Live data from Hacker News

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

developer.chrome.com

341–350 of 490 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

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…

> nobody will admit exist.

This is not true.

People talk about the upside of the declarative API plenty, but adding one function doesn't mean removing another, and the conflation required to use that as a defense of google is what gets downvotes.

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

#342
post #315

Does Mozilla have a PR blitz, to pick up a big chunk of users who have a moment of disruption, and want their full uBlock Origin? It might've been better, had uBlock Origin Lite not happened, but is there still a migration opportunity here, and is Mozilla working it?

[deleted]

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything? These limits are easy targets for ad networks to overwhelm or outmaneuver. That's what everyone was saying Everyone was saying that the new API is less capable than the old API at blocking things. Decl…

> Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything? I don't know and I don't have to. All I know is uBlock Origin Lite is still blocking everything. So it seems like 30K rules is plenty? Like it's not a meaningful difference for end users if it's bloc…

> That's sure what it sounded like. That it would literally be so bad you'd have to switch browsers because of how degraded the experience would be.

> I was told, time and time again, than Manifest v3 would result in an adblocking experience so bad that people would start switching browsers because of it

Once enough ads catch up with the new limitations. Right or wrong, we're still too early for that.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.

It was kind of both, depending on the timeline. Early on it was word of mouth, then Google saw they had momentum and they capitalized on it with the banners and aggressive marketing.

So many replies in this sub thread opining authoritatively. Share your source. Did you have access to the data on Chrome's user growth and which marketing campaigns were the sources of which users?

From my perspective, all of you are saying a lot of things as if you know them to be true, but you have no idea whether they're true or not; really, you just find them to be plausible.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any of that is accurate though. Manifest v3 blocks user tracking -- if the request is blocked, any tracking attached to it is blocked. I'm sure it's not 100% perfect, but it's certainly working well enough in practice. And what malware are you talking about? If a request is blocked, it's blocked. It doesn't matter if it's an ad or malware. Manifest v3 is better at #4, because the junk isn't loaded, and…

Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything? These limits are easy targets for ad networks to overwhelm or outmaneuver. That's what everyone was saying Everyone was saying that the new API is less capable than the old API at blocking things. Decl…

> Explain to me how uBlock Origin can realistically go from 100,000 to 500,000 dynamic rules down to 30k rules(only 5k of those can be dynamic) in the Lite version without losing the ability to actually block everything?

I will take this one.

First, your limits are out of date. The static minimum is 30k, but can now escalate to an order of magnitude higher depending on how many extensions are installed. The dynamic limit is now 30k, of which at most 5k can be "unsafe". Source: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...

Second, even if the limits were correct: consider the possibility that 99% of those rules are irrelevant, out of date garbage that blocks nothing anymore but haven't been removed because there is neither process nor incentive on the extension dev's part to do so.

Ad uses pattern. UBO adds matching pattern. Ad switches to new pattern. Cat and mouse.

This happens widely, rapidly, and on an ongoing basis. The result is that the rule set is large and grows rapidly, but very little of it is actually useful day to day. From the user's perspective, the only cost is that the browser very slowly gets continually less performant, which they will not attribute to the extension.

This isn't hypothetical. I'm on the Chrome team. We analyzed the rule set contents. This is why we proposed the initial limits we did: they were plenty large enough to allow all the extensions we analyzed to do everything they actually wanted to do, if only you stripped the cruft.

The rule size increases since then primarily come out of a dialog process with ad blocking devs about their process and needs and what they see in the wild coupled with what we think we can manage to keep performant. There are compromises. I'm not on that team so I can't speak to details. But it's part of an honest attempt to have a dialog.

There are usually simple explanations for things, if people were truly willing to consider them without bias.

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

#346
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we're losing the plot here. Removing the cancel capability of onBeforeRequest didn't improve security much. It did, though, hobble ad blockers to just dealing with static lists if they want to prevent an ad from downloading in the first place. Removing the onBeforeRequest redirect didn't add much security either, since you can just ask for permission B instead of permission A and just inject code. Though,…

It’s insane to think that an extension with the ability to snoop on all your requests is more privacy oriented than one that can’t. It’s insane to want extensions to snoop on all your requests in an attempt at more privacy.

It only sounds insane because you're saying "want extensions to snoop" to describe "want extensions to run a function call locally".

It is a permission that could be used by a malicious extension to snoop, but that is far from the only use. Wanting the permission != wanting snooping.

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

#347
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, if you absolutely must then make that specific API require extra audit approval from the extension store, but breaking it outright is throwing out the baby with the bathwater; in a world where the FBI outright recommends an adblocker because ads are such a strong malware vector ( https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/ ), it's irresponsible to undermine uBo.

Nobody likes extra audit approvals. The platform doesn't want to spend resources doing the audit. The developers don't want to be audited. The Firefox version of uBlock Origin Lite was pulled due to unsatisfactory audit process: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418

> The Firefox version of uBlock Origin Lite was pulled due to unsatisfactory audit process

So make one that isn't incompetent? That's not really a counterargument to the general idea.

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant because the changes are occurring upstream in Chromium by mostly Google developers.

Open source also means you're free to fork it or freeze your version

Forking is untenable for individual humans with something so complicated, and freezing is dangerously insecure.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Brave's creator opposes same sex marriage, is a Coronavirus "skeptic", and his silly cryptocurrency is made to work with brave browser.

>opposes same sex marriage That's not true, he donated to organizations supporting California Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage which by the way was supported by the majority back then in California. That was also 16 years ago, it's time to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You should instead not rely on ad-hominem and critize Brave for being ridden with cryptocurrency and doing shady stuff.

Do you have any evidence his opinion has changed? If you don't, then it's not misinformation, and no you don't get to demand people "let it go" because it was 16 years ago.

And donating to a specific cause shows a lot more commitment and understanding than a typical vote.

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

#350
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important, I think, to understand that personal computing is just one part of the picture. "Enterprise" environments (governments, businesses, large organizations, etc.) have demanded many of these "features" even before Google started implementing them. Your workplace, by and large, does not want you, the replaceable person who happens to be sitting at the keyboard, to be in full control of the device that the…

Ironically, the FBI recommends using an ad blocker: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41483581

A lot of enterprises run MITM on all HTTPS connections and can just block the ad-serving domains or even remove the ads from the page without any help from the browser. Ad blocker extensions are a low-infrastructure solution that's more useful for home users and small companies.
Post reply on HN