Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024

lfisk

Read this on Mastodon that Brave will continue to support uBlock Origin and uMatrix:

Brave
@[email protected]
We've seen the headlines about Google killing ad blockers.

Two important points:
1. Google's changes will not stop Brave from blocking ads.
2. We will support uBlock Origin and uMatrix even after Chrome stops doing so.

Nov 18, 2023, 16:02 ·

@[email protected] message

Vivaldi planning on this too???

Catweazle

@lfisk, I think so, at least with its own inbuild adblocker.
PS. uMatrix is fine, but discontinued since several years, apart an unfixed vulnerability. Still in the stores, but not so recommend to use it because of this.

Gorhill said:

Anyway, as it is, I've archived uMatrix's repo, I can't and won't be spending any more time on this project, and neither on all such issues.

Whoever is free to fork under a new name -- I may re-open and resume development in some future if ever I feel for it.

lfisk

@Catweazle Just passing on what Brave is claiming right now...

I'm interested in uBlock Origin. I block ads on my own with just a couple of uBlock's lists enabled. A lot of them are targeted with css in "my filters". Really NEED to have uBlock working. So much so I'll move to Firefox or something else if Vivaldi quits supporting uBlock in its current form.

I'm not stating this as a threat, just what I'll end up doing Can't imagine running a Browser nowadays without something like uBlock to tame down, control malicious websites

barbudo2005

@lfisk Said:

I'm interested in uBlock Origin.

It would be good to know how Brave is going to keep uBO running?

lfisk

@barbudo2005 Me too... guessing they figure on altering Chromium code to either remove Manifest 3 changes or maybe just something that permits uBlock to work

If you follow the Mastodon link there was some terse discussion but nothing definite when I last read it...

Streptococcus

How would I get the Mac terminal to give me a list of the files containing that string and the string itself? I got as far as getting a list of files containing the string "manifest_version", but I could not get the string itself plus the following number to be listed.

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.