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

191–200 of 371 posts

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

#191

Post by HWR_14 »

cycomanic wrote: post #171
Tijdreiziger wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also recommend people I know to use Firefox, but a lot of people either don't understand the problem or just don't care. A lot of people even conflate Google Chrome, Google Search and other Google services (understandable, as Chrome's home page is a big Google logo with a search box), so they think that they cannot use Google anymore if they install Firefox. The stats [1] speak for themselves: only 3.3% of users us…

I think the stats are showing that we really need debundling of the browser from the OS. I'd wadger that those stats pretty closely align with the percentage of android and IOS users, or in other words the stats are completely dominated by mobile browsers, where hardly anyone changes browsers. I can't understand why we have not seen strong regulatory/antitrust action on this front considering the precedent with MS.

I dread the debundling. The day Google can tell iOS users to "just download Chrome" is the same day all non-Chrome browsers will stop working on Google properties. Well, they'll let Chromium browsers (which also support their ad-blcoking-blocking) work too, for antitrust reasons.

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

#192

Post by HWR_14 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #175
moonchrome wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why not create a ad-free/privacy fork of Chromium. Especially on Mobile, I'd use that for sure. Existing ones have huge strings attached. Mozilla is basically FUBAR at this point.

This exists, it's called Ungoogled Chromium. Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. The real danger to having a single codebase for the whole web is spec validation. Most web standards rely on two independent implementations. For newer technologies we could technically count WebKit and Blink as separate, but Gecko was providing an entirely separate codebase that isn't a fork of…

> Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward.

Yes. But adding back in Manifest v2 isn't. Even MSFT claims that it's too much work for them.

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

#193

Post by hackernudes »

userbinator wrote: post #141
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 monopol…

Proxy and ssl doesn't work for filtering (basically the same as dns).

Maybe some sort of "remote browser" remote desktop or browser-in-browser type thing will work.

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

#194

Post by teh_klev »

thejosh wrote: post #49
Longhanks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overestimate the role adblockers play for regular users. Most people not affiliated with IT in any way I've met actually don't use an adblocker or have forgotten that they in fact do and would not notice the change to Manifest v3. Also, most people care much more about "it simply works", and that is Chrome. Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's…

It's actually ridiculous to surf the web without an adblocker. Let's say you have a brand new computer, and want to download nVidia drivers. Fire up your brand new computer, search for "nvidia drivers" using Bing.... and the first results are all ads for extremely scummy adware. (It's also hilarious when you search for "chrome download" when Edge begs you not to, and including when you click through, but that's a sto…

> It's actually ridiculous to surf the web without an adblocker.

Obviously for this audience. But two of my buddies didn't even know such things existed and were truly grateful when I introduced uBO/Privacy Badger to them.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

shadowgovt wrote: post #177
ameshkov wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. The only piece of reliable information is this: I once asked Google engineer whether they plan to support declarative cosmetic rules (that's what we do ourselves in MV3 and that's why the extension still requires wide permissions) and the answer was that they definitely do plan to do that in the future.

Supporting that makes sense to simplify the use case so that people don't have to write JavaScript for simple changes, but that doesn't imply they'll replace the JavaScript API with a purely declarative API there. The difference between that and the traffic modification API is the threat model. The third party were to compromise uBlock Origin's servers, they would have a frightening amount of power over millions of m…

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by dicriseg »

RunSet wrote: post #148
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That repo is archived. Is the project dead?

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

#197

Post by encryptluks2 »

ameshkov wrote: post #159
shadowgovt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. I haven't heard of this plan. Do you have more information?

No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. The only piece of reliable information is this: I once asked Google engineer whether they plan to support declarative cosmetic rules (that's what we do ourselves in MV3 and that's why the extension still requires wide permissions) and the answer was that they definitely do plan to do that in the future.

> No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical.

And then people use and rely on information like this to further ignite their cognitive biases. Seems more like promoting misinformation than anything.

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

#198

Post by loeg »

nightpool wrote: post #174
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…

Has Google said that they would reject CLs to the declarativeNetRequest API if filter list maintainers propose a new feature? Have any filter list maintainers tried to propose those CLs? Obviously it would require a new set of skills and talent to maintain the C++ code that now powers Chromium's ad-blocking capabilities, but Chromium is still an open project with guidelines for contribution, no?

> Chromium is still an open project with guidelines for contribution

Hah. The default is to reject changes from the community. I would not pin my hopes on Chromium accepting any adblocking community changes.

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

#199

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

schleck8 wrote: post #152
therealmarv wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all opt-in. Brave is self sustainable for opt-in privacy respecting ads and crypto is a way for making users opt-in and getting paid. Compare that with Firefox which does not have a real sustainable business model and relying on Google or other sponsors.

Everything but their crypto is opt out - Wallet = has to be removed from the toolbar manually - Crypto background ads = has to be deactivated - Crypto Exchange ads = has to be deactivated - Decentralized domain resolving = has to be deactivated - BAT = Not enabled by default but has to be removed from the toolbar manually

I already have to go through and rip out all the ads that Firefox has and the pocket integration on the toolbar, so this doesn't look all that different to me.

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

#200

Post by Larrikin »

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…

Not recommending Chrome is the way to go. There was a time where developers only tested against IE, built features on top of IE, and there didn't seem any way to defeat the garbage associated with IE.

But people recommended Firefox anyway for most browsing since it was a better experience on the open web. Eventually it up ended the dominance by giving a better browsing experience except when forced to use IE through bad code, which eventually forced more developers to improve the experience outside of IE.

I personally never stopped using Firefox for Chrome, since there was always some extension that just didn't work quite as well on Firefox for the longest time. I've always found it worked it well.

A popular opinion of a vocal contingent of users on this site always say that Chrome is so fast, without any benchmarks other than their personal feelings for the most part. If Google is going to be openly hostile to extensions like UBlock working as intended I really wonder if they would feel Chrome is much faster if the developers of such extensions stopped looking for work arounds in an actively hostile environment and simply let them experience the garbage that is the current state of the web. They've already shown their hand as being a terrible steward of the web by blocking extensions like AdNauseum that try to destroy all the tracking and privacy violations they've created.

I personally believe all the people who don't have their jobs tied to creating ad garbage would do another exodus. Although I'm sure a vocal minority would create noise on sites like this since their jobs are tied to making the world a worse place.

Post reply on HN