151–160 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome allows you to disable installation of extensions via Group Policy for a looong time now: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/66239/how-to-pr...
That's windows-only, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it Chromium based? It might be great but for now refuse to support anything that further strengthen Googles grip on the market.
> It might be great but for now refuse to support anything that further strengthen Googles grip on the market. The question then becomes: "What else even is out there?" Because if you're looking for something that's even remotely feature complete for browsing the modern day web, the majority of the current browsers out there are indeed based on Chromium, as expressed in this article, "Firefox is the Only Alternative"…
Today, Google and Microsoft and Apple are fighting Browser War 2, and it looks as though Google is winning. However, Firefox is still fighting, but not to win. But to prove that we don't have to put up with the monopolistic behavior of Google to browse the internet.
Firefox has had it's ups and downs. But "winning the war", in my mind, isn't the point of Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> WebRequest API still does not support blocking requests (and still does support _recording_ requests) The whole point is that there would be no reason to allow any ad blocking extension access to the WebRequest API anymore. The replacement, declarativeNetRequest, does not require the user to give any permissions, so the days of granting ad blocking extensions full access to every page are gone. If you think Google…
From what I see, it also has some strict limits. My basic uBlock+ install has 82780 network filter rules. Chrome seems to "only" guarantee 30000 rules, and I don't know if these match 1-to-1.
And there don't seem to be dynamic replacements, which might be useful to trick adblock detection. Not sure how far in the cat-and-mouse game we are on that front, but I sure don't like the idea of giving the mice highly limited rulesets while the cats can do and do whatever they like.
While a good message that does have actual merit if you know what's happening already, I don't see how this is a legitimate consideration of MV3. The entire argument regarding security doesn't mention any of the reasons Chrome developers cite its security improvement, instead it brings up that Firefox "does good enough already" and that malicious extensions can still get past the review process. the review process is…
I did this as a technology demo, to demonstrate automated site background checking. The concept that you have to have a business address to sell online is almost archaic now, even though it's the law in the EU and California. So, today often the system often can't tie a web site to business records.
The concept of "legitimate business" is dead.
Because of this, sometime in 2022 I will shut down Sitetruth, my fifteen year old ad blocking and site evaluation system. That offers add-ons for Chrome and Firefox, and puts a tag with company background info on each search result. Some search ads are removed, and some are de-emphasized. Some time next year, Google will probably force that add-on out of Chrome, as they tighten their grip over what browsers are allow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean you can, but firefox doesn't treat you any better. We waited 2+ months to get a minor update through review, and getting it through that quickly took emailing several folks (including one from HN). During that whole process they also removed the display of your queue position, making it even more opaque. At some point they disliked something in our extension that had been live for months, and disabled every re…
At this point I am seriously wondering if Mozilla is paid to drive Firefox into the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the article, Firefox is cited as intending to adopt MV3 for compatibility reasons. If they indeed do so, I'm not sure how much relief running Firefox will offer from the more evil aspects of MV3.
With Firefox's market share, not much. This could massively benefit Firefox adoption, though, because everyone relying on old extensions will have to switch. From that viewpoint, the new restrictions could actually be a good thing.
While a good message that does have actual merit if you know what's happening already, I don't see how this is a legitimate consideration of MV3. The entire argument regarding security doesn't mention any of the reasons Chrome developers cite its security improvement, instead it brings up that Firefox "does good enough already" and that malicious extensions can still get past the review process. the review process is…
Google has not provided any reason to not include "block request" functionality. And that the super bad faith underlying fact that poison their "reasoning".
Docs: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)