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

191–200 of 396 posts

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

#191

Post by ineedasername »

jefftk wrote: post #187
coffeefirst wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding. I completely disagree, and I think this will become clear as information continues to come out.

It's been years since AMP went live. Disagreeing while pointing to information that's been withheld for years and does not (to my knowledge) have a timeline for release... that does not make a very compelling argument. It amounts to "trust us". But we don't-- that's kind of the point.

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

#192

Post by weq »

jsnell wrote: post #26

The security argument seems pretty simple. The end goal is that legit extensions that people regularly install should not need to ask for dangerous permissions, because a) it teaches the users that it's normal and b) since the extensions can become compromised later and abuse the permissions. Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and…

uBlock origin makes the Web safer. End of Story. You cant argue about scammers going after high value targets without mentioned every other popular application out there.

I should not be able to write a JS popup that looks like a browser dialog - that would be a pretty good start to improving security of the platform. Instead they remove the APIs that run the ad-blockers. Then give the MAIN APIs used by scammers/ad networks to deanonymise, track and trick you, free access to your system without your agreement.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Its Prohibitionist rhetoric all over again.

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

#193

Post by politician »

zentiggr wrote: post #128
jsnell wrote: post #26

The security argument seems pretty simple. The end goal is that legit extensions that people regularly install should not need to ask for dangerous permissions, because a) it teaches the users that it's normal and b) since the extensions can become compromised later and abuse the permissions. Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and…

It sounds like you're happy to hand control of your browser away for free. I've been writing code for a few decades, I don't know everything but I don't need someone to decide for me what's too dangerous for me to have access to. If I was truly insane I'd go the Steve Gibson route and write a completely different browser from scratch. I'm aware it would take the rest of my life (or longer) at this point but the engin…

There is a lot of room for a new type of browser that doesn’t treat “install base” as a reason not to try.

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

#194

Post by jefftk »

ineedasername wrote: post #191
jefftk wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding. I completely disagree, and I think this will become clear as information continues to come out.

It's been years since AMP went live. Disagreeing while pointing to information that's been withheld for years and does not (to my knowledge) have a timeline for release... that does not make a very compelling argument. It amounts to "trust us". But we don't-- that's kind of the point.

I interpreted coffeefirst as referring to the current antitrust action against Google, and saying that I expect more information will come out as it progresses.

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

#195

Post by plorkyeran »

mortehu wrote: post #125
plorkyeran wrote: post #48

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…

> If you think Google is doing this for their own gain, I guess you can simply ask if declarativeNetRequest will be able to block all Google ads

The answer to that is "no". declarativeNetRequest is a more restrictive version of what Safari current supports, and Safari ad blockers don't do as good of a job of blocking Google ads as ublock origin does.

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

#196

Post by notinty »

tyingq wrote: post #136
Shank wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 WebRequest API’s blocking functions, which are central to the functionality of uBlock, are still slated to be removed.

Blocked under the supposed reason of privacy, but extensions can still see every request, and inject whatever javascript they want, exfiltrate your data, etc. Meaning the reason is pretty clearly not privacy.

Can you back this up?

Seems like a pretty clear case of being two-faced, and a small page laying out the details would be super helpful.

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

#197

Post by ComputerGuru »

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?

I don’t think you quite grasp how much money Google throws at developing Chromium. Maintaining a fork is a massive undertaking.

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

#198

Post by ComputerGuru »

tux1968 wrote: post #177
foxrider wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They get paid to set the default search engine to Google.

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

#199

Post by ComputerGuru »

nvrspyx wrote: post #87
csdvrx wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more likely, towards Edge, by virtue of requiring almost no effort to deploy the same set of extensions in a very similar browser in the hands of a company who doesn't require destroying privacy as much as google does to keep making money.

IIRC, the Edge team said they would adopt manifest v3, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, Firefox is adopting it too but not breaking the old manifest support at the same time.

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

#200

Post by perryizgr8 »

The main issue is user choice. If I want to run an extension, no matter how malicious, on my machine, I should be able to do it. This applies for my phone too, which is a capable computer for all practical purposes.

Apple has normalized the "we know better" approach, and has enjoyed great success doing it. Google is simply following that same philosophy. They know better than you, what's good for you and what's bad.

We need a fully independent browser, open-source, and built on modern technology. That way, users who care about this can get what they want. And users who trust Google to get it right, can use chrome or one of its derivatives.

Firefox has (had?) that potential, but for whatever reason Mozilla seems unable to execute effectively. The result is that Firefox has become a follower, doing the same things Chrome is doing. Thus defeating the original motivation for users looking for an alternative.

Brave looks promising, but given that they build on top of chromium, I am not sure how long they can resist fundamental changes in the codebase. Or whether they even intend to provide the needed alternative.

All in all I feel this represents a sorry state of browsers, and consumer software in general.

Post reply on HN