Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers
-
The pertinent question based on this information (https://developer.chrome.com) is, will we be able to continue using uBO until June 2023?
-
@barbudo2005 , yes but
>Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz RAM 8GB, GPU 2+1 GB SSD 256GB -Win10 64 v22H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
The Brave content blocker (Brave Shields) is also open-source and freely-licenced (see below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbko-tcviFc&t=963s
It would make more sense for Chromium-based browsers to adopt and work with that, rather than starting again. The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support at some point and just concentrated on Firefox (which is the browser he's really interested in). Brave would have more accountability than relying on a single anonymous extension developer.
-
I know, but 9 months are better than 3.
-
@Catweazle said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
@barbudo2005 . I don't know, but I don't get rid of the suspicion that with Mv3 Google is going to shoot itself in the knee.
More like in the head.
-
I agree. The Brave Rust-based content blocker is open-source and freely-licenced (see below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbko-tcviFc&t=963s
It would make sense for Chromium-based browsers to adopt and work with that, rather than trying to keep webRequest functioning to allow uBlock Origin to continue working. The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support at some point and just concentrated on Firefox (which is the browser he's really interested in). Brave would have more accountability than relying on a single anonymous extension developer.
-
"For users, it means that they do not have to worry about extensions running out of support until January 2024, provided that they either apply the Enterprise policy to extend the deadline, or have it applied by the maker of a Chromium-based browser."
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/29/google-delays-the-death-of-manifest-v2-extensions-to-2024/
-
With a year, this (In Vivaldi we trust):
-
@barbudo2005 Updates will be disabled sooner. But yes, Vivaldi potentially has a full year to create the best internal adblocker there is.
-
Update on what?
-
@barbudo2005 Manifest v2 extensions. That they will continue to run doesn’t mean Google will allow updates. Updates were supposed to end in January 2023, I’d expect them to stop in the following summer with the new plan, well ahead of the complete phase out. It should also be noted new v2 extensions can no longer be uploaded to the webstore, this stopped working at the start of this year.
-
@luetage
Said:That they will continue to run doesn’t mean Google will allow updates.
@Demizz
Said:The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support
uBO it is such a polished and excellent extension that in a year I don't think I will notice that there have been no updates.
-
However, v2 will die, we need to accommodate to v3.
Google sets the rules. -
Even if Vivaldi will stay with MV2, it will not help in the long run. Chrome's migration to MV3 will effectively kill Chrome's extensions. So they won't be available on Vivaldi either.
Vivaldi Firefox is probably just a wish than a realistic product, which is extremely sad.
I really hope Vivaldi team will resolve this somehow. Embracing MV3 together with creation of an internal ad-blocker on par with uBlock Origin and uMatrix-style resource loading management seem like a cheapest solution. It's not uncommon to integrate extensions directly into the browser -- older guys remember that on the beginning there was Firebug extension, and later every browser has created their own developer tools integrated with the browser (including old Opera), modelled after the original Firebug. So I suspect a similar thing can happen with ad-blockers. (I hope.)
-
@antekone said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
It's not uncommon to integrate extensions directly into the browser
I would modify this to: "It's not uncommon to integrate 'extension' FUNCTIONS directly into the browser." And, of course, Vivaldi, being Vivaldi, does this all the time. That's why it's Vivaldi. That's why I don't have to use extensions.
-
@luetage said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
@barbudo2005 Updates will be disabled sooner. But yes, Vivaldi potentially has a full year to create the best internal adblocker there is.
@Demizz said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
I agree. The Brave Rust-based content blocker is open-source and freely-licenced (see below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbko-tcviFc&t=963s
It would make sense for Chromium-based browsers to adopt and work with that, rather than trying to keep webRequest functioning to allow uBlock Origin to continue working. The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support at some point and just concentrated on Firefox (which is the browser he's really interested in). Brave would have more accountability than relying on a single anonymous extension developer.
-
@Demizz said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
I agree. The Brave Rust-based content blocker is open-source and freely-licenced
uBO https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock (GPL v3). Brave Blocker has MPL v2 License with the limitations of Liability, Trademark use and Warranty Is part of the Brave Experiments. That means that it is more reliable for Vivaldi to use the code of uBO as the one from a competidor
-
As a user of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, I have to agree to what @LonM wrote in this post.
The blacklist-everything and then allow things step-by-step way that uMatrix works is definitely not something for casual websurfers, but I really like the detailed control about which requests are allowed and which are blocked. The visual matrix interface is quite helpful, too.
I'd love to continue having this kind of fine-grained control after Manifest v2 is disabled. Hopefully Vivaldi will find a way to make this possible. Reading what @julien_picalausa wrote in this thread, I am a tiny little bit more optimistic than before.
Please, Vivaldi, give him a team to work on making the Vivaldi internal adblock more powerful! -
@Daktyl well, my feature request to add WE support was recently archived for no real reason even though that's what we desperately need as an important step in escape from Chromium clutches
-
@TalGarik it uses the same tricks as uBO to maximize memory and compute efficiency so it's nice in that aspect
and additionally it would be better to not do the same thing twice, if there's a decent filtering engine pluggable into Chromium available why make and maintain a new one? it would be best to cooperate to make both of projects benefit with more power and flexibility
