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

Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

webiterate.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 648 posts

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#571

Post by zamadatix »

taviso wrote: post #480
zamadatix wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite the name, the requests were not blocked until the extension had initialized. The browser could make network requests before that happened with MV2. With MV3, static rulesets and persistent DNR rules are enforced immediately. There were several workarounds like suspendTabsUntilReady which helped greatly in this half of the problem. Then it would solidly stay permanently registered too. I'm pretty sure none o…

> Nevertheless, MV3's ability to offer limited filtering on startup does not seem like such a blessing when the other option was to just support full filtering on startup Sure, but as I said, it's a design decision, and nothing to do with MV3. I'm not trying to litigate it one way or the other. I do think DNR is a good solution, and that request callbacks were a bad idea. That's my opinion - and the counterargument i…

Again, we really need to separate "MV3 - the theoretical idea" and "MV3 - the actual implementation which ships with Chrome". It's two confusingly different worlds.

Nobody should be swaying you to prefer DNR over webRequest (or vice versa) when other browsers show both can be available options for the extensions you use as makes sense for what they try to do/what type you'd like to install. Continuing to support MV2 power levels of functionality does not mean uBO Lite type extensions would need to stop working the way they do, it means uBO type extensions would continue to work the way they do. I.e. the biggest failure of MV3 is not in lacking anything new whatsoever, it's in forcing the removal of a lot of API options which were useful in the name of ulterior motives.

> You can definitely do anything that DNR can do with webRequest, nobody can dispute that. The point is that there are things you can do with uBO lite that you can't do with uBO (and vice versa!). It's not a straight downgrade, there are powerful new features.

It's like you sold your house for a mobile home but tell the neighbor it's not a straight downgrade because it's red. Great, but why are we praising that instead of painting the house red?

Funnily enough, this morning I ran across another feature I didn't realize was missing in MV3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/discussions/369. Perhaps keeping the functionality to know what was actually blocked to the extension was too powerful.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#573

Post by panarky »

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #448
panarky wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generalize this. Every landlord should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their tenants. Every telco should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their customers. Meta should pay damages when their users stalk and harass people.

There are levels to this though. You wouldn't hold a landlord accountable if it was a surprise that a crime took place, but if they were aware that some of their tenants were committing crimes and just "choosing not to ask about it," they could reasonably be called "accountable." Telcos are regularly asked to give up information regarding crimes committed by their customers, see the Patriot Act for details - in some…

You moved the goalposts to make your arguments.

You say landlords should only have accountability for the crimes of their tenants if they chose to do nothing to prevent their property from being used for crime.

Google doesn't just ignore bad advertisers, they prevent the vast majority of malicious ads and report the worst offenders to law enforcement. Google is already doing far more than what you say immunizes landlords.

You say telcos are in the clear because they give info to law enforcement on demand.

Google also does this, so according to your goalposts, Google is also in the clear.

You say Meta is in the clear because they have been sued for crimes their platform enabled.

Google has also been sued and paid billions in damages.

The standard I'm asking you to generalize is the one I replied to: "hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network".

If this standard can't generalize to landlords, telcos, Meta and everyone else who has a platform that bad actors abuse, then it's a bogus standard.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#574

Post by gorhill »

zamadatix wrote: post #283
judge2020 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don’t seem to feel any performance or functionality degradation myself. What ad blocking related feature has been made impossible with MV3?

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... has a few of the more practical concrete examples. Namely content can load without the blocker being ready to filter, CNAME cloaking can't be handled properly (in Chrom* at least), and the filter rules aren't as flexible. Interestingly, the rule count limits themselves do not (currently) seem to be much an issue despite it being one of the more common co…

> content can load without the blocker being ready to

That issue does not exist for uBO Lite. I specifically wrote in the FAQ under "What are the upsides of an MV3-based content blocker?":

> For Chromium-based browsers specifically, MV3-based content blockers which are entirely declarative will properly filter at browser launch, which is not the case for MV2-based content blockers

uBO Lite is entirely declarative, so it filters properly at browser launch, and I literally give an actual example of this in the following section, search for "filters properly at browser launch".

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#575

Post by thereforegrin »

breakingcups wrote: post #541
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure out what is a malicious ad? That seems really difficult at scale.

Do the words "at scale" magically remove all responsibility and reliability?

apparently

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#576

Post by skinfaxi »

brigandish wrote: post #362
skinfaxi wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech development is hindered in the USA?

By monopolies, yes. Know what an acquihire is? Heard of a buyout leading to a shut down? That hinders development.

The creator of a specific technology getting acquihired doesn't stop others from competing with the original. If anything, acquihire is a validating signal and probably leads to more entries into the market.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#577

Post by mafuy »

andrewflnr wrote: post #463
soulofmischief wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't make that claim, you misread what I said. I explicitly mentioned a functioning Congress because that's a necessity, a functioning executive branch is not enough. We are in agreement.

We're in agreement, so what did I misread? :D The point is, there's not some realistic, single-point "if only" scenario where "things could have been different", because the problem is largely Congress.

You misread/missed "Imagine".

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#578

Post by heavenlyblue »

sroussey wrote: post #315
cute_boi wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if apple can validate each and every apps before publishing to appstore, why can't google and facebook validate each and every ads?

But they don’t. Google and others do vet ads, but when they don’t host them, the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!). Google didn’t have this issue until they bought DoubleClick (text ads and they hosted). And they had pretty good privacy as they didn’t want to share shit. After DC it all went to hell.

So they are not hosting the ads? But either way, stuff like hashing content (and only whitelisting hashes which are approved) should solve that.

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#579

Post by dexterdog »

dylan604 wrote: post #281
Computer0 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The man has virtually no political talent. More unique individual people donated to his primary efforts than any other candidate in history. Wouldn't this be indicative of some large amount of political talent?

I think people grossly underestimate "money is speech" that is spent by corporate interests. PACs and SuperPACs are something I've just never understood how their donations are not just bribes

That is precisely what they are

Re: Google Has Removed MV2 Extensions from the Chrome Web Store, Including UBO

#580

Post by chriswarbo »

jannes wrote: post #278
chriswarbo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Linux exclusively for over 20 years. What is its "OS browser"?

Epiphany on Gnome - https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/ In all other cases Firefox, I'd assume.

True, I was a very happy Epiphany user about 20 years ago. Konqueror is the KDE equivalent (which of course begat KHTML -> Webkit -> Blink)
Post reply on HN