I am not an expert on this topic, but Gorhill is and has a demonstrated history of technical/privacy judgement.
Gorhill's comment makes it clear that impacting the functionality of blockers is an intentional change, as the proposal not only removes previous functionality, but also enshrines one particular and limited approach to blocking.
Edit: I would also note that "break" may suggest the possibility of altering blocking extensions such that they could keep working and maintain their present functionality. Gorhill's comment makes it clear that this is not the case.
This seems very similar to the changes Safari made a while ago for their content blocking API, so there may be more to it than "Google wants to break adblockers".
I've explained the logic in the post you're replying to. I'll rephrase it:
There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect. We should demand such evidence before implying that this is the intended outcome.
If such is the goal, have at it with the headlines. They write themselves. "Advertising Giant Google Forcefully Breaks Ad-blockers in Chrome Update".
But until the evidence is there, we should be responsible about this.
I've reviewed the design doc and and the spec for the new API. I agree that there doesn't seem to be an intent to "[get] rid of adblockers". Nonetheless, the proposed changes will disable core functionality in uBlock and uMatrix, which is what the title states.
>There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers; it is so far only a side-effect.
Yes, but what's the point of this change, if it is only a side effect? I've read this thread and I haven't seen clear explanation what this change strives to achieve, other than breaking some popular anti-tracking/ad-blocking extensions.
> There is no evidence the change is being made with the intent of getting rid of adblockers
So far there is only one rationale that could describe the motivation to make this change. Can you propose another possible motive? I am personally struggling.
My understanding of the changes is that they make sense for most extensions, but gorhill's addons are being negatively impacted by them because of the way they were implemented. You'll note it's still possible to implement content blocking in the new system.
As others have pointed out the blacklist capabilities are severely inhibited in the new system. Could you elaborate on how the changes make sense? It feels like their messaging behind this is off if their intent truly is benign.
What is your basis for this claim?
I am not an expert on this topic, but Gorhill is and has a demonstrated history of technical/privacy judgement.
Gorhill's comment makes it clear that impacting the functionality of blockers is an intentional change, as the proposal not only removes previous functionality, but also enshrines one particular and limited approach to blocking.
Edit: I would also note that "break" may suggest the possibility of altering blocking extensions such that they could keep working and maintain their present functionality. Gorhill's comment makes it clear that this is not the case.