I use Firefox as my main browser and have Vivaldi, Brave, Edge, Installed for testing purposes. I just need to migrate my email away from Gmail hmmmmmm. Any good suggestion?
Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
321–330 of 448 posts
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#322This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
This provision is used to ban channels that refuse to monetize their videos, e.g. Blender https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#323This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
I find that very worryingly vague. In my reading though, that only applies to YouTube itself ("the Service"). It seems to be saying that your Google account can lose access to YouTube, not that you can lose access to your Google account.
It's recently been proven that the two are one in the same (look up the "Markplier YouTube Ban").
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#324This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
Hopefully that's just saying they have the right to shut down YouTube altogether, rather than denying specific individuals. But I'm not fluent enough in Legalese to be sure about that.
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#325I don’t care about Chrome (having ditched it long ago). On the other hand, I do care about whatever Chrome implements having an adverse impact on Firefox.
Mozilla has said before that Manifest V3 is up for consideration in Firefox and that “there are no immediate plans to remove” the existing APIs (mainly webRequest). [1] If Mozilla makes the power of uBlock Origin untenable on Firefox [2], that’d be a sad day for me, and I’d probably switch to Brave (assuming it’s still able to support uBlock Origin, even though it has a built-in as blocker).
If anyone from Mozilla or the Firefox team is reading this, please lead the way on these changes in a way that improves security (one of the goals of Manifest V3) while allowing extensions to remain powerful. Letting Google dictate the terms or just following Chrome will likely make Firefox worse in the eyes of power users and those who influence others to use it.
[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest...
[2]: like it did with the XUL obsolescence (for good reasons) and the removal of great extensions like Tab Mix Plus and Session Manager (without providing a way forward for them to work; session saving extensions on Firefox are still not as good as the mozdev Session Manager was).
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't be laughing for long, I believe. See this FAQ: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest... Note how they say: "We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest and are working with add-on developers to gain a better understanding of how they use the APIs in question to help determine how to best support them." "No immediate plans" is weasel-speak, as is "[we] are working with add…
Mozilla is free to implement Manifest v3, while preserving the webRequest API in its current state. Maintaining the blocking abilities of the webRequest API would not introduce any incompatibilities with Chrome extensions, because they simply would not use that part of the API.
I think the concern is they might also be "free" to find alternative sources of funding if that were the case not whether or not it's technically feasible to support an API that exists today.
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#327This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
I think it depends on how "the Service" is defined. As "Service" is capitalized, it is likely defined in the TOS, and may only apply to Youtube (not Google as a whole). So I believe you (and the redditor) are reading that passage incorrectly. (IANAL, and I have no clue if what I said is right).
I've been struggling with this myself. But extrapolating from news that some Youtubers who got banned also found their Google accounts (i.e. Gmail, Drive, etc.) closed, (someone up above just commented on this), I feel I must err on the side of caution. I mean, what do you then make of this haphazard interpretation of 'Service'?
p.s., not to be snarky, but you ought to add a disclaimer that you're a Googler in your comment!
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#328What a needlessly hostile title that editorializes and doesn't match the linked article. @dang can you change it to match the site? I think this submission violates the site guidelines on titles. The original title is "Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary" and doesn't include the ad blocker flame bait. "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editori…
The bit about adblockers provides context on why this article is worth my attention. I'm not an extension developer, so "Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary" means nothing to me. But this: >The most controversial aspect of the extension manifest v3 is the upcoming changes to the webRequest API. In v3, Google has changed the API so that extensions can only monitor browser connections, but not modify any of the cont…
It's also completely misleading and perhaps willfully so.
The limit's been raised. The removed API is used by half of all detected malicious extensions to spy on users. Ad blockers will continue to work fine with the new API, just like they do on Safari now.
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#329Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. Plenty of ad blockers will still work in Chrome. This thread is chock full of motivated reasoning and deliberate misinformation.
Can you spell out what you are implying here? Is it that the people posting in this thread are.. authors or stakeholders of malicious extensions? Do they all work for Mozilla? Are they a part of some rival industry which stands to benefit from the fall of adtech? Have they shorted GOOG? Surely it would be strange to class arguments from users who want to continue to block ads in their browsers the same, effective way…
For whatever reason they all seem determined to put Google in the worst possible light and ignore any arguments to the contrary. I can't speak to the motivation other than "hate Google".
Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary
#330I don’t care about Chrome (having ditched it long ago). On the other hand, I do care about whatever Chrome implements having an adverse impact on Firefox. Mozilla has said before that Manifest V3 is up for consideration in Firefox and that “there are no immediate plans to remove” the existing APIs (mainly webRequest). [1] If Mozilla makes the power of uBlock Origin untenable on Firefox [2], that’d be a sad day for me…
Mozilla is full of either cowards or sellouts. When the page visibility API was added to Firefox for Android and used to automatically pause nonvisible YouTube pages they ignored user arguments for blocking it.