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

141–150 of 371 posts

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

#141

Post by userbinator »

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…

I hope filtering proxies like Proxomitron become popular again. They'll work on all browsers, and as long as locked-down corporate environments with their own needs for filtering content and the requirement to go through a proxy exist, it's not something they can easily kill off (despite trying their hardest to do so with all the "security" propaganda.)

Stop being at the whims of the Google-controlled browser monopoly --- by filtering content before it gets there.

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

#142

Post by d4rti »

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…

It's pretty hard to search bugzilla, so to save anyone else time, this is what I ended up finding (9 bugs) https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...

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

#143

Post by thrdbndndn »

tialaramex wrote: post #113
Multicomp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla > In both transitions, Mozilla made sure [to keep top popular addons mostly happy and ensure adblockers are happy] Those are all fair points, and yes, I was probably too harsh with my language overall, that post written before I was corrected that Mozilla was not developing MV3 the same as Google was. I stand by my strikes that Mozilla did kill XPCOM, and failed to…

"Mozilla did kill XPCOM" isn't a deviation from their stated intent. XPCOM was a magnet for Hyrum's Law problems, because obviously XPCOM plugins are going to depend on the inner workings of the browser, that's just how XPCOM is designed - so now if you touch these internals it breaks third party stuff. There were operating systems which took the approach XPCOM has to extensibility, they're not doing so great: Classi…

>how much is enough

They used to have an official goal like "supporting top X addons' transitions", so it's not so random about which API they needed to add.

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

#144

Post by tedivm »

cycomanic wrote: post #121
ameshkov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as technologists recommended chrome to our friends and families. Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. Maybe it is time that extension authors abandon ship, and we recommend alternat…

I've been switching my family over to Firefox with UBlock Origin. I made the switch when these original changes were announced, and it's been a great experience. I run into maybe one website a month where I have trouble.

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

#145

Post by lapinot »

tomxor wrote: post #23
lapinot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use firefox so i don't know much about chrome vs chromium politics, but if the chromium people have one thing to do now, it would be to maintain manifest v2 in their fork..

Unless something recently changed, Chromium is considered upstream for Google Chrome, not a fork... so you will see most engine level changes originate in Chromium, by google engineers. Maybe you are confusing it with de-googled-chromium et al?

Ah right, now i remember. Yes that would be de-googled-chromium then.

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

#146

Post by Terretta »

tgv wrote: post #91
lapcat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They shouldn't do this IMHO. AdGuard is a business, and Chrome is the world's most popular web browser. They don't have much of a choice. uBlock Origin can pass because it's not a business.

Of course they can do this. They don't want to do it. How else would they push ads through their ad blocker?

Unlike some ad blockers, AdGuard’s business model, while for profit, doesn’t include taking money to let ads through, contrary to, say, AdBlock Plus or Ghostery.

AdGuard does have an option for users to allow inline search results ads and sites’ “self promotion” ads. More here:

https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/search-ads-and-self-promot...

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

#148

Post by RunSet »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #133
e3bc54b2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, gorhill is the veteran author of original uBlock, and current uBlock Origin. He knows what he's talking about as author, maintainer and one of the community leader/voice of probably the single best and only conflict-of-interest-free ad-blocker currently in existence. His past post[0] was reposted and generated quite a discussion on HN [1]. For further details on why uBO is conflict free, this is the READ…

uBlock Origin is the only browser extension I use on Firefox, Even after loosing trust on browser extensions in general after witnessing a recommended Firefox add-on indulge in malicious activity[1] and reading numerous stories of how browser extension publishers with large number of users are routinely approached to integrate malware. The reason why I cannot do away with uBlock Origin is because its not just an Ad-b…

To those familiar with the HTML DOM I recommend uMatrix from the same author as uBlock origin. It makes a good companion to uBlock Origin and provides much finer control.

https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

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

#149

Post by ameshkov »

cycomanic wrote: post #121
ameshkov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as technologists recommended chrome to our friends and families. Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. Maybe it is time that extension authors abandon ship, and we recommend alternat…

This sort of boycotting will only work when widely supported by both developers and users and this is not the case. Despite all the public outcry and news outlets telling that the end is near, it didn't affect the Chrome's share.

> Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do.

I kind of disagree with this. Google Chrome's current popularity stands on two things:

1. It is a great browser and it does its job very well.

2. Google in the first years was very active with its distribution. And this is not only about the link on their homepage. I remember how 10 years ago every piece of software you were trying to install was bringing Chrome alongside.

Engineers recommending Chrome to their friends and relatives shouldn't be discounted, but I tend to think that it's less important that the two other points above.

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

#150

Post by schleck8 »

dreen wrote: post #74
alexb_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I despise anything that has touched cryptocurrency, which is why I don't like Brave.

I've been using Brave for years and still have no idea what their crypto angle is, because I didn't want or have to find out.

Have you not updated? Brave's crypto nonsense is super aggressive nowadays with a wallet builtin, decentralized domain resolving, ads for crypto exchanges on the start page, paid crypto background images and their own currency BAT.

The browser is getting more bloated by the year, they've added some Brave News service now and integrated their paid VPN with their browser instead of making it a separate product like Mozilla VPN

And obviously they started using affiliate marketing, parasite behaviour.

Post reply on HN