Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 396 posts

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#41

Post by xxpor »

dessant wrote: post #7

I have a couple of popular extensions on the line, and I no longer see a way to stop Google without immediate government intervention. I am confident that they are not acting entirely in good faith, regardless of the much needed and useful parts of Manifest V3. They will get away with anything, be fined again in a couple of years for the growing list of illegalities they commit, and now they'll also harm the browser…

Where do people get this sense of entitlement from? Please cite one law you believe Google has broken.

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#42

Post by mirashii »

prox wrote: post #10
pkulak wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My assumption is that Firefox will be implementing the standard, but not the restrictions. Am I wrong there?

I really hope so. Any good sources to find out Mozilla’s stance?

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...

> We will support blocking webRequest until there’s a better solution which covers all use cases we consider important, since DNR as currently implemented by Chrome does not yet meet the needs of extension developers.

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#43

Post by breezeTrowel »

Glench wrote: post #2

Wow, I kind of thought the headline would be an overstatement, but the article actually seems pretty even-handed and truthful in describing what's happening with Google's power over the browser market.

I, on the other hand, found the article to be terrible. Consider the following quote:

> Manifest V3, or Mv3 for short, is outright harmful to privacy efforts. It will restrict the capabilities of web extensions—especially those that are designed to monitor, modify, and compute alongside the conversation your browser has with the websites you visit. Under the new specifications, extensions like these– like some privacy-protective tracker blockers– will have greatly reduced capabilities.

One would think that the article would then go on to detail exactly what these "new specifications" are and how would they reduce the capability of ad and tracker blockers.

That never happens. We keep getting statements to the effect that Manifest V3 is bad but we're never told what makes it bad.

What aspects of Manifest V3 limit ad blocker capabilities? Since Manifest V3 has been introduced way back in 2019 and, since then, has gone through various changes, are the quotes listed towards the end of the article recent or do they reflect an earlier version of V3?

There was controversy over changes to the WebRequest API but that was two years ago and, I believe, changes have been made. Are there still changes that break functionality? What changes were made over the past two years? Have things gotten better or worse?

The article gives absolutely no details.

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#44

Post by zamadatix »

Havoc wrote: post #27

Wait FF is copying this too?!?

Firefox is supporting Manifest v3 extensions however they are not imposing every limitation Chrome is on them and they are continuing to support features outside the scope of v3 like blocking webrequest.

A lot of the changes in v3 are actually pretty sensible, it's just 10% of the stuff shoehorned in creating 90% of the friction.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#46

Post by celsoazevedo »

anewguy9000 wrote: post #30
pkulak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please Firefox. The first two are just Chrome wrappers.

You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? And while Brave might be based on Chromium, it is distinct; in addition to not crippling nativewebrequest as chrome will, it's native adblocker is compatible with the same lists as ublock origin. So I would go with Brave :)

What will Brave, Vivaldi, etc, do when Google makes some change that breaks the current APIs? Do they have the resources and are willing to continue to support them?

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#47

Post by donatj »

I miss the early days of Firefox extensions (circa 2004) where an extension could in very powerful ways completely change the layout/functionality of your browser; when they had near unlimited access to the XUL and could change anything and everything.

I used a ton of very useful extensions then. Nested tabs were one of my favorites. These days I've got a password manager, a bookmark checker, and a tab manager I wrote myself.

They're just not allowed to do anything too useful these days - I know what they have access to, I write Chrome extensions. A lot of them should just be standalone desktop apps.

Like most things, normies came in, shot themselves in the foot, made a fuss, and now we can't have nice things.

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#48

Post by plorkyeran »

breezeTrowel wrote: post #43
Glench wrote: post #2

Wow, I kind of thought the headline would be an overstatement, but the article actually seems pretty even-handed and truthful in describing what's happening with Google's power over the browser market.

I, on the other hand, found the article to be terrible. Consider the following quote: > Manifest V3, or Mv3 for short, is outright harmful to privacy efforts. It will restrict the capabilities of web extensions—especially those that are designed to monitor, modify, and compute alongside the conversation your browser has with the websites you visit. Under the new specifications, extensions like these– like some privac…

The article does not mention changes over the last two years because there haven't been any to mention. The new WebRequest API still does not support blocking requests (and still does support _recording_ requests), and the replacement for that functionality is still very limited.

Re: Chrome users beware: Manifest v3 is deceitful and threatening

#50

Post by pkulak »

anewguy9000 wrote: post #30
pkulak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please Firefox. The first two are just Chrome wrappers.

You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? And while Brave might be based on Chromium, it is distinct; in addition to not crippling nativewebrequest as chrome will, it's native adblocker is compatible with the same lists as ublock origin. So I would go with Brave :)

If Google is not able to control ad-blocking because all the Chromium clones refuse to play ball, what do you think they will do? I have no idea. Maybe just close Chromium entirely, and force all the clones to shut down since there's no way they have the engineering resources to keep up with Google.

EDIT: Except for MSFT... that would be interesting for sure.

Post reply on HN