Why is this thread not on the first 4 or 5 pages of HN?
Down weighted? Happens when mods see too many comments and not enough upvotes.
"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
241–250 of 490 posts
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#242Hopefully 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…
Their incentive is really to make the Chrome Web Store a tractable problem with minimal human effort. That's about 75% of the incentive. You can't actually make any guarantees at the CWS level regarding safety of audited code if the API allows audited code to execute non-audited code.
> To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in.
May I be blunt? I grew up in it, so yes. I am. I was there for the Windows virus wildfires. I was there for the malware distribution schemes. I was there for the first wave of enshittification. For the dotcom crash. For the spam wars. For the search engines that didn't work. For the JavaScript injection attacks. For the world where "nobody knew you were a dog" as long as you didn't talk like yourself. I couldn't trust most of my relatives to use a computer the way we had to use them in the late '90s / early aughts. That's not a problem now.
For all its flaws, the modern system is cleaner, simpler, faster, and better for end users and no longer requires them to be super-nerds (and meanwhile, open and malleable devices are still there for the super-nerds to play with and work with). This was the goal---to make computers something that benefit everyone, not just the technorati and the priest-class.
May the past become a foreign country, hard for the modern mind to comprehend. May it always be so.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#243I've finally switched (back) to firefox today. I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up. Everything old is new again!
This is why we need to break up Google. Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery. Google is too big.
Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons at all from Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
But, every time Mozilla does something slightly abrasive, HN users pile on about how Mozilla is ruining their privacy-respecting reputation, and then go back to using Chrome... The double-standard is really something else.
Maybe instead of getting someone else to break up Google for us, we could just... stop using their shit? I'm typing this from Firefox, I use Proton Mail (and pay for it!) for email, and I mostly search with DuckDuckGo (I know that's not perfect, either). I certainly don't feel like I'm living like a caveman...
/rant
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#244I've finally switched (back) to firefox today. I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up. Everything old is new again!
IMO they are still not as good although they have improved. I just develop in chrome and use Firefox for everything else.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#245"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceed…
And IIRC including the quotes in a filename in a save dialog, líke "manifestv2.reg" (incl quotes), will save it with the extension you typed, so you won't end up with 'manifestv2.reg.txt'. So you skip a potentially otherwise needed rename step.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#246Hopefully 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…
> making adblock less effective adblocking still works just fine on Safari, which has been doing the same thing as Manifest V3 for years now.
Ad-blockers are not just about displaying the actual ads.
Does the Chrome blocks trackers even without ad-blocker Like Safari?
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#247Hopefully 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…
The vast, vast, majority of normies I know use Google Chrome and use zero extensions.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we need to break up Google. Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery. Google is too big.
Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons…
> tech nerds
you would be surprised how many devs these days have drunk the big tech coolaid.
leetcode all the time and dream of working at google and using chrome and writing javascript.
if the tech nerds took a stand and used firefox en masse, we wouldn't have this problem.
unfortunately it is now normie season. we have to travel through these dark times.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#249Time to switch my last machine that still uses Chrome as the default.
Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we need to break up Google. Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery. Google is too big.
Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons…
Google made something better than what existed with Chrome, it was obvious it would capture the market significantly especially among more technical people.
I don't think the fact that Chrome is (was) better is the question, it's a question of how they got here.
Google took tons of money and threw it into Chrome and therefore developed something better. It's better because Google put more money into it than anyone else would have because, in the absence of considering using it to enshrine their search and ad revenue, it wouldn't make sense.
Isn't this part of the antitrust test?