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

51–60 of 490 posts

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

#51

Post by btown »

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).

It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 - and while there's no plan yet to discontinue the Chrome MV3 compatible version, there are a million ways that this could go wrong.

My only long-term hope for this space is that a nonzero segment of congressional representatives have had ad blockers installed by their aides, realize that their experience online takes a nosedive when MV2 is discontinued, and calls for hearings! Blocking isn't just about not seeing ads, it's about a user's freedom to set up their "user agent" to preserve their privacy online from sites that don't respect their wishes. That's a right that Google is using its market power to erode, and it's not something we should take sitting down.

More on MV3 from a few years ago: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

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

#52

Post by simcop2387 »

freedomben wrote: post #17

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed. [1] [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/a…

Along with that, I'd hope they'll add needed support for proper adblocking even with v3 and beyond

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

#53

Post by vlovich123 »

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.

I’ve noticed a huge number of websites have interstitials pop up asking you to remove your ad blocker. While some let you bypass it anyway some don’t. Clearly the websites themselves seem to care.

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

#54

Post by sjnonweb »

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.

With manifest v2, the extension could dynamically intercept requests and block them based on a custom rule.

With v3, extensions have to predefine the rules for blocking. Which is the limiting factor

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

#55

Post by byteknight »

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.

So because you don't understand it, its rumors? A Simple google search would answer all of your questions in a literal sentence. It removes APIs used by ad blockers.

https://gprivate.com/6dp1q

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

#56

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

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 don't know if this is what you meant, but as an alternative to profile switching, there are Multi Account Containers [1]. It allows assigning a container to each tab, and the containers are isolated from each other. If you have an MS or Google account for both work and personal, you can open them at the same time in different tabs.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

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

#57

Post by hypeatei »

sjnonweb wrote: post #54
jokoon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With manifest v2, the extension could dynamically intercept requests and block them based on a custom rule. With v3, extensions have to predefine the rules for blocking. Which is the limiting factor

That and certain features like the element zapper in uBO aren't available in Lite.

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

#58

Post by byteknight »

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…

Firefox containers are amazing

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

#59

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

greenie_beans wrote: post #47

can i just setup dns blocking on my network to block the ad requests? especially on youtube, ublock origin stopped working a few weeks ago.

Not enough, especially since your browser may weasel out of it by using its own DNS via DoH.

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

#60

Post by freedomben »

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…

Agreed on hoping this is the inflection point, but only partial agreement that it's about adblock. For sure Google wants adblock to die, but I think it goes even deeper than that.

I think it's part of a much bigger trend in tech in general but also in Google: Removing user control. When you look at the "security" things they are doing, many of them have a common philosophy underpinning them that the user (aka device owner) is a security threat and must be protected against. Web integrity, Manifest v3, various DoH/DoT, bootloader locking, device integrity which conveniently makes root difficult/impossible, and more.

To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in. The next generation won't have the wonderful and fertile computing environment that we enjoyed, and it's (partly) your fault.

Post reply on HN