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

351–360 of 396 posts

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

#351

Post by bananabernhard »

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…

While there seems to be some disagreement with your position, I just wanted to thank you for being transparent about your involvement at Google. More people should act like that.

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

#352

Post by 1_player »

cookiengineer wrote: post #332
1_player wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't list these apps, say they're scam or they don't work with no proof whatsoever except your word, especially when there's counter arguments they actually work. Explain yourself, or are we supposed to take your word for gospel?

> Explain yourself, or are we supposed to take your word for gospel? Not gonna waste more time on this tbh, as I'm building a competition to those products. If you don't believe me, stay in your walled garden. I've given you hints, start checking them for yourself or don't. If I would post screenshots of MITMProxy, Little Snitch or something else, people would try to discredit them as fake anyways.

> If you don't believe me, stay in your walled garden. I've given you hints, start checking them for yourself or don't.

There's no need to be so confrontational. You made the claim, you'll probably be asked to show the technical reasoning behind your statements on a forum called Hacker News. But since you're working on competition, it's in your best interest to discredit similar products.

> If I would post screenshots of MITMProxy, Little Snitch or something else, people would try to discredit them as fake anyways

Sounds to me you're not prepared for people to show you might be incorrect. Honestly, I never doubted your position, I just wanted clarification for my own intellectual gratification. But you sound really defensive for some reason.

(By the way, I do not work in ad-tech nor in ad-blocking tech and I have no stake in anything slightly related to the matter at hand.)

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

#353

Post by ddingus »

Bellamy wrote: post #276
ddingus wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of people said this. They were all right. So, what's the alternative here? What can people actually do to improve on things?

Use Firefox, Opera, Brave, or DuckDuckGo browser.

Got it, and I just set up FF and DDG, full import, default switch.

Chrome is hard to get away from!

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

#354

Post by vin047 »

Vinnl wrote: post #336
piokoch wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking in the internet I see that "94% of Mozilla revenues came through royalties received by search engines to be featured on its Mozilla Firefox browser" I am afraid that at some point Mozilla can be forced to comply and cripple ad blockers too. Hopefully someone will decide to come up with a totally new browser. I remember times when BitKeeper told Linus that they will somehow try to charge for using their tool t…

Alternative sources of income are growing - the share of search engine deals was down to 86% last year, apparently: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/rcc7m6/mozilla_aga...

Perhaps Mozilla should put the more advanced features and customisation options behind a monthly subscription. I know people dislike monthly subscriptions, but the browser is perhaps THE most important tool you can use. Maybe it's time we start valuing it properly.

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

#355

Post by amelius »

knob wrote: post #334
amelius wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Switch to Firefox. And if you're a webmaster, add some crippling/inconveniencing logic if user agent equals chrome.

I despise Chrome. Yet I oppose your suggestion. Lets be above that.

You don't win this fight for freedom by not playing the same game as the big corporations.

> Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28975443

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

#356

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

tssva wrote: post #346
extropy wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used to donate to the EFF on a recurring basis but there behavior over the last few years brought that to an end last year.

I still donate to the EFF.

What have they done this last year to change? Is there another organization you could recommended supporting?

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

#357

Post by dessant »

ahahahahah wrote: post #215
dessant wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where do people get this sense of entitlement from? Please cite one law you believe Google has broken. Just like Amazon (your employer), Google has also been fined several times in the past decade for illegal business practices. Their illegal activities are extensively documented, and in some cases they were forced to change course due to regulatory intervention. Feel free to look it up, I don't think there is a ne…

That's true, and so any thing that that company does that some rando doesn't like and claims is illegal we must assume is actually illegal, even when that rando explicitly avoids questions about what they actually think is illegal about it.

They've asked to name one law that I think Google has broken, which is already part of the public record.

If you're asking what illegal business practice Google will be engaging in when the Manifest V3 limitations will begin to be enforced: using their dominance in one industry to gain advantage and maintain dominance in another industry, to the detriment of consumers and competitors.

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

#358

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

Browser extensions have a higher trust level than internet sites. V3 simply dis restricts the former which gives the latter more wiggle room. Sure, there are hostile browser extensions, but at that point security and privacy is already compromised.

It will impact µBlock Origin negatively for example and I want this plugin to be able to access the page unrestricted.

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

#359

Post by belorn »

vin047 wrote: post #354
Vinnl wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative sources of income are growing - the share of search engine deals was down to 86% last year, apparently: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/rcc7m6/mozilla_aga...

Perhaps Mozilla should put the more advanced features and customisation options behind a monthly subscription. I know people dislike monthly subscriptions, but the browser is perhaps THE most important tool you can use. Maybe it's time we start valuing it properly.

The share of those profits that goes to Firefox development is far less than one might think, especially if one consider the many millions that goes to management of Mozilla foundation. Firefox would be a very different project if all the royalties received by search engines featured in the Firefox browser went to improve Firefox.

As long profits from Firefox does not goes back into developing Firefox, a monthly subscription wouldn't change things.

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

#360

Post by ayushnix »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #283
ayushnix wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No DNS based solution comes anywhere close to what uBO offers. You can hide elements you don't like. You can block individual scripts or resources in a web page, even if they are first party resources. No DNS sink solution can do that. Browsing the internet would be an extremely bad experience for me if I just relied on a DNS sink.

Generally, I agree - the two complement each other. The difference is that uBO is client side and its use can be detected. A DNS sink will work, no matter what was configured on the server end. Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me: Count:Type…

> Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace.

I find those leftover empty spaces extremely annoying. Imagine being interrupted by a big portion of nothing in the middle of an article. uBO hides those empty spaces as well.

And no, I don't use or like Reader Mode. It's yet another click I need to do to just read an article.

> Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me:

That doesn't look like individual script blocking to me, you're just blocking domains. If the script you want to block is part of the first party domain itself, you can't just block it using a DNS sinkhole.

At this point, I'd go as far as to say that a web browser which doesn't support the complete capabilities of uBO, considering things like CNAME tracking exist, is a user hostile web browser. This includes all Chromium based browsers.

https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloak...

Post reply on HN