"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

Post by tourmalinetaco » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 11:00 PM UTC

Raed667 wrote: post #285

yborg wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vivaldi team does not respond to any comments asking about ongoing v2 manifest support; safe to assume it's gone as soon as it's out of Chromium upstream. Given Tetzchner's continual messaging on how important user privacy is to Vivaldi it seems like a strange decision, but I don't know how much effort would be required to maintain the support. They're a small team, so it would be understandable if they would just sa…

Or they just don't want to admit publicly that they're too small to maintain a fork when it diverges this much

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 11:02 PM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #286

jeffbee wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "original" UBO is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploit happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of privacy is going to get completely pwned. UBO Lite works without being a gigantic security vuln.

Some people may think what you're saying is outlandish, but it's worth remembering that this is pretty much what already happened to Ublock (which led to the forking of Ublock Origin and return of gorehill)

Post by MissTake » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 11:07 PM UTC

knowitnone wrote: post #269

chlorion wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment a…

you get to downvote?

Post by btown » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 11:19 PM UTC

sockaddr wrote: post #296

btown wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 - and while there's no plan yet to discontinue the Chrome MV3 compatible version, there are a million ways that this c…

I think everywhere that you used “nonzero” you could have also not and it would have still made exactly the same point.

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 11:43 PM UTC

eikenberry wrote: post #144

crazygringo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective I thought I knew that. Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox... ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. And at the same t…

If I remember right then the difference is more about ad-tracking/privacy than blocking. V2 allowed UBO to find and intercept the calls to the ad servers before the calls were made. Where V3+UBL still makes the calls it just doesn't display the results. So while you might not see the ads, the ads see you.

  A single rule does one of the following:

  - Block a network request.
  - Upgrade the schema (http to https).
  - Prevent a request from getting blocked by negating any matching blocked rules.
  - Redirect a network request.
  - Modify request or response headers.