That limitation has nothing to do with MV3. Adguard does not suffer from this problem. Making it opt-in is a specific design consideration that gorhill took with this version of uBlock to reduce its permission scope.
I wish people were not so quick to share misinformation like this.
The amount of misinformation in these comments is absolutely wild.
For some reason people are just itching to spread FUD about this topic and Google in general. I don't understand where it comes from or why it happens but it's really annoying.
From the blog post on how adguard built their v3 extension the ads themselves are blocked but aren't removed from the page if the cosmetic filters aren't run
Because server side tracking isn't sufficient? I've heard from numerous people that it definitely is. Tracking cookies are a massive privacy invasion for what is minimal, if any, benefit
Even if your site is set up well to support it there is objectively less data you get back. Like it's hard to figure out where are the trigger points that increase or decrease conversion all that stuff. Or if people leave and come back. And it's a lot harder to run your own analytics (coming from somebody who does) even if you are just hosting somebody else's solution.
Setting up all the random shit gdpr requires (downloading and deleting data, protection officer blah blah blah) takes a lot more than a cookie bar. It's expensive and if the site doesn't make much money from europe, why the hell would it waste money on doing that?
