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

271–280 of 371 posts

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

#271

Post by shadowgovt »

ameshkov wrote: post #231
Broge wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do service workers restrict as compared to the previous model?

The main issue is that their lifetime is limited and they're getting constantly killed. This happens all the time even when the service worker is being actively used.

This is by design. The downside to background pages is they consumed an entire page's worth of runtime resources (and depending on how they're set up, they may do that per foreground tab).

It's a headache early-era iOS developers are familiar with, but this move is basically Chrome team saying "We've watched the community try to implement responsible resource handling, and they suck at it, so we're taking some of their choices away so that the browser can manage resources for the user." Because battery matters.

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

#272

Post by kroltan »

bambax wrote: post #238
zelphirkalt wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is of course, that Google managed to convince many fanboys, that it is a highly progressive modern and technologically superb company, that spits out revolutionary tech every month and only the developers of highest skill could work there, so all that comes out of Google must be naturally superior to any competition. If Google says, that they value speed of their browser as the main attribute, that mindse…

Very few fan boys can survive a day of web surfing with no adblock.

Yes they can, because then they not will not be "annoying ads" anymore, they become "relevant recommendations" as a coping mechanism.

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

#273

Post by shadowgovt »

bpye wrote: post #228
jacooper wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also its just simply the best engine on the market.

Is it the best or does it just _seem_ to be the best as most web content is only tested on Chrome, or Chrome and mobile Safari perhaps?

Hate to say it, but I used to have the job of testing on Firefox and (at least at the time) no, Chrome was the best.

The number of irritating little performance regressions we'd hit when doing anything interesting with the DOM in Firefox was notable (as in, we noted it in the bug-tracker ;) ). Broadly speaking, I began to assume Mozilla didn't have enough real-world integration tests back-stopping changes to their rendering engine.

I haven't tested in a few years so that information is stale.

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

#274

Post by baggachipz »

freediver wrote: post #190
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…

If you care about running uBlock Origin on macOS, happy to report that Orion browser by Kagi (WebKit based) supports it and will keep supporting Manifest v2.

Orion also has a damn good ad-blocker already running by default.

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

#275

Post by gxnxcxcx »

Fatnino wrote: post #230
Bedon292 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the market share of Chrome users who use ad blocking though? I don't know if its large enough to make a dent in the overall market share. And even then not sure everyone who has one installed would jump. I have it in my mom's browser but if it stopped working tomorrow she wouldn't know enough to make any changes.

It won't tip the balance but it is a significant percentage of active users. I want to say greater than 15 percent but I can't remember where I saw that. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what percentage of all users, just what percentage of techie word-of-mouth types use ad blockers. And that is a very significant percentage. Maybe your mom can't change it herself but come Thanksgiving she's going to complain about i…

I agree. And a very small percentage of Chrome users turned Firefox users could still mean a significant increase in Firefox usage, which in an ideal world would allow Mozilla a much needed breather from their metrics-driven efforts to stop bleeding users.

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

#276

Post by ameshkov »

shadowgovt wrote: post #271
ameshkov wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is that their lifetime is limited and they're getting constantly killed. This happens all the time even when the service worker is being actively used.

This is by design. The downside to background pages is they consumed an entire page's worth of runtime resources (and depending on how they're set up, they may do that per foreground tab). It's a headache early-era iOS developers are familiar with, but this move is basically Chrome team saying "We've watched the community try to implement responsible resource handling, and they suck at it, so we're taking some of the…

This question was discussed so many times in W3C group.

Mostly this boils down to one thing: there needs to be an alternative to service workers and there are tons of legitimate use cases for long-living background pages or workers. I think by this point everyone agrees on that, the question is when this alternative will be made available to developers. It’s only 3 months until the deadline after all.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by MikeHolman »

dont__panic wrote: post #221
Fatnino wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Why not fight fire with fire? Consider checking for the Chrome user agent on your personal website. When you detect it, either: 1. Display a screen that encourages to use a browser that respects their privacy, such as Firefox. 2. Show a popup explaining that "for an ad-free experience, try Firefox + uBlock" and add a bunch of fake (or real) ads to a special Chrome-exclusive piece of the site. If enough of us do this…

>If enough of us do this with personal websites, more and more people will stop using Chrome and start using Firefox. You don't even have to cut Chrome users off from the content -- just annoy them a little, and suggest Firefox.

It's a nice idea, but your personal website doesn't matter. Most people go to a Google website at least a few times a day, and they already tell you to switch to Chrome for the best experience. And almost all of the top non-Google websites also have a vested interest in less adblockers, so none are going to riot over this.

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

#279

Post by NeverFade »

HWR_14 wrote: post #192
kmeisthax wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IIUC, the only problem with Mv3 is that they disabled the WebRequest API. A fork of Chromium that solves this problem will just have to re-enable the WebRequest API, which seems doable.

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

#280

Post by unethical_ban »

I have no clue what Manifest V3 is, and more importantly, why Mozilla or anyone except Chrome and Chrome extension developers need to care.

It sounds like it is the extension API and process manager for Chrome. In what ways would an end user or website owner notice or care about this change, other than their extensions not working? How does it change default behavior?

Post reply on HN