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

Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

bleepingcomputer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 448 posts

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#381

Post by JohnFen »

nvrspyx wrote: post #374
fastball wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Chromium "based" browsers are forks already -- how is this any different?

They’re less so forks than re-builds. They rely heavily on upstream and Google can certainly make it more difficult for them to maintain a “fork” that diverges too much from Chromium proper. Manifest V3 may be something they can easily keep out of their builds while maintaining the old method, but I’m no expert so I won’t comment on that. A fork implies maintaining most or all of the code base themselves, when in rea…

> If a company the size of Microsoft are unable to maintain a “fork” of Chromium

Microsoft is entirely able to maintain a fork of Chromium, or even their own proprietary browser.

What Microsoft has done is a cost/benefit calculation and decided that the benefit for maintaining their own stuff is not sufficient to justify the costs.

The thing about those types of analyses is that they are very company-dependent. That the C/B ratio is not good enough for Microsoft doesn't imply that it can't be good enough for other companies.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#382

Post by JohnFen »

wbl wrote: post #73
sqrt17 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they get an IE6-sized kick in the teeth. as in: people will continue to suffer for about a decade while good alternatives readily spring up but suffer slow adoption?

Firefox is already here.

Firefox is a great alternative for many. But it is not great for everybody.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#383

Post by JohnFen »

vkizl wrote: post #277
hendersoon wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed difference is only noticeable in benchmarks. It's completely meaningless for humans. Manifest v3 will not be an improvement for anyone previously using uBlock Origin.

Disagree. Chrome feels snappier. Firefox stalls sometimes when rendering and can't achieve 60 fps on some websites I use. (Not Google properties)

That difference is very unlikely to be due to the nature of support provided for ad-blockers, though.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#384

Post by JohnFen »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #83

They are being very stupid. Switching primary browser isn't trivial, but it's easier than wading through an ad-laden web. Goodbye Chrome, hello Firefox.

> Switching primary browser isn't trivial

It isn't? It seems trivial to me -- what are the friction points?

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#385

Post by JohnFen »

Ensorceled wrote: post #156
9dl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whut? Sites require chrome?

For the entire history of the internet, there have been sites that only work properly with the dominate browser, starting with Netscape and then, famously, IE6. I'm always confused when people imply this isn't the case or start demanding evidence. I'm bemused when they are surprised.

I intellectually know this to be true, but I have to take it on faith.

I've never been a Chrome user, and I honestly don't remember ever hitting a website in the last 10 years or so that didn't work for me.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#386

Post by JohnFen »

nottorp wrote: post #102

A couple years ago my mac started to not go to sleep... I checked and it was Chrome saying “webrtc has active peer connections”. No, you can’t disable webrtc in chrome. So I’ve been a bit ahead of the crowd and gave up on Chrome long ago. This ad block scandal made me give up on Safari too though. Firefox seems to be the only reasonable option left.

> No, you can’t disable webrtc in chrome.

Is this true? That's a complete showstopper for me.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#387

Post by kyrra »

pen2l wrote: post #327
kyrra wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Yup,thanks for calling it out. I'm Googler, opinions are my own (and I have no idea about how youtube operates).

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#388

Post by slenk »

pen2l wrote: post #305

This 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’…

Where does it say your gmail can be closed. The terms listed only say they can terminate your account access to the service, aka Youtube.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#389

Post by pas »

judge2020 wrote: post #288
pas wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, and that is also bad.

I guess the argument is "is it worth it to save some people the privacy issue of extensions phoning home the pages you visit by requiring the ad-blocking to be a rule list and not rely on synchronous webRequest blocking". Safari's webRequest change also blocked even monitoring webRequest URLs, so the current adblocking solution is to only provide a list of blocked patterns, and it seems to work for me.

The easy solution is to measure the performance of this declarative API and inform the user if it causes slowdowns. But don't limit it to 30k entries.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#390

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

pen2l wrote: post #305

This 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 makes me want to ditch gmail to prevent accidentally getting my account closed, say for using Youtube while I have Adblock installed in my browser. I do have personal email on a domain I own, but it will be a lot of work to update my e-mail address with each service.
Post reply on HN