Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024

Pathduck

@Streptococcus Did you try the grep? Isn't MacOS terminal just a bash shell?

What command do you run, where do you run it and what is the output?

Streptococcus

The code I used:

cd ~/Library/"Application Support"/Vivaldi/Default/Extensions
grep -l "manifest_version" */*/manifest.json

I got a listing of the files containing that string but not of the string and its following number.

Pathduck

@Streptococcus Yeah but that's not the command I posted is it.

   -l, --files-with-matches
          Suppress normal output; instead print the name of each
          input file from which output would normally have been
          printed.  Scanning each input file stops upon first match.

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/grep.1.html

Streptococcus

I found what I wanted. Some of my extensions are already manifest version 3.

cd ~/Library/"Application Support"/Vivaldi/Default/Extensions
grep -a --text "manifest_version" */*/manifest.json

Pathduck

@Streptococcus -a and --text are synonymous - and these are not binary files

-a, --text
      Process a binary file as if it were text; this is
      equivalent to the --binary-files=text option.

I love hos this topic has turned into "how to use grep"

But that's fine, and discussing Manifest v3 serves little purpose until we know if/how Vivaldi are planning to do anything about this change. And if they're not... well we just can't use these extensions any more. And we're not going to get any official word before we get it officially.

Streptococcus

The Mac terminal and the Linux terminal are not the same. I got the code I just used from the "man grep" command (with "more" to make it paginate).

ybjrepnfr

@Pathduck said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

Manifest v3 ... if/how Vivaldi are planning to do anything about this change. And if they're not... well we just can't use these extensions any more

ergo, if that is how it plays out, vivaldi would not be viable for privacy-conscious users [tbh, it already lost that status anyway].

its native internal ads+tracker blocker is not [& never has been] any match for Mv2 versions of either uMatrix or uBlockOrigin [given both have the critical advantage of infinite user-configurable dynamic filter rules].
vivaldi already began the race far behind the starting line anyway given it inherits the chromium legacy of not supporting cname-uncloaking, hence uBO Mv2 cannot work as well in any chromium browser as in, ahem, alternative-engined browsers.
furthermore, most disappointingly, for a very long time now vivaldi lost its hitherto capability for html5 canvas fingerprint spoofing / blocking extensions to work, thus vivaldi users now browse the interwebs with unspoofed unique html5 canvas fingerprints [even vanilla chromium still supports these extensions; whatever went wrong is specific to vivaldi] VB-100410

for a browser that likes to hawk its user privacy credentials, these problems are individually & collectively nasty, even with Mv2 uBO. if it transpires that next year it will only [be able to] support Mv3 uBOL, then it'd be absolutely game over.

barbudo2005

A complete article on the subject:

https://www.spacebar.news/p/chrome-ad-blocking-manifest-v3-ublock-origin

ybjrepnfr

@barbudo2005 interesting illuminating article t/y. from it:

The new Declarative Net Request API is still a downgrade in capability compared to the older API, but the feature gap has closed significantly. If a certain website finds a workaround for ads that Manifest V3 extensions can’t block, then you probably should just switch browsers or stop going to that site. I would like to see the rules limit continue to increase, though.

It should be easy enough for Chromium web browsers, such as Edge, Vivaldi, and others, to maintain Manifest V2 extension support if they want, until Google rips out the code sometime in 2025. After that point, each browser would have to maintain Manifest V2 (or at least some its APIs) without Google’s help, which would be a significant task. Even if that is accomplished, most of them use the Chrome Web Store as the main repository for extensions, which will remove all Manifest V2 extensions in 2024.

I expect most Chromium-based browsers to just build ad blocking directly into the browser, instead of trying to support external extensions with special APIs. Vivaldi did that in 2020, with the launch of Vivaldi Ad Blocker. For other content blocking needs, the Manifest V3 extensions in the Chrome Web Store will probably suffice.

npro

well sometimes thinking out of the (extensions) box helps as well, for example https://gitlab.com/The_Quantum_Alpha/the-quantum-ad-list by @TheQuantumAlpha

ybjrepnfr

@npro that's interesting, & atm i am reserving final judgement, but fwiw i do have this initial thought...

everyone seems to be talking about this imbroglio in the specific sense of "ad blocking". however i've never looked at it that narrowly. i used to use uM, & since then use uBO, for much more than only blocking ads. i use it to remove page elements i don't want. i use it to cosmetically filter, font filter, sometimes media filter. ofc i use it also for tracker blocking. another thing i use it for, which some might opine as ethically dubious i admit, is dodging software-paywalls on certain sites.

using conventional static blocklists cannot do all that, afaict. using uBOL probably can't do all that, though i hesitate to be, heehee, declarative yet coz work remains active on it. could The Quantum Ad-List do all this? atm i dunno, but i doubt it.

npro

@ybjrepnfr said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

could The Quantum Ad-List do all this

no. But as it is rooted deeper it just does not allow any connection by... any script sitting on or pointing to ad-domains and the list is just crazy... I don't think cosmetic filters that I also use with uBO would be affected that much with whatever Manifest version, they are imo just webpage-"Javascript/HTML/CSS removers".

npro

@npro TQAL ofc isn't the magic bullet as you say, I use it merely as the "1st-line-defense", and it easily overcomes the 30k rules limitiation of Mv3, but what happens with the other "anti-fingerprint" extensions? Nobody speaks about them. How do they actually work? Will they be affected? It's all too much and technical to read. Therefore, fwiw I will stay with TQAL + Floorp , way less headaches .

ybjrepnfr

@npro said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

I will stay with TQAL

did you do it their recommended way via editing your hosts file? i feel very loath to do that, coz imo it gives me a loss of easy on-the-fly reactive control, on some sites. eg, now, commonly, to get some sites working, i have to fiddle a lot with uBO filters & rules, & in some streaming cases, to my immense annoyance, i need to disable uBO entirely. i fear, greatly, that "baking" such a huge list into my hosts file might break many sites in ways entirely non-transparent to me, & make troubleshooting immensely harder than now. tldr; atm i am not inclined to use this.

npro

@ybjrepnfr said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

did you do it their recommended way via editing your hosts file?

ofc

i feel very loath to do that, coz imo it gives me a loss of easy on-the-fly reactive control, on some sites. eg, now, commonly, to get some sites working, i have to fiddle a lot with uBO filters & rules, & in some streaming cases, to my immense annoyance, i need to disable uBO entirely. i fear, greatly, that "baking" such a huge list into my hosts file might break many sites in ways entirely non-transparent to me, & make troubleshooting immensely harder than now. tldr; atm i am not inclined to use this.

understandable, but that's part of the price to pay these days where "we can't just have nice things".

solution: get more acquainted with 2 commands: grep and sed

Catweazle

@npro, it is somewhat complicated to find a balance, between finding the right filters to block ads and trackers on all sites and too many and breaking many pages. Although I have a 100% result in the adblocker test with the Vivaldi blocker, I start to see ads on YT without the iFrame script. However, if I also activate the Quantum filters, YT search stops working and other pages no render well. That is, it is advisable to continue using the previous configuration and the iFrame script, which is the best combination, at least for the moment.

Current Filters which give 100% in the test

Easy list (the default in Vivaldi)
https://github.com/StUser4pda/filtrite/releases/latest/download/bromite-4pda.txt
apart
iFrame script

against Cookie advice pop-ups

npro

@Catweazle I don't have any issues with youtube search and other pages at all, but I use the updated list in the recommended way (in hosts). Try that I'd say, as those lists you've used look unmaintained to me (2 years). Now how you will put ~121 MiB of text lines into your Microsoft Windows' hosts file is your task/problem

These are more than 4 million lines

Catweazle

@npro, anyway, at the moment I go fine with the mencioned filters and iFrame script, more using mainly front-ends for YT.
Apart Canvas Blocker, SiteBleacher, Link Unshortener, URLTracking Stripper, Nitter redirect, as secondary protection (desirable that in the future are also some there as Vivaldi own functions). Quite sad that nowadays so many extensions are necessary to avoid these surveillance data hogs

npro

@Catweazle said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

Nitter redirect

I use this https://libredirect.github.io/ in Floorp

Catweazle

@npro, yes, i use it before, but often problems with instances, apart there are no good front-ends for the worst Zuckerbot sites. Anyway with SiteBleacher "I've never visited the other pages", it's somewhat outdated, but make its job very well, maintan HD and browser clean of any unwanted crap.