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

171–180 of 396 posts

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

#171

Post by aembleton »

mappu wrote: post #123
bambax wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and modify every single web page you use. That's fucking scary. How is that scary? The browser by definition has unlimited access to read and modify (and monitor) anything I do in it. And I trust gorhill a million times more than any Google employee, past, present or future.

The scary part is gorhill is able to sell or hand over the extension - as he has done in the past - to someone with looser morals and/or goals. How much do you think NSO Group would pay for this kind of access? If you ran uBlock Origin, would you like to retire early? Jbk from the VLC project has a lot of stories about turning down 6, 7 figure payments to bundle malware in VLC. Not everyone has the strong morals and…

It's a good point. Probably best to build it into the browser and let me add my own lists for it to use. That would be a good move for Firefox, they could have it off by default but it would help to reduce the chance of a compromised extension have too much access.

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

#172

Post by throwawaycuriou »

mappu wrote: post #123
bambax wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and modify every single web page you use. That's fucking scary. How is that scary? The browser by definition has unlimited access to read and modify (and monitor) anything I do in it. And I trust gorhill a million times more than any Google employee, past, present or future.

The scary part is gorhill is able to sell or hand over the extension - as he has done in the past - to someone with looser morals and/or goals. How much do you think NSO Group would pay for this kind of access? If you ran uBlock Origin, would you like to retire early? Jbk from the VLC project has a lot of stories about turning down 6, 7 figure payments to bundle malware in VLC. Not everyone has the strong morals and…

wait, Stylish went rogue?

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

#173

Post by detaro »

sfink wrote: post #170
davidhyde wrote: post #146

> “ It’s also doubtful Mv3 will do much for security. Firefox maintains the largest extension market that’s not based on Chrome, and the company has said it will adopt Mv3 in the interest of cross-browser compatibility.” I don’t understand why Firefox needs to adopt Mv3 for “cross-browser compatibility”. Is this to save extension writers time and effort or is it a mistake in the article?

The former. Firefox tries to make it possible to port Chrome extensions to Firefox with minimal changes. Mv3 contains lots of new stuff beyond nerfing adblockers.

And Mozilla has said they will continue to support the old web request blocking API.

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

#175

Post by kaba0 »

dheera wrote: post #154
judge2020 wrote: post #64

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 see a lot of people suggesting Firefox, which is great. But also, considering Chrome is basically Chromium, can't we just fork Chromium and keep using that?

Can such a fork be upheld for a long time? Browsers are one of the most complex programs out there. I have my doubts even regarding whether Brave could maintain such a fork, let alone smaller entities.

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

#176

Post by kaba0 »

KronisLV wrote: post #115
eitland wrote: post #113

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"…

I think the controversies around firefox are blown way out of proportion. Yeah, there are some, but the amount of hate the project or the company gets on HN under every new version post is ridiculous.

It is an open-source project fighting a good fight, and the only one at that.

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

#177

Post by tux1968 »

foxrider wrote: post #139
eitland wrote: post #113

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.

I've been using Firefox for as long as I've been on the internet, but I got really tired of using it just because "It's not chromium". Mozilla been doing really stupid and frustrating decisions that made me feel like I'm in an abusive relationship. I've been eyeballing Vivaldi for a long time, and Firefox breaking compact mode finally broke the camel's back for me earlier this year. When I switched to Vivaldi I felt…

Do you happen to know how they make money, or can maintain the project going forward? Seems they don't charge for their browser, and also claim they don't monetize their user's personal information at all.

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

#178

Post by coffeefirst »

jefftk wrote: post #160
yonixw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has not provided any reason to not include "block request" functionality. And that the super bad faith underlying fact that poison their "reasoning".

There is still "block request" functionality, the change is that it's now declarative. This is the same way it works in Safari, and is (a) more efficient because you don't need to execute JS to evaluate each request and (b) more private because an ad/content blocker doesn't need to be given such broad permissions. There are serious tradeoffs (no request time js makes it less flexible) but it's still very capable and…

I’m sure you are an honest person working in good faith. But we saw very similar behavior from Google around AMP. They had a very narrow reasonable sounding explanation, and just ignored all criticism and requests from both users and publishers that didn’t fit their narrative. This went on for years.

Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding.

Why should we to believe a word of what Google says about Manifest v3?

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

#179

Post by davidhyde »

detaro wrote: post #173
sfink wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former. Firefox tries to make it possible to port Chrome extensions to Firefox with minimal changes. Mv3 contains lots of new stuff beyond nerfing adblockers.

And Mozilla has said they will continue to support the old web request blocking API.

Ok so Firefox will cherry pick the good bits and leave the questionable ones out. I like that.

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

#180

Post by kaba0 »

foxrider wrote: post #139
eitland wrote: post #113

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.

I've been using Firefox for as long as I've been on the internet, but I got really tired of using it just because "It's not chromium". Mozilla been doing really stupid and frustrating decisions that made me feel like I'm in an abusive relationship. I've been eyeballing Vivaldi for a long time, and Firefox breaking compact mode finally broke the camel's back for me earlier this year. When I switched to Vivaldi I felt…

TreeStyleTabs works out of the box without any sort of hacking around. I really don’t get this mentality. Firefox’s containers have no corresponding feature in chrome, they haven’t copied it and it is a huge win from a privacy PoV.
Post reply on HN