Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#31

Post by jerf »

Nicksil wrote: post #22

> We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest > immediate We know exactly what this kind of talk means. Don't blow smoke up our ass, Mozilla, just give it to use straight: We'll have `blocking webRequest` for as long as Google allows it.

I understand Google's motivation for nuking ad blockers, as well as their motivations for denying every which way that that is what they want to do under whatever security justifications they can bring up, even true ones.

I don't see Mozilla's motivation to remove that at the moment.

I mean, speaking for myself, I'd drop them both and follow a fork of the browser that lets uMatrix work, and that's not something I've considered very many times in the past 20 years. Control over what my browser actually connects to has become a top-3 feature concern for me. I was going to say "I suppose 'working' is technically more important to me", but then I mentally wargamed out whether I'd be willing to use a slightly nonfunctional browser to have uMatrix and noticed that I actually already put up with a slightly nonfunctional browser to use it, because uMatrix already breaks a number of sites until I do some whitelisting.

Even if there's a security impact to extensions having too much access to the web request cycle, there's a security impact to them not having enough access to the web request, too.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#32

Post by spinningslate »

Nicksil wrote: post #22

> We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest > immediate We know exactly what this kind of talk means. Don't blow smoke up our ass, Mozilla, just give it to use straight: We'll have `blocking webRequest` for as long as Google allows it.

And in case anyone from Mozilla is listening, this could well be existential for you. Right now, your pro-privacy stance is a principal factor in users choosing Firefox over Chrome.

Follow Google - and all its shady practices - and you will lose a large chunk of those users. Many of them, to use current terminology, are "key influencers": technically savvy people who advise family and friends what to do. Lose them and the outlook is, I suspect, pretty grim.

You're clever people. You'll know this. Google has a good few smart folk too (even if their motivation is questionable). It's easy to see this is difficult for you: Google is your primary funding source. Fail to comply with their wishes, and that funding might well disappear.

As has been noted in other threads, the tension between privacy principles and funding is a huge threat.

For the good of the open web, I desperately want a successful Mozilla, and a technically excellent Firefox at the forefront of a pro-privacy, anti-surveillance re-balancing of the internet.

I don't doubt the difficulty in filling a $300M funding hole. I'd gladly pay $30 per year for a pro-privacy Firefox. Another 9,999,999 is a tall order. On the other hand, you have c250M users...

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#33

Post by Ajedi32 »

purple_ducks wrote: post #20

Chrome's June 2019 statement about Manifest v3 in which they tell us all how much they really care about users and this totes isn't to weaken ad blocking(which directly affects their revenue - that's just a coincidence - pinky promise!): https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

Here's an interesting thought experiment: what would it take to convince you that this change really is being made for performance and security reasons, and not to hurt ad blocking?

Given the level of cynicism directed at Google by the HN community, is it even possible for Chrome to lock down extension permissions in a way which wouldn't be seen as some sort of aggressive move against ad blocking? Keep in mind that secure, user-friendly permissions systems do have to be somewhat restrictive in order to be effective (see Android, iOS, etc), and that ad blocking extensions will necessarily be impacted as a result.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#34

Post by [deleted] »

lol768 wrote: post #30
mjw1007 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that discussion (and indeed in the message you quote), the mozilla developers had every incentive to say, if it were true, « we have decided not to replace fennec with fenix on Android until fenix supports ad-blockers ». They very visibly didn't take the opportunity to do so. From what I can make out on github, they're planning to replace fennec with fenix around the time the next ESR comes out (which I think is e…

Thanks for this. >From what I can make out on github, they're planning to replace fennec with fenix around the time the next ESR comes out (which I think is early 2020), and there isn't currently a project in progress to add the necessary web-extension support to fenix. Would you mind linking the GitHub issues that have lead you to draw this conclusion, so I can take a look?

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#35

Post by clairity »

Iolaum wrote: post #11
Ygg2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> adblocker extensions to abandon Chrome. Ha. As if that will ever happen. They'll probably just pivot to something else. The reason Chrome can try to ditch ad blockers is that they are big enough, that your only choice is Chrome or GTFO.

Your choice can well be firefox and chrome as a fallback when a website doesn't work and you care enough to bother opening chrome for it. Chrome has already ditched adblockers on mobile, firefox with adblockers and reader mode is a MUCH better mobile web experience.

do you really need the fallback? i've yet to need chrome for anything, since i rarely use google products other than maps.

i've found the use of google captcha on governmental, financial, and some commercial sites frustrating though. i'll abandon a site that has google captcha if usage is anything less than critical.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#36

Post by michaelmrose »

SquareWheel wrote: post #23
jefftk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chrome has already ditched adblockers on mobile nit: chrome has never had extensions (or ad blockers) on mobile (Disclosure: I work for Google)

That's not even a nitpick. The parent got it completely wrong. If Chrome mobile never supported extensions, then it's false to claim they "ditched" them.

They being an ad company were smart enough not to ever allow the camel to get its nose under the tent.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#37

Post by beacker »

WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #18

The tone of this post concerns me. What comes across is that Google is not collaborating with Mozilla over the Manifest v3 changes. Instead of using and appreciating the engaged Firefox developer ecosystem we have PM conference rooms in Google mandating huge changes based on... well they've been shady so far about their choices on Manifest v3. The other thing that keeps bugging me about this is - We need a tiered App…

> Frankly if Debian had a web browser extension "store" with 20 things in it, I'd use that exclusively and turn off both the Chrome and the Firefox store 100%.

There are a handful of extensions for Firefox and Chrome in the Debian repositories: https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=webext-&searchon...

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#38

Post by mjw1007 »

lol768 wrote: post #30
mjw1007 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that discussion (and indeed in the message you quote), the mozilla developers had every incentive to say, if it were true, « we have decided not to replace fennec with fenix on Android until fenix supports ad-blockers ». They very visibly didn't take the opportunity to do so. From what I can make out on github, they're planning to replace fennec with fenix around the time the next ESR comes out (which I think is e…

Thanks for this. >From what I can make out on github, they're planning to replace fennec with fenix around the time the next ESR comes out (which I think is early 2020), and there isn't currently a project in progress to add the necessary web-extension support to fenix. Would you mind linking the GitHub issues that have lead you to draw this conclusion, so I can take a look?

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/06/27/reinventi... says they were planning in June to have a "feature-rich, polished" fennec release "this fall".

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/879 "[Meta] Fennec -> Fenix Transition" appears to say the transition will happen in Q4 2019.

The Android releases of fennec used to be updated for each Firefox release, but moved to ESR with the most recent ESR release. I think that means that since then nobody has been keeping the Android port working as changes come in (but ESRs are supported for a year or more, so maybe I'm wrong to think that the date of the next ESR release is relevant).

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/574 is about web-extension support; the recent updates say:

« Product is looking into feasibility » « Tentatively adding needs:gv label until we know what additional GV work will be needed to support general purpose extensions. »

The issue is labelled 'Feature:FennecTransition' and 'feature request'. It isn't labelled 'should', and some other 'Feature:FennecTransition' issues are.

It isn't clear to me whether they're planning to release a new version of "Firefox" on Google Play that uses the fenix codebase, or release fenix as a separate app and declare that the fennec one is obsolete.

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/879 and https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/934 have some interesting hints, but I can't tell what they've decided.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#39

Post by cptskippy »

badsectoracula wrote: post #6
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3

This points to the disturbing truth of how incredibly complete Google's monopoly is: Even browsers not based on Chrome are strongly pushed to implement Chrome's platform changes anyways.

Mozilla abandoning their much more powerful XUL-based extension system for Chrome's inferior WebExtensions wasn't already an indicator towards that?

Stop conflating unrelated matters.

Mozilla's decision to remove XUL Extension support was directly a result of their decision to replace XUL in favor of HTML5 as the UI design language of choice.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#40

Post by purple_ducks »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #33
purple_ducks wrote: post #20

Chrome's June 2019 statement about Manifest v3 in which they tell us all how much they really care about users and this totes isn't to weaken ad blocking(which directly affects their revenue - that's just a coincidence - pinky promise!): https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

Here's an interesting thought experiment: what would it take to convince you that this change really is being made for performance and security reasons, and not to hurt ad blocking? Given the level of cynicism directed at Google by the HN community, is it even possible for Chrome to lock down extension permissions in a way which wouldn't be seen as some sort of aggressive move against ad blocking? Keep in mind that s…

Maybe make this step after discussing & listening to the other browser makers who support extensions.

Maybe listen to the people who actually write the ad blockers.

>"I think they've been trying to give the impression that they’re working with the developer community, when in fact they’re pretty entrenched in what they want to do," says Jeremy Tillman, president of the privacy and security-focused ad blocker Ghostery."

https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blockers-extens...

Post reply on HN