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

151–160 of 271 posts

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

#151

Post by gorhill »

SquareWheel wrote: post #139
gorhill wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by MV3? The stated reason for the removal of the blocking webRequest API was to avoid broad permissions to read/modify data on all websites in the name of privacy/security. What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms beyond what the declarativeNetRequ…

You seem to be confirming nightpool's comment. That this is an intentionally-limited release. I think that's fine. It's good to have an adblocker that uses minimal permissions. But it seems like people will use this to argue that MV3 is less capable than it really is. Maybe UBO Plus (MV3) will come later that enables those feature.

It can never be "plus" compared to what uBO is currently with MV2, there are features and capabilities that can't be ported to MV3.

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

#154

Post by nightpool »

gorhill wrote: post #138
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…

> the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by MV3? The stated reason for the removal of the blocking webRequest API was to avoid broad permissions to read/modify data on all websites in the name of privacy/security. What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms beyond what the declarativeNetRequ…

> What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms

The point would be to have those features, obviously? Cosmetic filtering is extremely important, there was never any possibility that MV3 was going to remove it, and you just removed it yourself for absolutely no reason.

I'm sorry, but if you're just removing features from your extension to make a "point" about "respecting stated reasons" then I don't think people should take what you say about it seriously. This might be an art project or a political protest, but people shouldn't confuse it for an actual attempt at extension development. You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago, and pretending like it should dictate every single thing you should do with your extension, out of some weird form of stubbornness and bloody-mindedness.

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

#155

Post by cyphar »

Is there a plan to make the existing Chrome extension update to this (somewhat neutered) version automatically when the time comes for v2 deprecation (which appears to be in January 2023 for non-enterprise Chrome users)? I ask because I have provided my elderly relatives with Chromebooks and if the built-in adblocker is going to stop working I'll need to remote desktop to their machines (which requires a fairly-complicated-for-them dance with generating one-time codes) in order to install this other version when it's released...

(I personally use Firefox but I didn't want to give them a regular Windows laptop because they'd have to re-learn far too many things -- the old laptops were Windows XP -- and ChromeOS is both harder to break and easier to recover.)

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

#156

Post by jchw »

blibble wrote: post #49
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…

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…

Not to burst your bubble but if you are leaving the Android ecosystem because of Chrome manifest v3 I definitely urge you to see what you're getting yourself into. Not only does Apple enforce that you use their browser engine, it also abuses this position to disable features that they keep enabled on desktop Safari where users have an actual browser engine choice. Also, Safari imposes limitations on extensions that aren't all that different from manifest v3.

I spent years hoping for Apple to see the light, allow other browser engines, AT LEAST give us proper WebM and Opus support. Yet, today, it is no sooner to happening. I finally got fed up and switched back to Android where I grabbed Fennec F-Droid, installed uBlock Origin and finally had a decent mobile browser.

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

#157

Post by qu4z-2 »

cycomanic wrote: post #106
redox99 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find firefox on android unusable because it has this awful, non-native scroll behavior. On android I use either Brave or Samsung Browser.

What do you mean by non-native scroll behavior? I'm asking seriously, never noticed anything.

I'm not the GP but I've noticed since the switch over to "New" Android Firefox (Fenix or whatever?) scroll events aren't handled properly. That is, dragging your finger around on the screen works, but any other source (keyboard, for example) does nothing. Maybe that's what they were referring to; maybe they have a different issue.

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

#158

Post by somehnacct3757 »

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…

I do think there's a bit of sour grapes. You can only use the MV2 version until January. After that the main point to using the MV3 extension will be that it exists.

I sort of like the idea of UBO Minus, regardless of whether they do a full MV3 version of UBO later. It's more private than UBO could ever be. If it's enough, it's actually quite a nice extension.

Methinks a competitor ad blocker leaning into MV3 and claiming the 'first MV3 ad blocker' title last week was a glass of cold water for UBO devs. MV3 is happening, and usershare is at risk.

But, in addition to all that, I also think the main objective of MV3 is to hamstring ad blockers. Very very elegantly hamstring ad blockers.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

sgc wrote: post #68
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 w…

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by easrng »

denkmoon wrote: post #134
easrng wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out https://www.bromite.org/ , it's a android chromium fork with adblocking built in like brave but without the crypto stuff. Also has support for userscripts!

Chromium and therefore still encumbered by this poor Manifest v3 behaviour.

It doesn't have extension support so that's not relevant.
Post reply on HN