Future of uBlock Full for Chromium Browsers

[YesTrustMe]

Brave currently supports uBlock (1.65) and so does a few other Chromium fork browsers . How likely will the project continue for Chromium browsers once the MV2 flags are completely removed and no (current) workarounds will work to keep using it on Chrome?

[stephenhawk8054]

It will die.

[stephenhawk8054]

There's no answers for this. We don't have any responsibilities here.

Users, including you, are the ones responsible for your own choices. We are volunteers sacrificing our own free time, not some companies' employees taking responsibilities for you due to chromium's actions. If we feel the burden is too much, we will drop it.

If you don't like Firefox, it's your choice. If you want to use chromium, it's your choice. If you want to use other tools, it's your choice. If we can't find suitable resolutions that are proper to our little free time, it's our choice to make decisions suitable for our own time.

If uBO becomes demise, let it be.

[YesTrustMe]

Your comment clearly sidesteps the point and you're essentially echoing the developer's actions.

Repeating “it’s your choice” and disclaiming all responsibility is a deflection that shuts down the discussion and shifts focus away from the specific issue raised.

If there is no solution or intent to work toward one, stating that directly would be clearer than filling space with empty and non‑answers stating the obvious: it's your choice.

[stephenhawk8054]

Yes. That's exactly what this project is about. Users decide their own decisions, and whoever are willing to maintain the project will discuss and decide their own decisions. If you find that annoyed, feel free to find other tools that fit your demands.

It's already answered that the project will only be maintained for the browsers who still support MV2. Other than that, there's no promise here. And even with that, if there are no ways to host the package and install easily (currently the chromium extensions are hosted on CWS), the support could be dropped too.

You are the one who sidestepped the discussion into this, not me:

That comment derails the question. It is responsibility shifting via platitude: a broad truism that shuts down the topic and moves attention away from the real issue onto the person asking. Not cool.

In other words, It reads solely as filler or empty burger rather than an answer, providing an obligatory response while withholding any substantive information. I'm frankly disappointed gorhill, would respond in that way which is common with NPCs.

Furthermore, to suggest to switch to Firefox when those are "know" how badly it sucks given it's slowness, limited marketshare, high disk usage, and lack of extensions. The actions of Team gorhhill might be enough to force others to use Adguard or Ghostery when uBlock isn't supported any longer on Chromium forks. Eventually this will likely cause the demise of uBlock and normalize adware.

[gorhill]

If you don't like our answers, then let it be, there is no point to discuss forever in circle.

The answer is:

gorhill said he will keep publishing as long as there are browsers supporting MV2.

This is it. Locking this thread to avoid wasting more time in pointless back and forth.

[mapx-]

@YesTrustMe just use uBOL (mv3)

[YesTrustMe]

@YesTrustMe just use uBOL (mv3)

@mapx-

Unfortunately no,. It's noticeably slower than uBlock mv2 and it's limited in the number of filters due to mv3 restrictions. This is why the lite version isn't as robust and effective because it contains far fewer filters to block adware. Malwarebytes is also affected. Yes, you read that correctly. And Malwarebytes has implemented a clever workaround which gorhill hasn't replicated:

To deal with urgent situations we can use ruleset overrides, which are a mechanism by which we can override the static rules shipped with Browser Guard without requiring our users to add exclusions.

[uBlock-user]

Depends on gorhill, he will do what he feels like.