"This extension may soon no longer be supported"

[HinataNekoNya]

Prerequisites

• I verified that this is not a filter list issue. Report any issues with filter lists or broken website functionality in the uAssets issue tracker.
• This is NOT a YouTube, Facebook or Twitch report. These sites MUST be reported by clicking their respective links.
• This is not a support issue or a question. For support, questions, or help, visit /r/uBlockOrigin.
• I performed a cursory search of the issue tracker to avoid opening a duplicate issue.
• The issue is not present after disabling uBO in the browser.
• I checked the documentation to understand that the issue I am reporting is not normal behavior.

I tried to reproduce the issue when...

• uBO is the only extension.
• uBO uses default lists and settings.
• using a new, unmodified browser profile.

Description

Sur le site de "ChromeWebStore" j'ai un message disant ceci et il est aussi perpétuellement dans mon navigateur.

"Cette extension ne sera peut-être bientôt plus disponible, car elle ne respecte pas les bonnes pratiques concernant les extensions Chrome."

Aiment beaucoup l'extension et se qu'elle propose je m'en retourne donc vers son développeur pour l'en informer si c'est pas déjà le cas car je me soucis de l'avenir de l'extension.

On the "ChromeWebStore" site I have a message saying this and it is also perpetually in my browser.

"This extension may soon no longer be available because it does not follow best practices for Chrome extensions."

I really like the extension and what it offers, so I'm going back to its developer to inform them if this is not already the case because I care about the future of the extension.

A specific URL where the issue occurs.

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm

Steps to Reproduce

1. Aller sur la page
2. Constater qu'on le trouve plus a l'aide de la barre de recherche et que maintenant si on utilise directement le lien on a se jolie petit message

Expected behavior

Je sais pas quoi rajouter de plus

Actual behavior

Pareil

uBO version

1.58.0

Browser name and version

Chrome

Operating System and version

Windows 10

[gorhill]

Voir https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#will-ubo-automatically-transition-to-ubo-lite-in-the-chrome-web-store (anglais).

[spaceduck31205]

Is a new version of uBlock Origin planned?

[stephenhawk8054]

Is a new version of uBlock Origin planned?

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home#ubo-lite

[YaeSakuraQvQ]

A temporary solution is to edit the registry
Software\Policies\Google\Chrome\ExtensionManifestV2Availability 2
https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability
Then we can use v2 uBO for one year
But the chrome settings panel will show an annoying "Your browser is managed"
Personally, I will not choose to migrate to uBOL because it lacks some core features I need

[HinataNekoNya]

es qu'il et prévus dans un futur plus lointain que uBO subisse une conversion ou une adaptation plus propre et fonctionelle de sa version de base sans passer par la version uBOL ou cette hypothése est a completement abandonner ?

Is it planned in the more distant future that uBO will undergo a cleaner and more functional conversion or adaptation of its basic version without going through the uBOL version or should this hypothesis be completely abandoned?

[gorhill]

uBO will undergo a cleaner and more functional conversion

What is not clean and not functional with the current version of uBO?

[karolyi]

Slightly offtopic here, but by blocking manifest V2 adblockers, Google/Youtube violates W3 regulation too: https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render

[unikitty37]

A temporary solution is to edit the registry Software\Policies\Google\Chrome\ExtensionManifestV2Availability 2 https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability Then we can use v2 uBO for one year But the chrome settings panel will show an annoying "Your browser is managed"

Does anybody know how to do this in Linux and macOS? Setting the given preference in ~/Library/Preferences/org.chromium.Chromium.plist does nothing in Chromium on macOS, and the linked article gives even less of a clue as to how to do it in Linux…

[YaeSakuraQvQ]

Voir https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#will-ubo-automatically-transition-to-ubo-lite-in-the-chrome-web-store (anglais).

First of all, thank you very much for your work and for bringing us uBO and uBOL. You said, uBOL is a MV3 API-based content blocker. But maybe what users need is not a MV3 API-based content blocker, but uBO that can keep most of its functions working as much as possible when Google forces MV3.

So I think the main question is whether to give those users up or try to bypass Google's restrictions.

The userScripts API does allow to inject code as string, but it's impractical as in Chromium-based browsers this requires extra steps by the user to enable the API.

Perhaps now it seems that this is not "impractical", turn on "developer mode" is easy. Compared to give uBO up or changing browsers. ( e.g. tampermonkey has switched to MV3 and guides users to do so )

It's time to think about this problem. ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy can only be a mitigation measure, not a solution.

Finally, I don't mean to offend, no matter what decision you make, I respect and understand, and thank you for your efforts.

[stephenhawk8054]

or try to bypass Google's restrictions.

The problem of trying to "bypass" is having an unreliable and unstable extension.

Watch the videos between ABP and uBOL when browser launch: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#is-ubo-lite-a-bad-faith-attempt-at-converting-ubo-to-mv3

And watch videos between Adguard MV3 and uBOL when browser launch: uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home#153 (comment)

---

what users need is not a MV3 API-based content blocker, but uBO that can keep most of its functions working as much as possible when Google forces MV3.

And when those users experience the unreliability like above and complain the issues, should uBOL switch back to the reliable version to solve those issues?

[YaeSakuraQvQ]

The problem of trying to "bypass" is having an unreliable and unstable extension.

Yes, but ABP "using trickery to force their service worker to always be up and running", it is indeed unreliable and unstable.
uBO does not need to do this, and bypass is not limited to one method. Maybe userScripts API is a good choice, for example, tampermonkey I mentioned is already doing this and it works well.
And this is not "impractical" compared to other costs, users only need to turn on a simple setting

And when those users experience the unreliability like above and complain the issues, should uBOL switch back to the reliable version to solve those issues?

Obviously, they are two different things. uBOL uses the new DNR API while uBO is its own JavaScript-based network filtering engine.
Their target user groups are not exactly the same. uBOL is more like an ad blocker, while uBO is a wide-spectrum blocker.
If you still consider these users, you can try to use the userScripts API to make uBO continue to run under MV3. Maybe a new "chromium compatible" branch of uBO, but definitely not messing up uBOL.

[stephenhawk8054]

Content blocker is not just userscript API. There are many issues that need to perform at higher stage, network level and need more stability than userscript.

If you have codes that make the other functions work without sacrificing the reliability, make clear PRs and give clear examples of what those PRs solve.

---

"Maybe" is not the solution. You can try implementing it yourself to see what the issue is there. Remember it's not just ABP doing that, Adguard also has to do it. It's not because they don't know about userscript API.

[rubyFeedback]

uBOL is more like an ad blocker,

I am not sure how much UBOL is an alternative to UBO if UBO is more effective at blocking unwanted content. For instance, if a user watches a video and an ad sneaks through when one uses UBOL, but the same ad would be blocked by UBO, then I would, as a user, prefer to use UBO, as UBOL would have failed me at blocking ads. So I am not even certain UBOL can be called an ad blocker if it can not block ads.

Maybe the whole "I do not want any ad data on my computer" could be integrated more on the operating system level, at the least for Linux users. Can we block specific bytes that are ads? That is, like packets we can automatically drop? Then we would not even need a general content blocker on the level of the browser; Google can not be trusted since they maintain the code for the primary browser (chrome). At the least we can now clearly see that Manifest v3 is Google declaring war on ublock origin in general.

[iam-py-test]

Maybe the whole "I do not want any ad data on my computer" could be integrated more on the operating system level, at the least for Linux users.

That already exists (i.e. AdGuard for Windows), but it is difficult to do. Traffic is encrypted (AdGuard adds their own root certificate to intercept HTTPS traffic, which is not great in terms of security), and a lot is harder and hackier. uBlock Origin can use offical browser APIs to hide elements and inject JavaScript scriptlets, which are generally stable and reliable. Doing that with a native app is more difficult, and I would imagine there are edge cases where element hiding would fail or break websites due to incompatibilities and conflicts.
Thanks

[camsteffen]

I appreciate the efforts made on uBOL and the goals stated in the FAQ. But I think there is still a question that is not explicitly answered there: Does uBOL attempt to replicate uBO as much as possible, given the restrictions of MV3? Or is it taking MV3 as an opportunity to discard some of the more complex functionality of uBO? In other words, is there a possibility for an ad blocker that is MV3 and also is more like uBO than uBOL is? Admittedly this is an abstract question and I don't have specific functionality in mind.

[stephenhawk8054]

Read: Is uBO Lite a bad faith attempt at converting uBO to MV3?

If MV3 adds any best practice to improve their blocking capability, without sacrificing reliability and efficiency, uBOL will adapt it.

[camsteffen]

Okay, I see an answer to my question there after looking again. Thanks.

I am satisfied that I fulfilled that goal by ensuring uBO Lite was entirely declarative -- though at the cost of limitations beyond those intrinsic to MV3.

(emphasis added)

To be clear, this all sounds very reasonable to me and I think I'll be happy with uBOL. Just looking to understand.

[Hebgbs]

Not sure what the plans are for this extension going forward, but some Chrome browsers may want to remain behind or re-implement MV2 in their own way, which can continue to give this extension the capability to act unimpeded by Google's (intrusive) demands.

I plea to you, @gorhill — continue Chrome development and keep a list of supported browsers. Your work will be respected by projects which don't respect Google's demands for MV2 to be excised.

[imkaihao]

@unikitty37

For macOS and Linux, you can refer to the links below:

• https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7517525
• https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408

The policy to set is ExtensionManifestV2Availability, as shown in https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability

[SkyN9ne]

Maybe the whole "I do not want any ad data on my computer" could be integrated more on the operating system level, at the least for Linux users.

Well, I believe at the OS level it would be possible via the classical semi-tedious hosts file method (Generally in /etc/hosts on Linux distros and %WINDIR%\System32\drivers\etc\hosts on Windows)

[burtonsys]

Does this affect other Blink-based browsers? Or will uBlock Origin still work on them?

Maybe the best solution is to migrate from Chrome to something else, for my primary browser?

[luckylittle]

@unikitty37

For macOS and Linux, you can refer to the links below:

• https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7517525
• https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9027408

The policy to set is ExtensionManifestV2Availability, as shown in https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV2Availability

I have tested the following approach on Linux and it works for both Chrome 131.0.6778.69 and Chromium 129.0.6550.0:

1. Chrome - sudo mkdir -p /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed
   Chromium - sudo mkdir -p /etc/chromium/policies/managed
2. Chrome - echo '{ "ExtensionManifestV2Availability": 2 }' | sudo tee /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/ExtensionSettings.json
   Chromium - echo '{ "ExtensionManifestV2Availability": 2 }' | sudo tee /etc/chromium/policies/managed/ExtensionSettings.json
3. Go to chrome://policy/ and "Reload policies". After that, it will allow you to add any V2-manifest extensions to your Chrome/Chromium