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

201–210 of 371 posts

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

#201

Post by encryptluks2 »

RunSet wrote: post #156
JoshTriplett wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've talked to a number of real engineers within Google. The folks building the browser have no desire to kill adblocking; they're never going to include first-party adblocking (not least of which because antitrust), but they're not out to break third-party adblockers. It really is the case that the same mechanisms that enable adblockers ("this extension may affect your traffic on every website") are also the mechani…

> I've talked to a number of real engineers within Google. The folks building the browser have no desire to kill adblocking Have you also consulted the actual decision-makers at the world's largest advertising corporation who sign those real engineers' paychecks?

Have you combed the bug tracker or submitted reasonable PRs and have proof that the decision makers are gatekeeping an open source project from implementing something that is clearly a better alternative?

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

#202

Post by cycomanic »

Karunamon wrote: post #101
XorNot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand this reasoning. On one hand everyone complained that Firefox was to slow to bloated could be brought down by extensions etc. and moved to chrome because it was faster. Then Firefox implemented changes to make it faster, isolate extensions etc. and everyone complains that they killed them off and doesn't think of the users. Now we have the situation that people say they can trust Mozilla, because of these changes, while at the same time they stay on chrome.

I have two issues with this, 1. Chrome is so much worse in respecting its users, it is completely hypocritical to say not to trust Firefox but use chrome. 2. All these posts are actually painting the impression that there is no valid alternative, in fact that chrome is the less bad (freer) choice compared to chrome. This creates exactly the narrative that Google wants, that their choices are really just minor inconveniences and there is no valid alternative to chrome. I mean just in this thread we have seen many posts that state that Mozilla is essentially doing the same just slower and cant be trusted, despite statements and actions to the contrary.

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

#203

Post by encryptluks2 »

Ygg2 wrote: post #169
pessimizer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox did them a favor by trashing the extension ecosystem that had put the pressure on Google in the first place.

Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns. Being able to customize UI doesn't lend itself to easy refactoring. In order to compete with Chrome most of XUL extensions had to go. Hyrum's law in practice.

> Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns

Isn't that the same concerns used in pushing Mv3?

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

#204

Post by AshamedCaptain »

groovybits wrote: post #41
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?

> What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? DNS-based blocking

I don't understand what is it with DNS-based blocking people that they seem to be some of the most annoying proselytizers. Anyone remembers the "HOSTS file guy" from Slashdot ?

DNS-based blocking is as much a "future-proof" technology as "just don't look at the adverts". DNS-based blocking is old, easily workaroundable by anyone (just use the same domain name for everything, or interchangeable domain names, or just don't rely on system DNS), and significantly less featureful than even the simplest DOM/JS-based blocking (e.g. good luck collapsing ad elements from the view, getting Youtube not to play ads, etc.).

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

#205

Post by Fatnino »

ameshkov wrote: post #149
cycomanic wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stan…

If suddenly there was no ad blocking available on Chrome cold turkey we would see nearly all users who are accustomed to an ad free experience go looking for a new browser. Coordinate this with a marketing blitz from Firefox and essentially you can take nearly all the Chrome ad block users and turn them into Firefox users. And from there it's word of mouth even from the non-techies.

Good ad blocking is an essential part of a browser. Even Google who is actively slow boiling the frog knows they can't just hard cut it off because the users will jump ship immediately.

Why should we let Google get away with this? I feel the right move is to proactively take steps that make Chrome very obviously noncompetitive. By not providing ad blocking at all or at least making it a much inferior experience. It needs to be obvious to the users, not just to tech folks.

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

#206

Post by jacooper »

jefftk wrote: post #88
Multicomp wrote: post #16

It is such a bummer to me that Firefox is implementing MV3 and deprecating MV2[1]. Internet Explorer 6 never left, it just became Google Chrome*. Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. Edge? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Firefox? Technically a separate engine and in theory among the last hopes, but so sclerotic it follows Chrome in almost all of its decisions. (Can MV2 be kept as a stable basic-security-…

> Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. ... Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave and Vivaldi have always been built on Chromium, because that was the easiest way for them to get started as new browsers. There wasn't some pre-Chromium version of either that was killed.*

Also its just simply the best engine on the market.

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

#207

Post by Dwedit »

hackernudes wrote: post #193
userbinator wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can still install a certificate, and that will let you "man-in-the-middle" attack yourself with proxy server programs.

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

#208

Post by mdaniel »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #126
avhception wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fir…

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…

One thing to be cautious of when trying to count browser stats is that the recent releases of Firefox are pretty aggressive about blocking tracking scripts, such as those used by a site like statcounter.com uses to count up browser usage https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology>

I don't know how to solve that problem, since those two outcomes are at odds with one another, but wanted to raise awareness

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

#209

Post by happymellon »

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.

That's funny because my phone is weaker than my laptop, and has a smaller screen to show useful information Firefox and uBlock get installed faster to remove the slowdowns and popups.

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

#210

Post by staticassertion »

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…

Presumably that permission does not mean the same thing in v3. That is, the site can still read/modify data but, of course, only through the specific declarative APIs that delegate the work to the browser.
Post reply on HN