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

371–380 of 396 posts

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

#371

Post by MichaelBurge »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #253
AnonC wrote: post #229

A lot of comments here are wondering what Firefox will do and if uBlock Origin would be made useless in Firefox like it would be in Chrome (once Mv3 is implemented). Short answer: Firefox is adopting various parts of Mv3, but will continue to support blocking webrequest, which is used by extensions like uBlock Origin. So uBlock Origin would become useless in Chrome, possibly Edge and a few other browsers, but not on…

Get a DNS Sink (such as pfblockerNG-devel). Works without Add-Ons or client config and in any browser. uBlock Origin is really only used on my computer for when I am not at home.

A DNS sink seems wrong - what if websites do the DNS lookup themselves and emit an IP address instead of sending the client a domain name?

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

#372

Post by darknavi »

kaixi wrote: post #303
gerash wrote: post #228

The article is hollow but from what I understand the gist of the issue is: Google is cutting down on the extensions ability to read and modify your web requests on the fly. As a side effect adblocker type extensions need to pass their blacklist patterns to chrome which will enforce it on their behalf. Chrome cites improved privacy because users won't need to give random extensions full read write access to pretty muc…

Extensions will still be able to read all the requests, just not block them, so Google's argument for privacy is moot. Given that one of the biggest performance hogs are the ads and tracking scripts on a page, the argument for performance seems sketchy too. I don't use adblockers myself, as I actually like seeing ads, but Google's arguments are very weak here.

> as I actually like seeing ads

I've learned of a new kind of people today. What about the "ad experience" do you like?

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

#373

Post by chrisoverzero »

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.

> Not gonna waste more time on this tbh […]

Much better to waste everyone else’s time, right?

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

#374

Post by ShamelessC »

Bellamy wrote: post #275
ShamelessC wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may see this as naive, but there was more confidence in Google (and big tech in general) to continue to "do no evil" in those days. I personally have never been upset with my firefox experience after their big re-write a few version back. The only benefits I see with chrome lately are when sites are clearly designed and tested only for Chrome. Not much of a benefit in the grand scheme of things, obviously.

And you believed a multinational stock company. I hope you don't make that mistake again.

Uh, okay - I was like twelve at the time so I try not to be too hard on myself (or others) for making similar mistakes. I'm not sure which part of my comment gave you the impression that I had not learned my lesson. Did you just feel like being rude to a random stranger? Or do you really think it's productive to go around blaming victims for getting grifted by professional grifters?

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

#375

Post by hda2 »

kome wrote: post #349
hda2 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. 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.

no, false, brave remains problematic, Firefox is the only one with more more privacy potential. With Firefox the user has much more freedom to modify important settings , while Brave remains spyware. https://spyware.neocities.org/guides/firefox.html

No, it really isn't and I've shown you why. If one of these browsers is spyware, both are.

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

#376

Post by CRConrad »

jefftk wrote: post #366
Lamad123 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop astroturfing.. Your company is a scummy monster!!

Google has not asked me to comment here, now or previously. When I see incorrect claims about something I have background on I point it out.

But it was your incorrect claim that was trivially disproved.

So if you weren't asked to, you're just astroturfing voluntarily. That's not better, it's worse: If one gives up one's integrity, one should at least get paid for it. Otherwise, one isn't acting just scummily, but scummily and stupidly.

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

#377

Post by jefftk »

CRConrad wrote: post #376
jefftk wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has not asked me to comment here, now or previously. When I see incorrect claims about something I have background on I point it out.

But it was your incorrect claim that was trivially disproved. So if you weren't asked to, you're just astroturfing voluntarily. That's not better, it's worse: If one gives up one's integrity, one should at least get paid for it. Otherwise, one isn't acting just scummily, but scummily and stupidly.

What claim have I made that is incorrect?

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

#378

Post by CRConrad »

jefftk wrote: post #377
CRConrad wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was your incorrect claim that was trivially disproved. So if you weren't asked to, you're just astroturfing voluntarily. That's not better, it's worse: If one gives up one's integrity, one should at least get paid for it. Otherwise, one isn't acting just scummily, but scummily and stupidly.

What claim have I made that is incorrect?

This claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 Debunked in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 (as was the attempted defense a year ago that you linked to in response).

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

#379

Post by jefftk »

CRConrad wrote: post #378
jefftk wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What claim have I made that is incorrect?

This claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 Debunked in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 (as was the attempted defense a year ago that you linked to in response).

Your linked claim is that "AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding". Your linked "debunking" is about AMP pages delaying loading for non-AMP ads, which is completely unrelated to header bidding.

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

#380

Post by skepticoitus »

TIL that there is this whole DeGoogle movement.

I luv muh privacy as much as the next guy. But the posters to the Reddit sub of that movement come off sounding "emotion-driven" at best. Conspiracy theory "extremists" at worst.

The impression I get from the Reddit discussion of the eff.org article [0] is that the majority of posters there are not "Hackers". That can be a good thing in a way.

One not-so-good thing, on the other hand, is /r/degoogle posters' apparent unfamiliarity with the nuances sometimes involved in software maintainability decisions.

That plus the confirmation bias that is inevitable in any subreddit.

I'm far from a Google fanboy. Trust me! But being somebody who does code reviews on the regular, I can understand why Google played the "Single purpose" policy constraint card as their rationale for pulling that AdNauseum extension. [1]

From a quick review of the AdNauseum code [2] I can see why Google would say that it does more than one thing.

Case in point: It could be argued that my word processor provides a "Single purpose". Namely: Process words.

But my word processor actually has several discreet functions that I use it for: Mail merges, PDF generation, script and manage macros, etc.

So in that sense, my word processor does not provide a "Single purpose". I could see how Google could apply that to AdNauseum.

***************

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20211212051743/https://old.reddi... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20211209223531/https://adnauseam... [2] https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/

Post reply on HN