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

Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#71

Post by amluto »

eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #62

It seems I'm in a minority here, but I was never comfortable installing any adblock extension because the existing request blocking API means that the extension would see all web traffic generated by me (including private URLs that are otherwise not known to anybody but me). I personally feel that now with manifest 3, I can actually install adblockers since the newer APIs do not share all my web traffic with the exte…

I’d like to see this done along the lines of how iOS handles keyboards: allow full web request reading and modification, but only in a sandbox that is per-origin.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#72

Post by bscphil »

Jonnax wrote: post #13
wtallis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically the same as what happened two months ago with Firefox for Android being EOL'd pending a major re-write that may or may not support extensions. Mozilla is not willing to publicly commit to keeping their key features alive, and they keep hinting at the possibility that they will be leaving users behind in an attempt to be more like Chrome.

A rewrite that is faster than Chrome for Android.

Eh. That may be the intent but they aren't there yet. I tested Firefox Preview on Speedometer 2.0 and got the same result I did with Firefox for Android 68. Chrome gets double the score (runs per minute) on my device.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#73

Post by pvg »

ohazi wrote: post #25

I hope the ad blockers completely abandon Chrome when this change gets pushed through, rather than attempting to work around it. Google is using a slow-frog-boil approach to re-desensitize their users to ads, and it's working. The only thing that will work here is a big splash of cold water to the face. Maybe Chrome losing all of its ad-blockers overnight will finally start making a dent.

Chrome launched without any support for extensions. chrome.webRequest didn't appear until the end of 2013.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#74

Post by kryptiskt »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #33
purple_ducks wrote: post #20

Chrome's June 2019 statement about Manifest v3 in which they tell us all how much they really care about users and this totes isn't to weaken ad blocking(which directly affects their revenue - that's just a coincidence - pinky promise!): https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

Here's an interesting thought experiment: what would it take to convince you that this change really is being made for performance and security reasons, and not to hurt ad blocking? Given the level of cynicism directed at Google by the HN community, is it even possible for Chrome to lock down extension permissions in a way which wouldn't be seen as some sort of aggressive move against ad blocking? Keep in mind that s…

Divest Chrome to an independent foundation. There is nothing cynical in being suspicious of the dominant ad business on the internet misusing their position. There is nothing they can do to alleviate that mistrust short of giving up control (or being forced to in the pending antitrust action).

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#75

Post by phkahler »

I dont like the idea of extensions being able to inject data in either direction.

On top of that, I'm not in favor of extensions doing anything to improve security - I want that in the base browser.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#76

Post by aledalgrande »

xvector wrote: post #64
WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #18

The tone of this post concerns me. What comes across is that Google is not collaborating with Mozilla over the Manifest v3 changes. Instead of using and appreciating the engaged Firefox developer ecosystem we have PM conference rooms in Google mandating huge changes based on... well they've been shady so far about their choices on Manifest v3. The other thing that keeps bugging me about this is - We need a tiered App…

> we have PM conference rooms in Google mandating huge changes based on... well they've been shady so far about their choices on Manifest v3. I'd like one of the PMs at Google working on this feature to engage in actual community discussion around this issue. Google is not a monolithic corporation. Individual people are responsible for these decisions. These people are obligated to discuss why they are making these c…

I don't think Google would have published a public note about their plans if there hadn't been a previous discussion.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#77

Post by mav3rick »

spinningslate wrote: post #32
Nicksil wrote: post #22

> We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest > immediate We know exactly what this kind of talk means. Don't blow smoke up our ass, Mozilla, just give it to use straight: We'll have `blocking webRequest` for as long as Google allows it.

And in case anyone from Mozilla is listening, this could well be existential for you. Right now, your pro-privacy stance is a principal factor in users choosing Firefox over Chrome. Follow Google - and all its shady practices - and you will lose a large chunk of those users. Many of them, to use current terminology, are "key influencers": technically savvy people who advise family and friends what to do. Lose them an…

This tech people influencing friends and family lore has been disproven many times. No non tech user is using duck duck go.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#78

Post by SquareWheel »

gorhill wrote: post #66
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #62

It seems I'm in a minority here, but I was never comfortable installing any adblock extension because the existing request blocking API means that the extension would see all web traffic generated by me (including private URLs that are otherwise not known to anybody but me). I personally feel that now with manifest 3, I can actually install adblockers since the newer APIs do not share all my web traffic with the exte…

> the newer APIs do not share all my web traffic with the extensions The webRequest API can observe the URLs you visit without needing blocking permission. And so does the webNavigation API, the tabs API, history API, content scripts, possibly cookies API and whatever else does not come to my mind.

Shouldn't those be visible in the permissions prompt, prior to installing the extension?

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#79

Post by hnaccy »

ohazi wrote: post #25

I hope the ad blockers completely abandon Chrome when this change gets pushed through, rather than attempting to work around it. Google is using a slow-frog-boil approach to re-desensitize their users to ads, and it's working. The only thing that will work here is a big splash of cold water to the face. Maybe Chrome losing all of its ad-blockers overnight will finally start making a dent.

Outside of uBlock Origin the popular ad blockers are business (see pay for acceptable adds), there's no way they abandon chrome.

Re: Mozilla’s Manifest v3 FAQ

#80

Post by flukus »

jcranmer wrote: post #42
badsectoracula wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla abandoning their much more powerful XUL-based extension system for Chrome's inferior WebExtensions wasn't already an indicator towards that?

It's been known since around 2010 or 2011 that the full extension system was too powerful for effective maintenance of Gecko. Going through XPCOM for everything prevents effective optimization within the codebase, and generally ensures that the APIs have to become less ergonomic compared to modern C++ (or JS, for that matter). Furthermore, multiprocess content tabs was heavily delayed because turning it on would brea…

Pretty much as soon as they added multi processor support they had to start throttling background tabs anyway, same as chrome. It's not at all clear that going multi process was a win. And years after they change their are still a bunch of things extensions did that don't work anymore. I was never a huge fan of XUL or any non-native UI, but it did it's job for years and it's replacement doesn't.

And due to their follow google nature of monthly updates there's no stable version to fall back on.

Post reply on HN