Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 271 posts

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#61

Post by blibble »

Steltek wrote: post #56
blibble wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was fully in the Google world prior to gorhill's posts on manifest v3 as a direct result the only thing I have left is a pixel phone, which will be going with the new iPhone (and in the meantime my entire family has been 'helpfully' migrated too) I may be up the extreme end of the distribution, but this sort of grassroots push is what dethroned IE, and the resultant loss of control of the web eliminated Microsoft's…

Can you explain why you'd switch to an iPhone over a web browser? iPhone is a huge step back for having an open browser with user focused extensions. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios

I am hoping the US/EU anti-competitive bills are going to go through

(plus my phone is falling apart, and I don't want to give Google another penny after their manifest v3 behaviour)

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#62

Post by blibble »

staticassertion wrote: post #47
antonok wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great suggestions. The "third party buys popular extension and quietly adds malware" approach is also a huge attack vector. There really ought to be some way to prevent an extension from updating until you've had a chance to review and approve that change, especially if it requests a lot of sensitive permissions.

Well, even today, if the attacker modifies the permissions it will require a re-acknowledgement. Google can also do things there, like if the extension is tied to a key (as it should be), tell developers that they are required to not provide that key to anyone else, even if they sell / transfer ownership of the extension. Instead, the new owner should register a new key, which can trigger review/ scrutiny. Key + 2FA…

if someone offers a typical small extension author $500,000 for their extension, I think they're going to ignore Google's rules and handover the keys

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#63

Post by christophilus »

Steltek wrote: post #56
blibble wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was fully in the Google world prior to gorhill's posts on manifest v3 as a direct result the only thing I have left is a pixel phone, which will be going with the new iPhone (and in the meantime my entire family has been 'helpfully' migrated too) I may be up the extreme end of the distribution, but this sort of grassroots push is what dethroned IE, and the resultant loss of control of the web eliminated Microsoft's…

Can you explain why you'd switch to an iPhone over a web browser? iPhone is a huge step back for having an open browser with user focused extensions. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios

I know it's Safari under the hood, but Brave on iOS is great.

I do hope that Apple decides to / is forced to allow real 3rd party browsers at some point, though. I also hope that a decent Linux phone becomes a realistic alternative.

I'll check back in 10 years to see if either of those materializes.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#64

Post by stonogo »

nightpool wrote: post #21

Just so I understand correctly: This version removes *all* of the features that read or modify a user's data, so as to abide by the ""stated intent"" of MV3, rather than taking full advantage of all of the actual MV3 APIs? For example, this commit removes the "scriplet injection" and cosmetic filtering features, which AFAIK work perfectly fine on MV3? if broad "read/modify data" permission is to be used, than there i…

You are conflating a "present/absent" question of this permission with Google's stated intent. The key modifier here is broad "read/modify data" permission. If an extension attempts to assert that permission across a user's entire traffic, the extension will not be permitted in the store. Google's been very clear on this and it's already caused problems for other extensions.

Furthmore the webRequest API has been nerfed to the point that it cannot block requests any more, only track them. The replacement declarativeNetRequest API is not flexible enough to serve uBlock Origin's needs.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#65

Post by vntok »

svnpenn wrote: post #58
horsawlarway wrote: post #23

I approve (of both the release and the name). I see plenty of folks in here lamenting this release at all - in the hopes that the lack of it will push folks to Firefox. It won't. Those who care about this are already on Firefox, and frankly - Firefox isn't going to be the answer here (to be clear, this is opinion). I'm also not thrilled at manifest v3, although for very different reasons than the adblocking limitatio…

Quoted post unavailable.

Please don't tell people to refrain from posting their analysis here, especially when their point is both clear and very logical.

It would be better and much more productive if you would explain why you think that Firefox has a bright path ahead given all we know about it's management, strategy, corporate practices, and frankly raw figures about new installs / usage over the past 5 years.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#66

Post by TheRealPomax »

Raed667 wrote: post #6

I think uBlock Origin providing a manifest-v3 compatible extension would be a net negative for the community. As it will help more people accept the status-quo and accept a mediocre state of ad blocking, instead of switching to Firefox

What community? "People who use chrome"? Because that community couldn't care less about which version of manifest is the current version, and what its restrictions are. If they did, they'd already not be using Chrome anymore.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#67

Post by [deleted] »

nightpool wrote: post #21

Just so I understand correctly: This version removes *all* of the features that read or modify a user's data, so as to abide by the ""stated intent"" of MV3, rather than taking full advantage of all of the actual MV3 APIs? For example, this commit removes the "scriplet injection" and cosmetic filtering features, which AFAIK work perfectly fine on MV3? if broad "read/modify data" permission is to be used, than there i…

[deleted]

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#68

Post by sgc »

nightpool wrote: post #21

Just so I understand correctly: This version removes *all* of the features that read or modify a user's data, so as to abide by the ""stated intent"" of MV3, rather than taking full advantage of all of the actual MV3 APIs? For example, this commit removes the "scriplet injection" and cosmetic filtering features, which AFAIK work perfectly fine on MV3? if broad "read/modify data" permission is to be used, than there i…

Maybe I am missing something here. But google is a well-known pull-the-rug-from-under-you type company, with a long proven track record of doing just that. Don't use undocumented, not officially supported anything from them. ever. Don't use apis that go against their stated goals. They WILL remove them. Unless MV3 has officially committed to a changed changed scope to allow this, it is irrelevant if it incidentally works.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#69

Post by kelnos »

Jaepa wrote: post #50
ainar-g wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many people use adblockers? About 43 %, according to [1]. > Is there any chance manifest v3 will lead to enough users abandoning Googles Chrome […] No. Google Chrome is pretty much in the same position as Internet Explorer used to be. It's the default browser in the most popular mobile OS and the first thing people install on their PC (or get it installed by someone else). Mozilla can barely play catch-up with…

42.7% of internet users worldwide (16-64 years old) use ad blocking tools at least once a month. That framing sets of multiple mental alarm bells. EDIT: it looks like the source is HootSuite may have a conflict of interest, as they seem to focus on social media advertising campaigns.

What does it even mean to use an ad blocking tool "at least once a month"? Like... do people have an ad blocker installed, but disabled most of the time, and just enable it temporarily when they come across a site with particularly egregious ads? That seems... an unlikely use model?

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#70

Post by kaibee »

svnpenn wrote: post #58
horsawlarway wrote: post #23

I approve (of both the release and the name). I see plenty of folks in here lamenting this release at all - in the hopes that the lack of it will push folks to Firefox. It won't. Those who care about this are already on Firefox, and frankly - Firefox isn't going to be the answer here (to be clear, this is opinion). I'm also not thrilled at manifest v3, although for very different reasons than the adblocking limitatio…

Quoted post unavailable.

I switched to FF a few months after I started hearing about this change coming down the pipe. It was totally fine and easy. I haven't had any issues because of it outside of one weird old website not working perfectly. And I still have Chrome installed so I just used it for a minute in that one case in the last year-ish.
Post reply on HN