The problem is that something pejorative on the surface is only meaningful to an end-user that is intimately familiar with the limitations of ManifestV3.

If you titled an adblocker "uBlock Crippled Edition", you might be protesting Google, but the unfamiliar end-user is just going to see it and think, "Well I certainly don't want a crippled adblocker! Let me just grab one of these numerous others from the appstore that claims it's 100% effective."

> The problem is that something pejorative on the surface is only meaningful to an end-user that is intimately familiar with the limitations of ManifestV3.

You don't need to be "intimately familiar" with the limitations of ManifestV3, a casual understanding, from perhaps an explanatory note in the description of the extension, is sufficient to understand such a name.

Your average user has no interest in Google politics, nor would they bother to read through the explanation. Most people install an adblock to block ads. The politics of internet browsers and privacy only matter to power users.

>... it's often a positive signifier that describes low resource usage/costs

Third sentence:

>This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing -- uBOL's service worker process is required only when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages.

Sounds like a plus for manifest v3 then. Fewer resources, fewer permissions, to do most of the same task.

Adding support for a less-resource intensive API to filter is fine. The problem people have is the destruction of the more powerful APIs to permit the fine control that UBO requires, to do the job proper. There was no need for that, there was no trade-off¹ being made.

¹of technical concerns.

It's not doing the same task though. It's being assigned the same task and doing a worse job at it. Because a better solution is unavailable.

I agree, uBlock Origin Minus was a better name. "Lite" is carrying water for Google.

People in HN get a chuckle about the name. 99% of people would see it and just download something else that isn’t “minus” for some reason.

A chuckle? I don't see the humor in it.

The page itself mentions how it consumes less resources, and requires less permissions.

It was indeed named "uBO Minus", but what do you expect from Google? Accept that name?

Why not name it uBO Neutrino?

It has the connotation of being "Lite" since they're low-mass particles. And it sounds vaguely like "neutered", which is what MV3 attempts to do to ad-blockers.

(That being said, this description from gorhill looks great.)

Why would they reject it? Is it offensive?

I would call it "uBO Reduced". Reduced resources, reduced permissions, reduced capabilities, reduced effectiveness in actually blocking ads, trackers and content.