341–350 of 396 posts
Is Edge going to continue allowing blocking of requests?
IIRC Brave and Vivaldi stated they will keep Mv2 support. I wouldn't bet on other vendors though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has nothing to do with "normies". With the old extension system, Mozilla couldn't make any substantial changes to browser internals (like multi-process, among other things) without breaking everything. It makes sense to have clear boundaries between the core and extensions, and keep implementation details out of the extension interface.
That's only a partial motivator. A lot of things aren't allowed, even within those boundaries, for "security" reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's for Browser extensions. Chrome extensions (and also Firefox and Safari). a fail called the "Manifest" that tells Chrome and the extension about the extension and contains all it's permission requests. Eg: "This extensions wants to modify all webpages", which is what ad blockers need to do. Going forward extensions in the Chrome Web store will have to use Manifest v3. Which has less capabilities than previous ver…
tl;dr Extensions with embedded spyware will no longer be able to record all of your web use. Malicious ones that steal credentials will be more easily identified. These types of extensions are installed far, far more than ad blockers.
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.
Firefox devs have confirmed that they'll implement Mv3, but without all of its restrictions and with compatibility for older extensions.
Certainly nothing firm as far as it looks, but at the very least they're thinking about it, even though that change is somewhat problematic, too.
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…
When Google says "pull in code remotely" they dont mean from a remote server. Instead its 'code remote to Google' aka code you wrote yourself sitting on your hard drive. This kills greasemonkey/tampermonkey and all the other UserScript extensions. Google saw how great Apple is doing and fell in love with the concept of walled garden. Its their browser and they wont let you execute any code that wasnt approved by them.
User Agent no more, Its Google Agent now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EFF doesn't need to give "the other side" because the other side is mostly obvious to the target audience (which isn't random people, Google itself is a huge part of the target audience). Note that Google doesn't give the other side either. Also, nothing in politics works like that, if you want to get people to join your cause you don't end everything you say with "But keep in mind that $foo".
Still not giving the other side and using "dangerous" and other "think of the children" terms triggers my bullshit and what are you hiding detector. And the only thing vouching for them is their reputation. Speaking of reputation EFF has been doing this shady speak for last few years and my respect for them is quite diminished. I suppose they can still do it because they have practicality a monopoly to "protect priva…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My assumption is that Firefox will be implementing the standard, but not the restrictions. Am I wrong there?
You are pretty much right. There's no need for assumptions though, see https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat... and https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest... .
It's hard to take EFF seriously when they write so hyperbolically. What's clearly also the case is that Chrome extensions are one of the great modern security and privacy challenges --- to the point where multiple tech company security teams have people whose job it is just to screen them. Another detail that EFF doesn't want to share is that ad blockers are some of the worst offenders --- they demand maximal access…
The answer to "Random ad blockers are dangerous" is not: Let's cripple all adblockers to safeguard our "users".
The obvious answer is create a review process similar to what Firefox did. Maybe Google should use some of their 0.0001% annual income to contract a full time review team to protect us against rogue extensions.
I think an honest interlocutor would look at what's behind Big Corp double speech:
Google: Protect ad-revenue while pretending to protect users.
Apple: Protect Apple against government pressure while pretending to protect the children.
stop using spyware like chrome* or brave*. * https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome.html * https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html
.. or firefox* * https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html Off the three, brave seems the least worse one in terms of telemetry and the best in terms of respecting it's users' wishes. All are considered spyware by that site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you mean? I use both browsers and, while I certainly wasn't happy with the changes that accompanied their move to WebExtensions back around version 57, I don't find FF these days to be any worse overall than Chrome. Not trying to be argumentative, just not clear on your meaning.
I rely on Firefox for everything a browser does, and praise its many unique features and conveniences; I don't want to imagine using a garbage flavor of Chromium. But the folks at Mozilla keep hitting my morale. Examples- 1. History of installing and running arbitrary code on clients in the name of "Experiments" without user permission. 2. Full telemetry on by default. 3. Shoving their products like Pocket (added to…
5. Ignoring any and all negative feedback.
6. Taking more and more control away from users.
7. Being funded by their competitor and never really looking for an alternative.
8. Firing a good chunk of their engineers when needed most.