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

391–396 of 396 posts

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

#391

Post by CRConrad »

jefftk wrote: post #379
CRConrad wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The claim, in a broader sense, was: "AMP is shit", or perhaps even "AMP is shit, and Google are anti-competitive arseholes". And those are certainly well-established enough by to make any attempt at defending against (either of) them delusional.

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

#392

Post by jefftk »

CRConrad wrote: post #391
jefftk wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The claim, in a broader sense, was: "AMP is shit", or perhaps even "AMP is shit, and Google are anti-competitive arseholes". And those are certainly well-established enough by to make any attempt at defending against (either of) them delusional.

I'm happy to talk about specific claims if you want, but I was trying to respond to a specific false claim about header bidding and not signing up to defend all things AMP.

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

#393

Post by danuker »

contravariant wrote: post #66
danuker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is your life measurably better, by comparing it with other people's fake and perfect and amazing lives (in Netflix videos)?

You can tell this argument is flawed because it applies to all forms of video.

It does apply to all forms of video. But that does not make it flawed. What makes it flawed is the cultural norm of watching video.

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

#394

Post by Kerbonut »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #371
Helmut10001 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did you just describe DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which a DNS sink would not be able to block?

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

#395

Post by MichaelBurge »

Kerbonut wrote: post #394
MichaelBurge wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did you just describe DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which a DNS sink would not be able to block?

No, it looks like that protocol in RFC 8484 uses "application/dns-message" MIME type for its messages, whereas I was thinking the web server could replace domains with IPs in the contents of HTML/Javascript/CSS files sent to the browser("text/html" or "application/javascript" MIME types).

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

#396

Post by tentacleuno »

dessant wrote: post #88
breezeTrowel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Follow the links in the first paragraph of the article, they go into details about the technical aspects of why Manifest V3 is harmful to users. It's disappointing to see this sentiment again, as this has been Google's tactic in the past decade: feign innocence and initiate technical discussions, then move goalposts and start over until their opponents are exhausted. When we first heard of Manifest V3, it took them m…

> as researchers refuted all their technical arguments one by one.

Heya, do you have any links for that? Haven't really been keeping up with this whole thing. I briefly looked at the Privacy Sandbox proposal page a while back in late 2020 to figure out what it was all about, but haven't really got anything on researchers refuting their technical arguments.

Post reply on HN