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

AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 371 posts

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#101

Post by Karunamon »

XorNot wrote: post #14
jnsaff2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is not that bad. Honestly the multi-account containers alone merits the switch.

I don't get where "not that bad" is coming from with Firefox these days. Firefox is just plain good, and has been for a while.

I don't trust Mozilla. They continually make changes against the interests of the computer literate, they continually screw with the UI, they continually take control away from the user, they are literally in Google's pocket, and their own attempts at fundraising put the lie to their claims about privacy.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#102

Post by ThunderSizzle »

Dalewyn wrote: post #83
bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

>there are many: Firefox and Brave to mention just two. So just Firefox and then all the Chromes? There really aren't "many" alternatives, there isn't even /an/ alternative because Firefox suffers from Mozilla Misguidance(tm). Presumably the same people who bitched about the IE6 monopoly brought on and fully embraced the Chrome monopoly. We now all get to sleep in the Chrome bed.

I was all for Firefox until Mozilla decided cancel culture was the way to go back when they canceled their CEO. It became even worse since - calling for the de-platforming of half the country.

I know Google hates the same user group, but Google also likes their money (or their money-value).

Go woke, go broke. If your trying to compete uphill, shooting yourself in the foot isn't going to make it any easier.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#103

Post by thrdbndndn »

gnomewascool wrote: post #51
Multicomp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is building MV3 and while they are coy with deprecating MV2, we all know, c'mon, they won't keep MV2 even a day after their minimum year promised. Their track record speaks against them. XPCOM extensions? Killed, but don't worry, we will re-implement all the needed APIs as WebExtensions (didn't happen). Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually r…

I also was and still am disappointed about both changes, but I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla. In both transitions, Mozilla made sure to support the needs of both uBlock origin and NoScript, extending the webextension API (such that uBlock origin on Firefox is more capable than on current Chromium) and working with uBlock to make its interface more mobile-friendly. They also extended the webextension…

When the transition from XPCOM to WebExt started, Mozilla made some big promises about the functionality parity about the two but failed to deliver most of them (and silently removed such promises from their official pages, and left relevant Bugzilla tickets rot (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1427928 )).

IMHO, practically speaking, the final result of WebExt isn't that bad, especially taking into consideration of the added APIs you mentioned.

It is the shear difference bwtween promise and reality that really hurts lots of power users and addon developers to this day.

Also you mentioned Treestyle as "most of the popular ones", but left out the elephant in the room, Tab Mix Plus, which even has its own Bugzilla ticket: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1226546 Gesture extensions nowadays are also pretty limited compared to its heyday due to the nature of WebExt.

In hindsight, these promises were just too good to be true, but people were believing.

And the story of extension support on Firefox on Android is way too similar to the last time in the Fennec to Fenix transition. At least this time, users just didn't have much faith in it to begin with.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#104

Post by prmoustache »

Multicomp wrote: post #37
syrgian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the summary. I had perceived the betrayal but I had never organized the thoughts nor verified the claims. What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? For now I am using Firefox on computer + Kiwi in Android, but I also expect those two to go awry in the mid term. * I see that after the edit, it doesn't look as bleak for Firefox PC. But what about Android?

For Android, I don't have a great answer for you. In theory you can install Fennec on F-Droid, version 57, the last version the last version of Firefox built by F-Droid that was based on the Fennec browser engine, but that has security vuln potential, increasingly so since its been a few years since Fennec -> Fenix switch. For now, because I don't want to be hit by security vulns in the browser itself, I'm holding my…

fennec is up to date on f-droid, currently version 104.something

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#105

Post by ocdtrekkie »

michaelt wrote: post #93
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here though is simple: As the sole publishing source of extensions users can install on Chrome, Google just needs to stop distributing malware from their extension store! But of course, that would require Google actually take some responsibility and do some legwork and neither of those things are in their core competency. If Google actually had any goals of improving security, they'd literally just delet…

They manually review and approve Android apps one-by-one. The results have not garnered much acclaim. I suppose you could argue they simply haven't budgeted enough $$$$ to get skilled reviewers taking enough time on each review.

People reviewing the security of browser extensions should have the title of "engineer" at minimum.

Bear in mind browser extensions completely defeat all the benefits of HTTPS. If we aren't putting them through significant scrutiny there really is no reason for anyone at Google to claim to work on security at all. Extensions need to be treated as incredibly privileged code and vetted accordingly.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#106

Post by lotsofpulp »

webmobdev wrote: post #34

I don't know if it is cartelisation (both Apple and Google have an ad division and it is in their interest to work together on some aspects of this business) or Google bribed Apple (through its ios search engine deal), but Safari webkit also has limitations in ad blocking through the content blocking API which Apple created for Safari. (See Explanation of the state of uBlock Origin (and other blockers) for Safari #15…

Is it possible that Apple’s implementation uses less power and hence conserve battery life? Also, is it possible Apple’s implementation requires less trust in extension and is more private because no browsing information can exit?

It is also possible for the above, and collusion to all simultaneously happen, and or Apple advancing their own ad business.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#107

Post by ocdtrekkie »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #89
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here though is simple: As the sole publishing source of extensions users can install on Chrome, Google just needs to stop distributing malware from their extension store! But of course, that would require Google actually take some responsibility and do some legwork and neither of those things are in their core competency. If Google actually had any goals of improving security, they'd literally just delet…

If Google did that, there'd be widespread cries of "gatekeeping!". Mozilla was blasted for doing exactly the same thing.

Here's the problem with that apologism: They already are gatekeeping. They made that call as soon as they removed sideloading extensions. The problem is Google is just a shoddy gatekeeper.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#108

Post by monkeynotes »

bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

Being that Brave and numerous other browsers are built on Chrome, does that mean they will also have this limitation?

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#109

Post by avhception »

ameshkov wrote: post #81
gorhill wrote: post #71

One of the stated goal of MV3 by Google[1] was to avoid extensions with broad permissions: > our new declarativeNetRequest API is designed to be a privacy-preserving method for extensions to block network requests without needing access to sensitive data This MV3-based AdGuard extension still requires a broad permission to "read or modify host data" on all sites[2]: "host_permissions": [ " " ], So what you have now i…

All true, and we (content blockers devs) were saying this all for years, since MV3 was first announced. MV3 brings very little (if any) privacy and security enhancements, this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. We'll now need to rely on Chrome team for implementing what we need. But they do it painfully slow or not do at all. Also, where will we get the new ideas i…

I just wanted to say that you (content blocker devs) have been heard, maybe not by the majority of browser users but at least people like me are championing Firefox over webkit-based browsers precisely because to do otherwise would be to loose control of the web to FAANG, especially Google. I've been telling everyone who would listen about how Google leverages Chrom(e/ium) against user interests and have deployed Firefox to every friend & family user whose machines I support.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#110

Post by hgsgm »

edflsafoiewq wrote: post #58
soraminazuki wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly) Compatible against what? The web standards or Google Chrome?

Compatibility against real world websites is the thing that actually matters. Firefox does fine for me though.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN