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

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

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 490 posts

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

#351

Post by Dylan16807 »

surajrmal wrote: post #94
bdcravens wrote: post #75

Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?

Id argue pihole is roughly equivalent to what you can do with manifest v3 based afld blockers. I use it as my primary ad blocker as well, and don't really understand why folks are upset about losing V2 that much. It seems like removing root in favor of more granular permissions which is generally a good thing.

There was already a specific permission for messing with raw network requests.

v3 removes the ability to block, but not the ability to monitor. It doesn't make anything more granular.

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

#352

Post by crazygringo »

pkasting wrote: post #345
Spunkie wrote: post #277

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 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 First, your limits are out of date.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 l…

Thank you for providing this valuable explanation -- I haven't heard this perspective expressed elsewhere. The fact that old rules would never get deleted but continue to drain resources makes some design decisions make a lot more sense.

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

#353

Post by sieabahlpark »

QuantumGood wrote: post #222

"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceed…

[dead]

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

#354

Post by sieabahlpark »

btown wrote: post #51
emaro wrote: post #12

For people that have somehow missed the story, manifest v3 removed support for certain powerful network apis, severly limiting ad-blockers capabilities. uBlock Origin will not work anymore without manifest v2 (there's a v3 compatible lite version of uBlock Origin).

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…

[dead]

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

#355

Post by rjh29 »

gabrielsroka wrote: post #130
ParetoOptimal wrote: post #109

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.

Brave's creator, B. Eich, also created JavaScript, so I assume you have that disabled everywhere.

Yes, he created an absolutely terribly designed language that we're still dealing with today. That is not a good thing.

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

#356

Post by cookiengineer »

freedomben wrote: post #60
sho wrote: post #25

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's di…

Agreed on hoping this is the inflection point, but only partial agreement that it's about adblock. For sure Google wants adblock to die, but I think it goes even deeper than that. I think it's part of a much bigger trend in tech in general but also in Google: Removing user control. When you look at the "security" things they are doing, many of them have a common philosophy underpinning them that the user (aka device…

You should stop seeing the Browser as a software as a program that's controlled by the user. This idea was over when Microsoft started to display ads in the file manager program (explorer).

The modern Web Browser is an advertisement terminal. If Google would manage to eliminate having to serve content, they would certainly do it.

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

#357

Post by pkasting »

crazygringo wrote: post #352
pkasting wrote: post #345

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? 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 l…

Thank you for providing this valuable explanation -- I haven't heard this perspective expressed elsewhere. The fact that old rules would never get deleted but continue to drain resources makes some design decisions make a lot more sense.

One particularly pernicious outcome is that some ad blockers tout their rule set sizes as a feature, and users choose among blockers based on it, when if anything it is probably negatively correlated with blocker quality -- it's not necessarily a sign you're comprehensive so much as that you don't care about efficiency or cleaning up after yourself.

That's of course an oversimplification. But people who believe they're technically knowledgeable and adept are just as likely as other folks to fall for bullshit and be convinced to do things contrary to their own self interests. It's just a different type of bullshit.

No one wants to hear that, because we all want to tell ourselves that maybe everyone else is gullible, but WE'RE smart and rational. To a close approximation, though, none of us are.

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

#359

Post by zamadatix »

cookiengineer wrote: post #358

There's gonna be a new browser wars. How exciting! Time to do your part. Switch to ladybird! (Insert imaginary we want you for the army poster here)

I realize I'm about to post something that sounds like the most generic HN slop comments... but, considering it's why Mozilla initially made a whole new language in the first place, I hope most can look past what fanatics would normally say and focus on the scenario:

I was ecstatic about Ladybird from a "fun NIH project" perspective but once it became "serious" and had a cross-platform daily-driver long term focus it was quite the let down that the hot new independent kickstart was... still going to be built on C++ anyways. Even the Serenity ecosystem had started work on a NIH memory safe language - Jakt! I'm not going to say the "R" word (mostly because I'm less interested "which" and more interested in the "what") but the one place I'd really like to see memory safety is the new fresh-engined web browser written by a small team (or really, any team).

On that front https://servo.org/ is "alive" again under the Linux Foundation. It has a focus on being an easily embeddable engine and it seems to be picking up a bit of steam. Whether or not it really takes off remains to be seen. I'll be watching closely though!

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

#360

Post by Springtime »

EasyMark wrote: post #139
freedomben wrote: post #17

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed. [1] [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/a…

To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible

Brave is an odd one. They've publicly stated[1] they plan to support parts of Manifest v2 for a handful of popular addons (uBlock Origin included) by making limited patches, but they make no promises.

It seems Shields was their main focus for MV3 mitigation, much like Vivaldi's now native content blocker made for the same reason (though Vivaldi has said[2] they won't be supporting MV2 past the last Chromium build that includes it).

[1] https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

[2] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...

Post reply on HN