HN Debrief

Microsoft Edge is about to lock out older ad blockers, just like Chrome did

  • Privacy
  • Open Source
  • Infrastructure
  • Developer Tools

The article says Edge is joining Chrome in dropping Manifest V2, the older extension platform that enabled full uBlock Origin and other blockers to inspect and stop requests more flexibly. Manifest V3 remains, so this is not “no ad blockers,” but it does mean Chromium users are being pushed to weaker or more constrained tools like uBlock Origin Lite, browser-native blockers, or network-level workarounds. A lot of the energy here came from people objecting to the headline calling these blockers “older.” In the way users care about, many called them better, not old.

If strong, configurable ad blocking is important in your org or on your personal stack, assume Chromium browsers will keep converging on Google’s extension model and plan accordingly. Standardizing on Firefox or a browser with built-in blocking now is less about today’s ads than about avoiding future lock-in and policy drift.

Discussion mood

Frustrated and cynical. Most people saw Edge’s move as predictable follow-through from Google’s control of Chromium, and treated it as more evidence that ad-funded browser vendors will eventually side against powerful user-controlled blocking.

Key insights

  1. 01

    Ad tech may exploit MV3 later

    Even if MV3 blockers look fine today, that does not prove the model is equivalent. The stronger point is strategic. Once MV2 is gone across most browsers, ad networks can start designing around MV3’s limits because the escape hatch will be gone for the mass market. That shifts the question from current performance to future leverage.

    Do not evaluate this change only by whether your current sites still look clean. Watch for a delayed degradation curve as ad networks adapt to the new constraints.

      Attribution:
    • sfink #1
  2. 02

    Chromium competition is mostly cosmetic

    Most Chromium browsers were described as downstream products, not independent platforms. They can change defaults and add features, but they rarely rewrite the engine or extension model at the level that matters here. That means the market can look competitive while still collapsing onto one company’s product decisions.

    If browser choice is part of your security, privacy, or platform strategy, count rendering engines and extension APIs, not logos. A portfolio of Chromium brands is not real diversification.

      Attribution:
    • cosmic_cheese #1
    • parsimo2010 #1
    • pjmlp #1
  3. 03

    Maintaining MV2 patches may be feasible

    Several people with Chromium experience pushed back on the idea that preserving request-blocking support is impossibly expensive. They argued this is a narrow capability, not a giant fork of the browser, and may only require light ongoing maintenance. That undercuts the claim that every browser vendor is technically forced into this choice.

    Treat “upstream made us do it” as a product decision as much as an engineering constraint. If a vendor says it cannot preserve a capability, ask how much they really value it.

      Attribution:
    • tredre3 #1
    • londons_explore #1
    • throwup238 #1
  4. 04

    MV3 is weaker but not useless

    The practical explanation was that MV3 still allows blocking network requests through declarative rules, dynamic updates, and some custom filtering. Users can get decent results, and tools like uBlock Origin Lite can still handle a lot, especially with elevated per-site permissions. The loss is flexibility and control, not total functionality.

    For less technical users, MV3 may be good enough today. For power users, support teams, and anyone relying on custom filters or deeper site surgery, test specific workflows before assuming parity.

      Attribution:
    • LelouBil #1
    • phire #1 #2
    • Daedren #1
  5. 05

    What disappears first is customization

    The first pain point is not always raw ad blocking. It is all the extra cleanup people use blockers for, like custom cosmetic filters, trimming noisy page elements, and reshaping sites into usable layouts. That is where MV3 alternatives feel obviously narrower even when ads themselves still vanish.

    Inventory how your team actually uses blockers. If people depend on element hiding, custom lists, or page-specific cleanup, MV3 substitutes can break habits that look minor until productivity drops.

      Attribution:
    • wolvoleo #1
    • novafunc #1
    • gorhill #1
  6. 06

    Network-wide DNS blocking solves a different problem

    DNS blockers such as Unbound or Pi-hole were useful, but commenters drew a clear line around what they can and cannot do. They help across phones, TVs, and guest devices, and can cut a large share of ad and telemetry traffic. They are still weaker than browser-level blockers for first-party ads, content filtering, and page cleanup.

    Use DNS blocking as a baseline layer for unmanaged devices, not as a replacement for browser extensions. If you need clean web apps or YouTube-style filtering, keep a browser-side solution too.

      Attribution:
    • NeutralWanted #1
    • gruez #1 #2
    • Daedren #1
    • tredre3 #1
  7. 07

    Firefox criticism often targets Mozilla, not Firefox

    A recurring point was that many complaints lump Mozilla’s governance, funding, or politics together with the browser’s actual behavior. In daily use, people said Firefox still respects user choices better than Chrome or Edge, and a lot of old knocks around speed or memory are stale. That distinction matters if the decision in front of you is about browser capability, not nonprofit management.

    Separate product evaluation from brand resentment. If your need is strong extensions and user control, test Firefox as it exists now rather than arguing with a caricature from years ago.

      Attribution:
    • zem #1
    • Krssst #1
    • roryirvine #1
    • sodapopcan #1

Against the grain

  1. 01

    MV3 may not hurt blocking much

    A linked paper was cited to argue that MV3 does not measurably reduce ad-blocking effectiveness and may even improve it in some cases. That reframes the issue as one of implementation style and trust rather than immediate user-visible breakage. It does not answer the configurability loss, but it challenges the idea that Chrome and Edge instantly become ad-filled browsers.

    If you manage a mixed fleet, validate claims with real-world testing instead of assuming every Chromium install is suddenly unusable. The bigger risk may be future constraints and reduced control, not an immediate collapse in filtering quality.

      Attribution:
    • Balinares #1
  2. 02

    MV2 had real security liabilities

    Some commenters accepted Google’s conflict of interest but still said the security rationale is plausible. MV2 gave extensions broad access to page data and request flows, which widened the damage a malicious extension could do. From that angle, reducing extension power is not automatically anti-user, even if Google benefits from the side effects.

    When choosing a browser policy, weigh extension power against extension risk. If you permit broad extension installs in an enterprise, stronger blockers and a larger attack surface come as a package.

      Attribution:
    • armadyl #1
    • Arnt #1
    • zem #1
  3. 03

    Brave is good enough for many users

    Brave got a more favorable reading than the Firefox-first consensus allowed. People using its built-in blocker said it handles YouTube, tracking, and even niche annoyances like Shorts filters well enough without depending on the extension APIs that Chromium is narrowing. That makes it a practical option for users who want strong default blocking without becoming browser hobbyists.

    If your requirement is mostly “make the web tolerable” rather than “preserve maximum extension freedom,” Brave is worth testing alongside Firefox. Just be clear that convenience and strategic independence are different goals.

      Attribution:
    • orwin #1
    • briHass #1
    • lelanthran #1
  4. 04

    Some of the outrage is performative

    One commenter argued that the reaction is partly about identity, not evidence. For users who already picked a side in browser politics, MV2 becomes another occasion to confirm tribe and product choice. That is a useful warning because this topic mixes real technical tradeoffs with a lot of status signaling.

    Filter strong opinions through concrete use cases. Ask what actually breaks, what remains possible, and what your users need, instead of inheriting browser ideology wholesale.

      Attribution:
    • boredhedgehog #1

In plain english

Chromium ↩
Google’s open source browser project that forms the base for Chrome, Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, and many other browsers.
declarative rules ↩
A model where an extension gives the browser a predefined set of blocking or modification rules instead of inspecting and deciding on each request in code.
DNS ↩
Domain Name System, the internet service that translates domain names like example.com into network addresses.
Manifest V2 ↩
The older Chrome and Chromium browser extension platform, which gave extensions broader powers including stronger request interception used by full-featured ad blockers.
Manifest V3 ↩
The newer browser extension platform in Chrome and Chromium, designed to reduce extension power and shift more behavior to browser-controlled declarative rules.
MV2 ↩
Short for Manifest V2, the older browser extension system.
MV3 ↩
Short for Manifest V3, the newer browser extension system.
Pi-hole ↩
A network-level ad and tracker blocker that filters domain name requests for all devices on a network.
uBlock Origin ↩
A widely used open source browser extension for blocking ads, trackers, and unwanted page elements with extensive custom filtering features.
uBlock Origin Lite ↩
A reduced version of uBlock Origin built to work within Manifest V3’s limits.
UI ↩
User Interface, the visual and interactive parts of software that users work with.
Unbound ↩
A domain name system resolver that can be run locally and combined with blocklists for network-wide filtering.

Reference links

Research and technical references

Browser vendor and ecosystem references