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

AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 371 posts

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#51

Post by gnomewascool »

Multicomp wrote: post #22
bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

Firefox is building MV3 and while they are coy with deprecating MV2, we all know, c'mon, they won't keep MV2 even a day after their minimum year promised. Their track record speaks against them. XPCOM extensions? Killed, but don't worry, we will re-implement all the needed APIs as WebExtensions (didn't happen). Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually r…

I also was and still am disappointed about both changes, but I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla.

In both transitions, Mozilla made sure to support the needs of both uBlock origin and NoScript, extending the webextension API (such that uBlock origin on Firefox is more capable than on current Chromium) and working with uBlock to make its interface more mobile-friendly.

They also extended the webextension API to allow for extensions such as Treestyle tabs and Panorama-reimplementations (so not remotely all XUL use-cases, but still most of the popular ones).

Hence, they've proven that they will go considerably beyond what Google/Chromium are doing, and that they won't harm "content-blockers", which is what we care about in this case.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#52

Post by autoexec »

Multicomp wrote: post #28
arusahni wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is not implementing[1] any of the Mv3 restrictions against ad blockers (i.e. WebRequest). [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...

I stand corrected in a big way. I'm very pleased that Firefox is doing this, I need to go make my other doom-gloom be less doom-gloomy now.

I'm glad they're making changes, but I'd advise everyone to keep a close watch on what they end up implementing and what potential security and privacy risks may be introduced.

It seems like I'm having to disable something or other with every major update of firefox lately, and as long as they continue to let me disable risky features I'll keep using it. Nothing strikes a better balance between useful and secure like hardened a firefox install, but it takes a lot of vigilance and a willingness to add or modify hundreds of about:config options (after installing https://github.com/earthlng/aboutconfig)

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#53

Post by Cthulhu_ »

vbezhenar wrote: post #2

Are we going to lose ublock origin on chrome when v2 will be disabled?

Probably, or it'll be nerfed to fuck. I'm sure someone will make a fork off Chromium and leave it enabled.

Browser builders, this is your cue: if advertising is not your business, offer an ad blocker. Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#54

Post by therealmarv »

bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

Switch to Brave, you will still maintain 99% of the bell and whistles of Chrome (because it's a Chrome fork) and you will have an Adblock engine directly in the browser core written in Rust. How cool is that...

Especially on mobile Brave is a game changer.

https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#55

Post by bambax »

Multicomp wrote: post #16

It is such a bummer to me that Firefox is implementing MV3 and deprecating MV2[1]. Internet Explorer 6 never left, it just became Google Chrome*. Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. Edge? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Firefox? Technically a separate engine and in theory among the last hopes, but so sclerotic it follows Chrome in almost all of its decisions. (Can MV2 be kept as a stable basic-security-…

What you call "Chrome clones" are in fact based on Chromium, but aren't Chrome. The difference is not huge as they all use the same rendering engine, but appart from that they're free to do other things. Brave for instance comes with full-on adblock built-in.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#56

Post by bambax »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #5
slimypi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeeezuuuss! that will hurt, a lot.

Firefox is not that bad. Honestly the multi-account containers alone merits the switch.

It's excellent! I've been using it for three years now with zero problem.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#57

Post by bambax »

akaike wrote: post #3
vbezhenar wrote: post #2

Are we going to lose ublock origin on chrome when v2 will be disabled?

Unless they port it to v3, yes, it won’t work anymore.

One can always block Chrome updates. It would be funny if this so-called "security" move resulted in a much worse security situation.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#58

Post by edflsafoiewq »

soraminazuki wrote: post #47
Longhanks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overestimate the role adblockers play for regular users. Most people not affiliated with IT in any way I've met actually don't use an adblocker or have forgotten that they in fact do and would not notice the change to Manifest v3. Also, most people care much more about "it simply works", and that is Chrome. Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's…

> Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly) Compatible against what? The web standards or Google Chrome?

Compatibility against real world websites is the thing that actually matters. Firefox does fine for me though.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#59

Post by somehnacct3757 »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #35
bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

> Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking I really don't understand the push of MV3. I don't believe they're just for security as Google claimed but at the same time I feel thinking it's "just" to ruin ad blocking is equally baffling. Could someone who is more involved elaborate the nuance of (intent of) MV3?

MV2 extensions have a lot of API power and it was a common malware vector in the browser since the APIs let you sidestep a ton of regular web security. If you run a popular extension you will get offers to buy the extension which is a nice payday. The buyers would then stuff it full of malware to infect the existing users.

Google makes no money off the Chrome Web Store and their initial attempts to restrict MV2 failed. The goal was for automated approval to suffice. Still, there was certain APIs that required human review.

Google could have continued restricting MV2 until they didn't need human review but they must have got the idea for MV3 at that point. They could also hamstring ad blockers and get some promo packet material.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#60

Post by sascha_sl »

therealmarv wrote: post #54
bambax wrote: post #7

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will franti…

Switch to Brave, you will still maintain 99% of the bell and whistles of Chrome (because it's a Chrome fork) and you will have an Adblock engine directly in the browser core written in Rust. How cool is that... Especially on mobile Brave is a game changer. https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust

But also, a whole lot of other things I didn't ask for that are hard to entirely opt out of.
Post reply on HN