some way to call a custom or ‘third party’ (not compiled into the program) extractor would probably be enough. then let other people work on ones for the, um, ‘problem sites’.

if google cared, they’d vet ads and ad links, and guarantee their safety and security.

if google cared, they’d put a stop to seo ‘optimizers’ and scammers scoring top positions on serps.

but google doesn’t care about anything other than their profits and share price.

adblockers can affect both of those. they’re using the weak cover of ‘security’ enhancement to neuter them.

existing adblockers provide more safety and security than what can be realized by the shift to mv3.

i mostly use a vivaldi or opera portable for those. unzip, run, use the temperamental site, close, delete directory. it’s not very often that i have to do this.

but for a couple of pesky sites i do frequent a bit more often, i keep their portable browsers to reuse and have them configured (including addons) specifically for them.

i did read somewhere that affected chrome users are being presented with alternatives from the chrome extension ‘store’ that are mv3-ready.

whether or not they’re capable of clicking the right buttons on the right screens and windows to do it is another story.

ubo, abp and adguard all have mv3 variants. there are others, but i think those are the ‘big three’. ublock origin lite is what i’ve been moving people to here, if not to firefox. so far, so good.

dns blocking methods do not, and literally cannot, block them all.

that is the white portion of the diagram.

yes, it will.

whether or not a ‘fully functional’ and fully-featured content blocker remains available for third-party browsers that use chromium as their core will depend on those third-parties and what they add, or add back, to their own releases to support those kinds of browser extensions.

bet he gets rejected at the border.