181–190 of 490 posts
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…
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…
To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible
Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason. I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.
I run uBO on FF, and I've yet to see any forced ads or video stops. I'm on FF 131.0.2 with uBO 1.60.0.
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…
But they are removing adblock extensions that use v3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 aggre…
onBeforeRequest was removed because it is a massive spyware and malware vector. > I do get that this sounds like conspiracy theory. > … was not a coincidence. Could it be that it was coincidence? Do you have a solution for reducing extension malware without removing onBeforeRequest?
Yet you can still inject js right into the page. You just can't stop a page that was going to load from loading. They could have taken away the onBeforeRequest redirect capability and left just the onBeforeRequest cancel capability.
Not sure I've heard of any spyware/malware depending on just that cancel capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 aggre…
Besides, webRequest implementation in Chromium is a terrible collection of hacks on hacks. It is a good example how not to design or implement API. I will not be surprised if the removal of the API comes from a simple desire to remove that embarrassing code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 aggre…
onBeforeRequest was removed because it is a massive spyware and malware vector. > I do get that this sounds like conspiracy theory. > … was not a coincidence. Could it be that it was coincidence? Do you have a solution for reducing extension malware without removing onBeforeRequest?
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…
I recently quit my job, developing among others the means to "protect" media using DRM. While this was not a primary motivation, I'm glad to somewhat clean my hands.
The technology (dubbed Common Encryption) is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that a childishly easy to hack around. Yet clearly aimed against good faith consumers.
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 c…
Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?
For people who want to stick with a Chrome-based browser while still using the full-featured uBlock Origin: Brave will keep supporting uBlock Origin even after Manifest V2's removal from Chromium. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
Note that Brave's creator opposes same sex marriage, is a Coronavirus "skeptic", and his silly cryptocurrency is made to work with brave browser.
That's not true, he donated to organizations supporting California Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage which by the way was supported by the majority back then in California. That was also 16 years ago, it's time to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You should instead not rely on ad-hominem and critize Brave for being ridden with cryptocurrency and doing shady stuff.