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

161–170 of 271 posts

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

#161

Post by chii »

jchw wrote: post #156
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…

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 a…

> I spent years hoping for Apple to see the light, allow other browser engines

as soon as apple tried to remove flash, they've shown their hand tbh. While it was generally considered good, the ideology behind removal of flash is the same ideology for their policy to not allow other browser engines.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #88
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…

I think that what dethroned IE is that using your monopoly to maintain a moat of bugs only works for so long. If the browser is going to continue to be developed, eventually you're going to have to fix the bugs. By then, they were competing with Chrome, which was not bug-ridden and also backed by a juggernaut. The grassroots push that dethroned Microsoft's browser was Google's browser (aided by Firefox's suicide.)

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by freediver »

jchw wrote: post #156
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…

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 a…

While all this is true, one should look it also from a motivation standpoint. Why is Apple doing things it is doing and why is Google?

That thought experiment will help extrapolate the far-out future for both companies and the version of the future they are building towards.

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

#164

Post by beernutz »

Vinnl wrote: post #107
rjh29 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Huh? I'm going to switch to Firefox the second uBlock Origin stops working on Chrome. Otherwise I'll continue to use Chrome because it's a better browser (for me). I don't think I'm some rare minority here.

I don't think you are either, but like the rest of that group , I expect that you'll keep using Chrome anyway. Because it's not like uBO will stop working, it'll just be a bit worse.

If it stops allowing cosmetic filtering, I will be looking for a different solution.

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

#165

Post by somehnacct3757 »

caladin wrote: post #117
ohgodplsno wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this commit removes the "scriplet injection" Considering this is stated in ManifestV3's announcement and that no APIs have been made for it: > Beginning in Manifest V3, we will disallow extensions from using remotely-hosted code. This will require that all code executed by the extension be present in the extension’s package uploaded to the webstore. Server communication (potentially changing extension behavior) wil…

One interesting consequence of this is that Google's own javascript api client will no longer work with MV3 and there are apparently no plans to ever make it work. See https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript-client/issue... Chromium bug marked WONTFIX: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=116445... Updated readme: https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript-client/blob/... So effectively…

MV3 nukes pretty much every third party js in existence.

If the lack of a DOM doesn't do it, the extremely spartan service worker environment will take it out. Did they use XHR? SW only supports fetch. Did they use the window global? Don't have one of those either.

It's the stone ages right now. If you want to integrate with a third party in MV3 you are building a fetch wrapper around their raw HTTP API. Google thinks this is production ready

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

#166

Post by fomine3 »

tyingq wrote: post #115
horsawlarway wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they were suddenly deprived of good adblocking on Chrome. Ok - but that won't happen (at least not yet, given the m3 api available, who knows what google will do long term). The majority of users won't genuinely notice any difference between an adblocker running on m3 vs m2, and plenty of companies are going to make them. My point is that despite the push back from the UBO dev (and I sort of agree - this does li…

"The majority of users won't genuinely notice any difference between an adblocker running on m3 vs m2" I think that'll be true for a short time. But once the advertisers figure out that ad blockers have been crippled on the most popular browser... They'll figure out how to take advantage of that. Once Chrome takes away the ability to do live heuristics, and leaves you with just a static-ish blacklist, it's pretty eas…

Since adblocking on Safari (both Mac and iOS) is mostly done by Content Blocker API that's like manifestV3. Many mobile users already in such situation. People still fine with current adblockers on iOS.

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

#167

Post by fomine3 »

amluto wrote: post #84
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nagware/scareware (pushing subscriptions on users, possibly with misleading claims) is also a business model I've seen used. I honestly don't mind the "pay to play" model. It's a way to establish a healthy ad ecosystem. Ad blockers define what they consider acceptable, and collect money. They have an incentive to find a reasonable balance: The less restrictive they are, the more money they make, but the second they g…

> If uBlock Origin offered an ad whitelist that only allows ad networks that a) serve only their own JavaScript, no third party crap Wait, why would an acceptable ad network have JavaScript at all? Maybe a minimal, pre-approved bit of JS to help the network understand where the ad is being placed, but even that is questionable. Frankly, I consider it somewhere between bizarre and obviously wrong for any serious websi…

It's sandboxed by iframe if it's done well

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

#168

Post by tyingq »

fomine3 wrote: post #166
tyingq wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The majority of users won't genuinely notice any difference between an adblocker running on m3 vs m2" I think that'll be true for a short time. But once the advertisers figure out that ad blockers have been crippled on the most popular browser... They'll figure out how to take advantage of that. Once Chrome takes away the ability to do live heuristics, and leaves you with just a static-ish blacklist, it's pretty eas…

Since adblocking on Safari (both Mac and iOS) is mostly done by Content Blocker API that's like manifestV3. Many mobile users already in such situation. People still fine with current adblockers on iOS.

Yes. But soon, all adblockers will have roughly the same abilities or lack thereof. That's when it's worth the effort to render them all useless. Risk/reward and all.

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

#169

Post by gorhill »

nightpool wrote: post #154
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…

> 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 fea…

> removed it yourself for absolutely no reason

I clearly stated the reason: to avoid having to require broad "read/modify data on all websites" permission. I purposefully decided to create a permission-less version of uBO for people who would rather not grant broad "read/modify data on all websites".

> You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago

The current documentation regarding the purpose of declarativeNetRequest API deprecating the blocking webRequest API[1]:

> Using this declarative approach dramatically reduces the need for persistent host permissions.

My goal is to create a permission-less version of uBO and this is what I did. I am sure this could appeal to some people out there, as many over time have echoed that broad permissions to "read/modify data on all websites" is scary -- it's a recurring comment for those who support Chromium's deprecation of the blocking webRequest API in favor of the declarativeNetRequest API.

So this is a content blocker for those people. For those who can't live without cosmetic filtering and all the other goodies, there are other options out there.

I don't understand what you perceive this negatively.

* * *

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...

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

#170

Post by jchw »

freediver wrote: post #163
jchw wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

While all this is true, one should look it also from a motivation standpoint. Why is Apple doing things it is doing and why is Google? That thought experiment will help extrapolate the far-out future for both companies and the version of the future they are building towards.

This isn't reasonable. Today on iPhone, even if you pay $100/year to be able to run unsigned code, you can't get a copy of Firefox running, because nobody maintains the port. That kind of crippling grasp on the ecosystem is difficult to tolerate, and simply nothing compared to what's going on with Google.

Today with Pixel phones, you can secure boot third party OSes without even voiding your warranty. You can unlock the bootloader. Even if this ever were to go away, Android still has multiple ecosystems and you can sideload apps as long as your OEM doesn't disable this, and Google doesn't.

Apple isn't getting more consumer friendly. iOS is less private than ever, not more, and Apple seems intent on making it worse; they dropped the needless CSAM debacle, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Apple has made their position clear: an iPhone is not your phone. It's Apple's phone. You may borrow it on their terms. The law may say otherwise, but Apple thwarts your attempts to work around it.

Android is imperfect; it's definitely not good for privacy if you use stock ROMs, it's behind on security in many fronts, and Play Store lock-in has definitely put a damper on innovation. That having been said, though, at the end of the day, Google gives you options that lets you take control over the device. The future of being able to control your own devices is unclear with remote attestation once again on the horizon, but being able to control what software runs on your device to a decent degree is absolutely an important feature for me, especially after hoping and praying that Apple would eventually fix the problems I had with iOS. But they were not bugs to Apple, they were features, and Apple knows if people could run their own code, those features wouldn't work very well.

That left a bad taste in my mouth. Until it's fixed, I don't think I can consider phones that Apple sells today as serious options as they are a different class of device to Android phones the way that a game console is a different class of device to a typical laptop.

Post reply on HN