a club.

      If Google makes a decision to ban important aspect of what UBO does, people may have to make a choice between continuing on with Chrome but switching to a blocker with less functionality, or switching to a different browser and continuing on with UBO. Firefox lists UBO as a featured extension and thus would seem to be the most UBO friendly browser at present. There are other browsers as well.

      My guess is that this weekend’s issue ultimately gets resolved, but the ad company (Google) that, especially when combined with all the downstream Blink/Chromium forks that use its code, updates, and extension store, has a monopoly over the browser market, which is a key ad-delivery system, is going to keep having clashes with the extensions that are the best at blocking their ads and profiling. We see already on Android that Chrome doesn’t support UBO *or any ad-blockers*, or extensions in general, because they feel their marketshare means they don’t have to (Though Firefox for Android does exist and allow extensions including UBO). I feel as though they only have extensions on PC because it was necessary to compete in a mature market with an already established Firefox that offered them. Now that they seem to winning on PC, Google is seeing how far they can pull back what they allow extensione to do without generating a large enough backlash to endanger their monopoly. Though Mozilla has made some missteps at times, they are the last major browser that simultaneously isn’t related to Chromium/Blink in some way and also offers robust extensions.

    3. awd said on October 13, 2019 at 7:50 am

      isn’t ublock origin open sourced? feel free to check the code.

    4. Peterc said on October 12, 2019 at 10:44 pm


      “Hill’s extension may really have “malicious” code injected in the extension ….”

      Given Raymond Hill’s long history of above-board behavior, and Google’s avowed intent to curtail ad-blocking functionality in Chrome, this strikes me as unlikely.

    5. Justin said on October 12, 2019 at 10:24 pm

      I understand your point of view, and you can’t be 100% sure, but this comes on top of news that Google is on the cusp of introducing major changes to the manifest file for the Chrome browser that will inhibit functionality of ad blockers in general. Google is abusing its monopolistic position, because they can, similar to the massive censoring, silencing and sanctions that is happening on YouTube. Adblockers don’t have a monopoly status. There are literally 100s of them as extensions for browsers, some more popular than others, and there are many more methods of blocking ads either as standalone software or even some hardware solutions.

      Google is not gonna get the “benefit of the doubt” on any of their moves. Google motto is “Don’t do evil, — on a small scale. Do evil on big scale.”

    6. notanon said on October 12, 2019 at 9:03 pm

      VioletMoon = Google Shill.

      Says Google is doing the users a favor by getting rid of the most effective method of ad blocking.

      Next blames gorhill (who he/she/bot) calls “Hill”.

      SMH, the ownership change is killing this site.

      1. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 1:19 pm

        “SMH, the ownership change is killing this site.”

        The site is not responsible for ignorant and shilling comments. And they were not less common before than now.

  39. Anon said on October 12, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    Already using Firefox and very happy with it. Realized a long while ago that Chrome is the new IE.

  40. ilev said on October 12, 2019 at 5:09 pm

    “Hill recommends that users find another browser that continues to support uBlock Origin..”

    No. Hill should publish the extension on Github, like others (bypass-paywall chrome…) do.

    1. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 5:37 pm

      But really, you shouldn’t be using Chrome unless you have no other option.

      1. John Navas said on October 12, 2019 at 6:36 pm

        With respect, that you don’t like Chrome doesn’t mean that others don’t have equally valid reasons for using it. “Different strokes …”

      2. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 12:37 pm

        @John Navas

        Many use the default no matter how bad it is, this is not an informed choice and thus not an equally valid reason. And “I don’t care about my privacy” is not an equally valid reason either for using a privacy invading product. Because it’s very often the result of users being manipulated by business to not understand the real cost that they are paying. You’re trying to make those who criticize surveillance capitalism look like the bad guys by implying they are just intolerant and not open-minded. This is manipulative.

        Now if you argued instead that competing browsers are hardly more private by default, maybe you could have a point. But I don’t think that it was your point.

  41. Mikhoul said on October 12, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    Also NANO ADBLOCKER UBO Fork) will continue to be available:

  42. Michel said on October 12, 2019 at 4:21 pm

    I think the developer is being disingenuous. He knows very well what changes he himself made to the extension, and its rejection is of course based on those changes.

    1. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 9:31 pm
    2. Tom Hawack said on October 12, 2019 at 5:15 pm

      Michel, I think you’ve got it wrong. It’s not *because* ‘uBlock Origin” increased its power but *although* it tried to comply to Google’s requirements. I don’t think the developer will accept the unacceptable hence Raymond Hill’s (gorhill) consideration “that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store.”. For sure Google would accept a ‘uBlock Origin’ as weak as ‘AdBlock Plus’ and others alike, but uBO is not a servant, but a master.

  43. bj said on October 12, 2019 at 4:17 pm

    Didn’t there used to be away to Subscribe without posting Comment?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on October 12, 2019 at 4:31 pm

      I had to remove it some time ago as it was causing all kinds of issues.

  44. Leo said on October 12, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    As an advertising company their expertise is supposed be in the study human behavior. They predict outcomes. Being business savvy they understood that It was their vast selection of extensions that gave them the competitive edge over other browsers. It was a brilliant lure. The users were doing exactly what they predicted.

    They accepted UbO knowing its objectives, however it was obvious that it could become a business liability. Maybe they were too giddy with success to acknowledge it. Users are actually very predictable so it boggles the mind that Chrome got this so wrong.

    Thank you Raymond Hill. I will leave Chrome and follow you wherever you go. Those other extensions that ban ads – believe me, they are next.

  45. Dilly Dilly said on October 12, 2019 at 3:54 pm

    Wonder why googly is so worried about uBlock, could be it does its job effectively. I’ve never used chrome for obvious reasons and I loath having to install it on peoples computers. The one good point was installing uBlock to put a leash on it. This also might be googly trying to rein in some of its anti tracking/spying features.

  46. pHROZEN gHOST said on October 12, 2019 at 3:54 pm

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Google blocks ALL ad blockers in time.

    In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also check to see if their ads (or those of their customers) display and, if not, throw up a 404 pnf.

    The web as dictated by Google.

    1. Fencepost said on October 12, 2019 at 5:01 pm

      Blocking ad blockers (without being blamed for doing so, antitrust don’t’cha know) is what the new manifest v3 is all about.

      They won’t be blocked, they’ll just be either incompatible or ineffective.

  47. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    We use AdFender.
    It resides on your computer and not as a browser ad-on.
    That allows it to service any browser that is open at any time.
    That totally works for us.

    1. Jojo said on October 12, 2019 at 8:12 pm

      $19.95/year required cost.

  48. cdr said on October 12, 2019 at 3:14 pm

    How about Comodo Dragon? It’s a Chromium derivative. That would be an easy transition.

    1. Jojo said on October 12, 2019 at 8:03 pm

      Comodo support generally sucks though (for everything).

  49. Jonh G. said on October 12, 2019 at 3:04 pm

    No way for me to Chrome without UBlock Origin. Moving to Firefox is quite easy nowadays. :(

  50. Ryan said on October 12, 2019 at 3:01 pm

    Just more reason I’m glad I dumped chrome over a year ago

  51. Chris said on October 12, 2019 at 3:01 pm

    Can uBlock Origin can only be installed from Chrome Store, so there is no way around the block?

    1. boris said on October 14, 2019 at 3:03 am

      I think new Chromium Microsoft Edge still have it in store. And Microsoft said that Edge will not follow Chrome orders.

  52. pndy said on October 12, 2019 at 2:46 pm

    I don’t think there’s much of other choice beside Firefox and ability to sideload extensions in other Chromium-based browsers (until that’s no longer possible). All remaining browsers beside Firefox either rely on CWS extensions or have built-in limited capability of blocking ads. Maybe it’s possible to include uBlock Origin as browser feature? That’d be some solution

    Also, I think the headline here feels bit too dramatic.

  53. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 2:12 pm

    Switched to Firefox a long time ago and don’t regret it.

    1. ThaCrip said on November 14, 2019 at 11:43 am

      Hell, I never considered Chrome a real competitor to Firefox in general as everything just runs all around smoother in Firefox (like with extensions) than Chrome and Firefox uses less RAM etc. Firefox has pretty much been my primary browser since basically before the initial Firefox v1.0 release in Nov 2004.

      but if they dump uBlock Origin that will confirm Chrome is crap as uBlock Origin is one of those ‘everyone should use it’ kind of extensions. like should be a default install for everyone.

  54. notanon said on October 12, 2019 at 1:52 pm


    The day uBlock Origin is rejected by the Chrome Store is the day I unistall Chrome FOREVER.

    Trident Edge will become my backup browser until it dies (after M$ replaces it with the Blink version, I’ll use the Dissenter brower as my backup browser).

  55. Joe Plumber said on October 12, 2019 at 1:52 pm

    Fortunately, it’s easy to switch to the likes of Firefox, Opera and Brave…

    Would be interested in a comparison test now they all increased their privacy efforts quite a bit

  56. Foul said on October 12, 2019 at 1:45 pm
    1. name said on October 13, 2019 at 8:41 am

      use AcrylicDNS locally. It can use wildcards and for example block entire

      1. qq said on October 31, 2019 at 3:48 am

        You can’t block third-party cookies in yandex mobile browser

  57. Foul said on October 12, 2019 at 1:42 pm

    Use Brave !

    1. holalon said on October 13, 2019 at 1:31 am

      use yandex! with built dns-change option and what most important, with dnscrypt support in default.

  58. Nebulus said on October 12, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    I use Chromium as a secondary browser only, so I am not affected by this. However, the situation is troubling, because Google is the company that sets all standards on the web (kind of like IE in the past), and without powerful competition in the browsers market, they might manage to deal a mortal blow to ad blockers.

  59. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 12:48 pm

    imagine still using Chrome in almost 2020

  60. Emil said on October 12, 2019 at 12:47 pm

    It’s the end of Chrome in my house if they go through with this. Unfortunately there is no way to stop them from doing it and the masses will by and large accept it.

  61. Jeff said on October 12, 2019 at 12:28 pm

    Thankfully we have Chromium-based browsers like Opera with integrated ad blocking as well as the trusty Mozilla Firefox.

  62. Nico said on October 12, 2019 at 12:05 pm

    I sometimes use Chromium or a fork of it, so for just in case, I downloaded the version which is still available now in the Chrome Web Store.
    Direct link:,crx3&prodversion=75.0&x=id%3Dcjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm%26installsource%3Dondemand%26uc
    I suppose that one will keep working for a while…

    1. Nico said on October 12, 2019 at 12:34 pm

      This link works for now, but if it stops working you may change the ‘prodversion’ part to e.g. 77.0

  63. Sophie said on October 12, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    I simply cannot understand why ANYONE is using Chrome, instead of Brave….Vivaldi, or a host of other options, Slimjet, Cent, Epic, …. etc etc

    Never mind the obvious reasons for saying that, it still looks like its stuck in the 1990s. I never touch it also on Android, and at least, to Google’s credit, they leave my default browser unchanged after an update, unlike Micro$crap.

    I can only conclude, respectfully, that the masses just take what they’re given.

    1. Decomposed said on October 13, 2019 at 1:53 am

      I use Chrome because it is the only browser that is fully supported by an application I love, the speech recognition package Dragon Naturally Speaking. Your statement that you can’t understand something like this speaks to your shortcomings, not mine. You should be embarrassed.

    2. John Navas said on October 12, 2019 at 6:26 pm

      Many people use Google Chrome because it is cross-platform, very secure, and much more than a browser; e.g., Google Password Manager. Regardless, you only shame yourself when you try to shame others for not sharing your priorities.

      1. ULBoom said on October 13, 2019 at 2:41 am

        @John Navas

        Gotta kinda read a post if a constructive reply is to be made vs. marketing sos and social media shame culture pablum.

        Absolutely true the mass of users just use what their devices have when new and really have no idea how to tweak settings intelligently or select 3rd party software. Why should they? Notifications are waiting (“somewhere beneath all the ads.”)

      2. anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 11:13 pm

        If you trust a browser to secure your passwords you are a fool.

      3. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 7:39 pm

        “Many people use Google Chrome because it is cross-platform, very secure, and much more than a browser”

        You should post an evidence of Google Chrome being secure. And your points of Chrome being cross-platform and much more than a browser can be applied to many other browsers.

  64. carlos said on October 12, 2019 at 11:46 am

    and there is no way to install it manually ?

    1. ilev said on October 12, 2019 at 5:13 pm

      Yes, you can sideload in developer mode.

  65. Andy said on October 12, 2019 at 11:43 am

    I’ve been running Firefox for quite a while now and only used chrome for YouTube and Twitch as its video player was more efficient. Guess I will put an end to that as well soon.

    1. MeH said on October 15, 2019 at 4:03 pm

      The very problem of Firefox is its awfully high RAM usage. I usually open around 20 tabs in Chrome while I’ve recently opened 50-60 tabs to work with on a regular basis, and there is no problem.
      But do you know what will happen if I open 20 tabs on Firefox?! My system will freeze or reboot itself because Firefox is terrible at managing memory.

      1. ThaCrip said on November 14, 2019 at 11:36 am

        @ MeH ; I think it’s just the opposite as a general rule… Chrome is a known RAM hog while Firefox has a better reputation for using less RAM than Chrome.

      2. owl said on October 17, 2019 at 2:23 am

        Vivaldi was worse than Brave and froze with 20 ± tabs.
        It was so serious that I had to “END TASK” Vivaldi in the task manager.
        The same is true for Iridium Browser, which is a common problem with “Chromium”.

        The Chromium browser is comfortable if degree it opens several tabs, but it is difficult to use other programs (LibreOffice and Mail client) at the same time.

      3. owl said on October 16, 2019 at 3:54 pm

        “Google Chrome” exploits available RAM to improve browser performance. This is at the expense of other programs.

      4. owl said on October 16, 2019 at 3:40 pm

        @MeH said on October 15, 2019 at 4:03 pm:👎

        When did that happen?
        Is it an event of Cretaceous? !

        I use Brave (stable, beta, dev), but I can only open around 30± at best. 50 is absolutely impossible.
        On the other hand, I also use Firefox (ESR, DeveloperEdition, Nightly), but it can open about 100 tabs without problems.
        In order to prefer browsing with a new tab, I use “Tree Style Tab” and “Auto Tab Discard”, and 50± tabs are open. 150 is all right.

        Comments should be based on facts!

  66. Sebas said on October 12, 2019 at 11:33 am

    Use Adguard.

    1. Mike M said on October 12, 2019 at 9:02 pm

      AdGuard is a Russian company, AdGaurd sends all DNS info back to Russian servers, considering their authoritarian control over their internet, no thanks

      1. Sebas said on October 14, 2019 at 12:20 pm

        I don’t think Putin is particularly interested in some obscure European internet user.

      2. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 3:18 pm

        “I don’t think Putin is particularly interested in some obscure European internet user.”

        I wouldn’t send my data to Putin or Trump just based on the assumption that they are not interested in it.

      3. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 12:06 pm

        @Mike M

        Isn’t Adguard legally based in Cyprus ? And none of their DNS servers are located in Russia: AdGuard DNS servers map

        However the actual server locations are not better (5 of them in USA for instance).

        But even if Adguard was really based in Russia, would you complain as much about all the software from US and similar places you probably use from companies that are actually known, not just suspected, to shit on you as their business model (on privacy, censorship, and so on…), and known, not just suspected, to collaborate closely with states that do mass surveillance ? Or is it just the usual western Pavlovian speech against anything russian ?

  67. Grey Fox said on October 12, 2019 at 11:24 am

    Well then, that’s the end of Chrome for me. Although it’s just one of the problems with this browser. It’s been leaking memory like crazy for some reason.

  68. John Smith said on October 12, 2019 at 10:13 am

    I ditched Chrome for Brave months ago. I hope they continue to make UBO for Chromium and just allow us to sideload it somehow. Or maybe Brave will add their own extension website.

    And to you guys suggesting hosts or DNS based filtering, it’s not the same thing, uBlock Origin does so much more than that.

    1. h3ck23 said on October 12, 2019 at 3:00 pm

      Can you please epand on “hosts or DNS based filtering” ?

      1. anon said on October 13, 2019 at 7:36 am
  69. Neko said on October 12, 2019 at 10:06 am

    Then that’s the end of chrome for me!

  70. Telo said on October 12, 2019 at 10:05 am

    no problem most of us will use (Hosts File) to block is a much better effective way to block ads at the server level.

    1. h3ck23 said on October 12, 2019 at 2:57 pm

      How? Can you please expand on this?

    2. Tom Hawack said on October 12, 2019 at 1:09 pm

      @Telo, ‘uBlock Origin’ does much more than only blocking, in particular it allows blocking connections to 3rd-party sites which need not to be connected, be they healthy and then for speed reasons, be they malicious and then for privacy and speed reasons. Some sites establish dozens of connections to 3rd-party sites, this is the basis of cross-site tracking.

      Concerning ‘uBlock Origin’ in the face of Google Chrome, as Jojo above, if I’m surprised it’s only that Google waited so long to express its refusal of true ad-blocking, which is maybe relevant of the fabulous increase of users fed up with ads to the point of reacting : ad-blocking is no longer the phantasm of a few techies but is spreading wild.

    3. Jeff said on October 12, 2019 at 12:27 pm

      It can’t block ad placeholders though making the web page look broken/ugly. But it’s better than being served ads.

    4. Sophie said on October 12, 2019 at 12:04 pm

      Hosts, yes….but not if you switch to DoH. Then hosts is ignored.

      1. Jonas said on October 14, 2019 at 3:05 am

        “Hosts, yes….but not if you switch to DoH. Then hosts is ignored.”

        People have said this here before, but is it really true? Maybe on Windows… even there can somebody confirm this? Because on my Mac it’s _not_ true.

        The reason I say this:
        In Firefox Preferences, under Network Settings, I have “Enable DNS over HTTPS” checked, along with the default in the popup menu, “Use Provider / Cloudflare (Default)”. (That’s in addition to having as my preferred DNS provider at the MacOS system level.)

        But I also have a custom hosts file, and I know for a fact it IS working. How I know this isn’t even related to blocking anything: when I set up my local web-development server (Apache), for multiple websites that I work on, I used a somewhat unusual manual technique. (Not the Apache included with the Mac; I installed another one separately.) It took me quite a lot of time to figure out, but I learned a lot of interesting things in the process. My setup requires custom “virtual server” entries in Apache’s main configuration file (httpd.conf) as well as a bunch of custom entries in my hosts file.

        And the local Apache server _does_ work; I use it every day. So on my Mac, at least… Firefox’s DoH clearly does _not_ disable my hosts file.

        Any further insight into this would be welcome. For example, does the hosts file interact differently with Firefox on the three platforms it runs on? (Linux, Mac, Windows.) But just repeating what other people have said, without actually experimenting with it, is not helpful.

    5. hugh said on October 12, 2019 at 11:36 am

      This is actually much less effective. You can’t block ads without blocking a domain, so you can’t block without blocking also.

  71. Xibula said on October 12, 2019 at 10:01 am

    just use AdGuard and life moves on
    don’t be attached to a browser extension

    1. MeH said on October 15, 2019 at 3:50 pm

      uBO isn’t just another extension, you ignorant one!
      uBO is the gateway to ad-free and malvertising-free virtual world. Internet becomes a dirty and dangerous place without uBlock Origin.
      And AdGuard isn’t free FYI.

    2. Mike M said on October 12, 2019 at 9:00 pm

      AdGaurd sends all DNS info back to Russian servers, considering their authoritarian control over their internet, no thanks

      1. @Mike M said on December 23, 2019 at 4:03 pm

        Stop spreading FUD.

    3. Ekka White said on October 12, 2019 at 6:01 pm

      best is to switch to a browser that doesn’t does this BS. Firefox is my way to go and always will be.

    4. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 4:11 pm

      just use a browser other than Chrome and life moves on
      don’t be attached to a browser

      1. mr said on October 12, 2019 at 4:40 pm

        That’s the thing. There is no alternative other than Firefox.

      2. Anonymous said on October 15, 2019 at 2:22 pm

        Vivaldi is a chromium browser like Brave. Highly customizable, and can load extensions from the play store. I have uBlock Origin running on mine.

      3. Dan Brown said on October 14, 2019 at 8:03 am

        You should “Google” the Opera browser.

      4. alireza said on October 12, 2019 at 6:03 pm

        Brave browser is very good right now until it opens its legs to other companys like chrome did

      5. me said on October 14, 2019 at 1:17 am

        brave just replaces ads with their own

      6. Anonymous said on October 13, 2019 at 4:34 am

        Brave is Chromium. It is already dependent on Google. They could start writing their own code but then Brave will no longer be considered fully compatible with Chrome and Chrome extensions.

      7. royce said on October 12, 2019 at 5:45 pm

        Waterfox is a super replacement.

    5. Justin said on October 12, 2019 at 1:44 pm

      Switching back to the Firefox Browser would be my choice.

    6. hugh said on October 12, 2019 at 11:37 am

      You are assuming that uBO is alone in being blocked, and this won’t effect all ad blocking extensions.

      1. Anonymous said on October 12, 2019 at 4:55 pm

        You are assuming AdGuard is an extension

      2. @Anonymous said on December 23, 2019 at 4:00 pm

        Free and open source browser extension, a solid uBO alternative…

      3. 10 said on October 13, 2019 at 10:03 am

        Then question arises, how long before Bill cripples this on windows 10?

        They already protect some of their domains pretty well. Last i check you needed to hack some dll file in order to properly block them, unless you use a Pi whose setup can’t be compare with installing a browser addon.

      4. Anonymous said on October 15, 2019 at 2:08 pm

        In case you weren’t aware, Bill isn’t running Microsoft anymore. He’s only a board member now.

      5. Raccoon said on October 15, 2019 at 9:12 am

        @10 First of all, Bill Gates doesn’t work at MS anymore. Secondly, I doubt they’d do anything

  72. Jojo said on October 12, 2019 at 9:42 am

    Googles main business is advertising. They don’t want ads blocked.

    I’m surprised they allowed a n ad blocker for so long.

    1. Deep State Update said on October 13, 2019 at 4:32 am

      “Googles main business is advertising.”

      Their main business is espionage and surveillance.

      1. KillShill said on October 15, 2019 at 3:07 am

        God bless you. Someone without their head in the sand.

      2. Neil said on October 13, 2019 at 10:17 am

        Yeah ain’t that the truth! This thing they have going on with China, Google is all over the espionage and surveillance shit. In the end shit like this has me wanting to ditch chrome and go back to Firefox.

      3. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 3:13 pm

        “Yeah ain’t that the truth! This thing they have going on with China, Google is all over the espionage and surveillance shit.”

        Google spies on the world for whatever company is ready to pay for the data they steal, and for the US state. But somehow China is the only Google problem according to you.

      4. VengadorAnonimo said on October 13, 2019 at 9:27 pm

        Stop crying and do it. Firefox is free.

      5. Anonymous said on October 14, 2019 at 3:16 pm


        Yes, like Chrome, Firefox is free. And like Chrome, Firefox lets Google spy on you, but not for free. Their managers need to eat and get their coke like all of us.

    2. David Kam said on October 12, 2019 at 8:58 pm

      Sure, but that is google’s problem, not mine.

    3. An Honest Person said on October 12, 2019 at 2:31 pm

      Agreed, I’m surprised they put up with ad-blockers in their store for so long. Back to reality.

    4. Justin said on October 12, 2019 at 1:42 pm

      The strategy has always been to bring in the consumers to their platform, then stab them in the back when they get market monopoly. Just like they screwed the Mozilla Foundation who maintains the Firefox browser. It’s a no-brainer, Google as a service provider is beyond its expiry date. Seriously f… Google.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.