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

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 490 posts

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#41

Post by kristofferR »

jokoon wrote: post #34
emaro wrote: post #12

For people that have somehow missed the story, manifest v3 removed support for certain powerful network apis, severly limiting ad-blockers capabilities. uBlock Origin will not work anymore without manifest v2 (there's a v3 compatible lite version of uBlock Origin).

I saw there is a manifest v3 ublock lite. I don't understand why and how it would be less capable, and so far I have not read the details of how/why. So far, it's just rumors to me. I will keep using firefox anyway, but honestly I am still waiting for a clearer explanation.

You can't just call stuff you simply don't bother to look up "rumors".

Read up here:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#42

Post by Rychard »

sho wrote: post #25

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's di…

The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth, people like you and I installing it on our friend's/relative's computers and telling them it was safer/faster/better.

Nothing stops us from doing the same thing again. I've been recommending Firefox to all my family/friends/colleagues for years (ever since I've seen the writing on the wall for Chrome). While Firefox isn't perfect, it's in a much better place than Chrome is, and meets the the needs of nearly 100% of people.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#43

Post by madeofpalk »

codetrotter wrote: post #4
neoromantique wrote: post #3

On Mac OS: https://kagi.com/orion/

From the Orion FAQ: > Is Orion open-source? > We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future. > Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please co…

Isn't Webkit GPL? How is it not open source?

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#44

Post by kuhsaft »

blakesterz wrote: post #7

Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?

I’ve been using AdGuard. There are some limitations with MV3, but it’s not noticeable [1]. AdGuard uses dynamic rules for updating rules between extension updates and for custom user rules. There’s the option using their system level AdBlocker too.

[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-mv3-re...

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#45

Post by tyingq »

fpoling wrote: post #37
tyingq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Static list of uris versus live heuristics. So "much of a difference" depends a lot on what you browse. If your browsing is covered by the static list, yes...there's little difference. Also, keep in mind advertisers are not unaware of all this movement. You don't think they'll try new tactics once they know everyone using chrome is now hobbled to solely static lists? That cloaking (or other approaches) won't then bec…

A lot of other ad blockers use static lists for years. The fact that they work tells that ad industry does not see the blockers as a problem that needs to be dealt with. It can also be that so far the increased cost of development of ads that are immune to simple static lists is not worth it.

Right. Advertisers didn't bother with all these tactics because normal chrome users could download a plugin without any major hurdles to thwart it. Why drive people that wouldn't otherwise use an ad blocker to do so?

That's going away now. Now mostly everyone is vulnerable with the only recourse being pretty technical stuff, not just downloading a very popular plugin.

So advertisers will now be free to get more aggressive without much downside.

Edit: I do get that this sounds like conspiracy theory. But it really matches the Google boiling frogs approach. Removing the blocking onBeforeRequest, as one of the very first things in the manifest v3 spec was not a coincidence.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#46

Post by husam212 »

varun_ch wrote: post #15
Kelteseth wrote: post #2

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…

I've been using Floorp for a while to get proper vertical tabs.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#48

Post by SoftTalker »

drivebycomment wrote: post #38
kccqzy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been using the Firefox version of it for more than a year by now, basically as soon as it came out. I commented on HN that I was going to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071 There's no difference whatsoever. And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking. Of course this differs wi…

Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".

I see boatloads of ads in Safari on iOS. To the point that web browsing on my phone is intolerable, so I don't do it.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#49

Post by afranchuk »

varun_ch wrote: post #15
Kelteseth wrote: post #2

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…

Note that Firefox profile management is getting an overhaul right now, including an easy profile switching UI. I'm not sure when it will be landing in release, but it is being actively built!

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#50

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

I wish some brave enough (no relation to Brave) soul patched Blink so it became possible to delegate URL blocking decisions to an external process via some sort of IPC. In goes a full URL and maybe an opaque session ID so some state may be tracked, out goes a boolean value. Assume all are allowed if this process cannot be connected to.
Post reply on HN