How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?

RasheedHolland

@barbudo2005 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

@RasheedHolland Said:

And for the record, this feature only hides stuff, so it's not really blocked from loading.

What is the practical importance of this, if it is a graphic element? How many milliseconds does it take to load a simple element?

It has already been answered by someone else, but it's not about speed, it's about blocking annoying stuff. I just wanted to let you know that I know it's not actually being blocked from loading, it's only hidden, which is fine with me.

Ayespy

@barbudo2005 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

@luetage @Ayespy Said:

That is not measurable.

What do you estimate?

Based on no data and a wild-ass guess? Based on mentions of uBO by users in the Forum? More than one percent and less than ten percent.

barbudo2005

@Ayespy Said:

More than one percent and less than ten percent.

You were more conservative. I estimated between 10 and 15%.

Why is this figure important?

Because to the extent that this figure is so low and taking into consideration what @luetage answered me when I commented to him that - there are areas for improvement at the very least, such as accepting all the list types that uBO accepts - ; and that he told me the following:

"Yeah, sure, but you can get by perfectly fine without it. ..... What I do agree with is that steps need to be taken to prevent an exodus from Vivaldi and potentially bring in users who flee Chrome."

One might infer that the Vivaldi team would not have as much incentive to approach uBO's features, but rather just accomplish the minimum to achieve the goals @luetage mentions.

What do you think about it?

Ayespy

@barbudo2005
I don't think about it.

I am completely and unreservedly in support of Vivaldi's progress. But I am not among the (up to) 15% whose attention is strongly drawn toward concerns like ad-blocking. A majority of my web use is actually on sites that do not have ads, because they are research, government or professional sites. That's where I make my living. If I am goofing off, ads are not a concern. They are a slight annoyance. And routine background ad- and tracker-blocking are all I can spare attention for.

Ayespy

@barbudo2005 In fact, I just took a look at my bookmarks bar. It has 43 shortcuts and folders on it. Do you know how many of these have ads or trackers? 3. And one of those is a shopping site. Show me a shopping site with no ads.

My total number of bookmarks is a little under eight hundred. Of ALL of them, perhaps ten or eleven go to sites with ads or trackers. That tells you something of my web use - and why I'm not overly concerned about things like uBO.

ybjrepnfr

ok sure, this thread, & iirc various older ones of similar bent, illustrate a diversity of forum-dwelling vivaldians' opinions wrt vivaldi's privacy capability now & impending wrt the execrable gargle's mv3 shenanigans. as someone who would self-characterise as being diametrically opposite to the blatantly blasé attitude of some, i suspect that unless the devs pull a rabbit out of the hat, come "mv3 day" next year vivaldi will likely lose any moral authority to keep including privacy self-congratulation in its promo material. without that putative rabbit, this will be the scoreline:

no html5 canvas fingerprint spoofing
no HTTP/2 Fingerprinting spoofing or blocking
no cname-uncloaking
no gui-based page element picker blocking
no user-configurable dynamic filter rules

all the ui personalisation wizardry under the sun [except infinite tab nesting, apparently] rather loses its sheen for users who want nice flexibility but without having to trade away robust privacy [& page script manipulation] capability. the impending loss of uBO from chromium browsers will leave an unfillable hole... rabbit aside [mind you, those first two dot-points are unrelated to uBO, & are existing vivaldi weaknesses already].

Ayespy

@ybjrepnfr It should not be overlooked that Vivaldi's main claim to privacy is that it does not collect, use, or sell your data. That can't be overcome by third party alterations and interventions.

ybjrepnfr

@Ayespy yeah, good point, but unfortunately this little black duck regards that merely as a starting point... critically important & mandatory, but insufficient by itself.

Catweazle

@ybjrepnfr, every browser need extensions, well for one thing or for other, in Chromium the flaw is certainly the fingerprinting, in others ads and tracking because they need extensions, other, like Otter, don't even have an extension store (although you can add scripts). Even the TOR browser is so private as you think.
When I go with Vivaldi to Browserleaks, I can see that I have a single fingerprint, but each time a different one, it shows me what the web pages know about me, my IP and ISP, when I don't use a VPN, they know that I use Windows, my screen resolution, that I am from Spain and that my browser is 75% Chrome or Edge, like 50 million other users, the rest is not available or does not match. All this just using a few extensions. None of the other browsers I use give me better results.

So what privacy are we talking about? They all have holes that must be replaced with extensions.
Of course, you can continue using Firefox, register with Mozilla, knowing that they then send your data to Google (Alphabet, googleanalytics, googletagmanager), or use Edge, which does not send data to Google, but to MS and half of the other companies of the Internet, Opera, which is the least private of all, Brave sends data to Cryptocompanies and sponsors, among others Facebook, some FF fork, the same problem with a Mozilla account to use Sync, others do not even have this function, having to use your own server or an external one, whose privacy is not necessarily so good either.

While large corporations use these surveillance advertising practices, there is no privacy on the Internet, regardless of which browser we use. It's that simple.

ybjrepnfr

@Catweazle said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

you can continue using Firefox, register with Mozilla

wtaf?

Catweazle

@ybjrepnfr
alt text

Also in Webkoll analytics
alt text

In the Browser you can avoid this data holes, well with the inbuild features or with extension or scripts, the biggest privacy and security hole isn't the browser, but the search engine you use and the user himself.

Ayespy

@Catweazle said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

every browser need extensions

I don't find this to be the case.

Unless you mean to say all browsers need extensions in order to hide you, which may be the case, but I never felt a particular urge to hide behind a curtain with a peephole, using remote-operated fingers to access the internet so as to remain unseen and unidentified. I know that many do.

Catweazle

@Ayespy; you can't really hide you, you can only protect you from excesive sniffings and annoying ads, pop-ups and other crap, with which webpages intents to fill your HD and browser.
Good example now is the YT problem with it's agressive anti-adblock, pop-ups, blocking and nags, which I avoid 100% with the Vivaldi adblocker and the iFrame script. It don't hide me, YT still logs my searches in the page, but not which videos I watch. In Firefox I need for this uBO and for the iFrame script Greasy-or Tampermonkey extension, in Vivaldi I can use it as is.
I don't care what websites they know what country I live in or my public IP, nor do I care about the technical data of my system, but I do care that my private data is out of their sight.
I also don't like that a page that I visit only occasionally fills my HD with cookies, databases and other shit, or that I find a zillion active serviceworkers in my browser. This is what matters to me and I try to alleviate.

RasheedHolland

@ybjrepnfr said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

next year vivaldi will likely lose any moral authority to keep including privacy self-congratulation in its promo material. without that putative rabbit, this will be the scoreline:

no html5 canvas fingerprint spoofing

no HTTP/2 Fingerprinting spoofing or blocking

no cname-uncloaking

no gui-based page element picker blocking

no user-configurable dynamic filter rules

Yes, good point. I also believe that Vivaldi should do more to protect against tracking, like Brave and Firefox. And as said before, uBlock Lite isn't good enough, so it's a must that Vivaldi's adblocker should be improved. And since it's not extension based, it should be able to bypass the Manifest v3 restrictions.

RasheedHolland

@Catweazle said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

Of course, you can continue using Firefox, register with Mozilla, knowing that they then send your data to Google (Alphabet, googleanalytics, googletagmanager), or use Edge, which does not send data to Google, but to MS and half of the other companies of the Internet, Opera, which is the least private of all, Brave sends data to Cryptocompanies and sponsors.

Yes I agree, I also don't really trust Firefox, Opera and Brave. And we all know that Edge and Chrome are spyware. But I do would like to see more advanced privacy features in Vivaldi, I wonder if they can add them or are they depending on Chromium? For example, what about Total Cookie Protection which was added to Firefox?

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/14/23166537/firefox-privacy-total-cookie-protection-default

ybjrepnfr

@RasheedHolland the allegation you appear to support is quite misleading. it strongly implies a nexus between using firefox [or forks] & logging into a mozilla account. there is no nexus. use of ff in no way mandates needing a logged-in mozilla account, unless peeps wanna sync. sync is not axiomatic to browsing. this peep has no need of sync in any browser, & so is not using an account, ipso facto collapsing the apocryphal assertion.

furthermore, no chromium browser has granular control like ff's about:config, which provides so-inclined users substantial additional privacy & usability finessing capability vastly ahead of any chromium browser.

the trait of some here to keep alleging a user-privacy false-equivalence between ff & chromium browsers even now, let alone later this year once google finalise their mv3 impost, is highly disingenuous.

RasheedHolland

@ybjrepnfr said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:

@RasheedHolland the allegation you appear to support is quite misleading. it strongly implies a nexus between using firefox [or forks] & logging into a mozilla account. there is no nexus.

Are you sure this was directed to me? I don't think I made any strong allegations about Firefox.

It's just my personal feeling that eventhough Firefox and Brave have implemented strong privacy features, there is still something shady about them. Firefox has got strong ties with Google and Brave is implementing all kinds of extra features that most people have no interest in.

What I do believe is that Vivaldi should try to implement stronger privacy features, that's all I'm saying. I think it's weird that Vivaldi doesn't portray themselves as a privacy browser, this would make it way more popular and generate a lot of buzz.

RasheedHolland

BTW, I also noticed another browser besides Brave that is focused on privacy, it's called Ulaa. I really think Vivaldi should be promoted more as a privacy focused browser. But it can only do this, if it really raises the bar. And I already asked this in another thread, but is there a list of Chrome/Chromium features that are disabled in Vivaldi?

https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)
https://ulaa.com

Catweazle

@RasheedHolland, well, Ulaa isn't bad, but not specially private, more than other normal Chromium fork, it's a proprietary Browser, made by Zoho with the same PP and TOS of any Zoho product. Nothing way different of any Chromium.

barbudo2005

A famous Roman saying went:

"Caesar's wife must not only be honorable, but must also appear to be so."

With Browsers the saying would be:

"Browsers should not only promote themselves as focused on privacy but also must be."