How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?

barbudo2005

Follow @luetage suggestion and use the extension Stylus:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/stylus/clngdbkpkpeebahjckkjfobafhncgmne

For months now, I have been moving my selectors from uBO to Stylus.

Examples:

/*GENERIC*/

[class*= "bann"],
[class*= "branded"],
[class*= "magazine"],
[class*= "suscriptor"],
[class*= "story_links"],
[class*= "social"],

/* Including "*" in the selector will select all those containing the term in quotation marks. */

/*SPECIFIC*/

[class="btn btn-main"]

barbudo2005

@RasheedHolland

A list of generic selectors to remove parts of sites you are not interested in viewing.

[class *= "adsbygoogle"],
[class *= "aside"],
[class *= "autor"],
[class *= "autora"],
[class *= "banners"],
[class *= "cabecera"],
[class *= "col__sidebar"],
[class *= "col-derecha"],
[class *= "column-left"],
[class *= "column-right"],
[class *= "copyright"],
[class *= "coupons"],
[class *= "desktop-nav"],
[class *= "editors"],
[class *= "extra-footer"],
[class *= "embedded"],
[class *= "family"],
[class *= "footer"],
[class *= "footnote"],
[class *= "header_top"],
[class *= "header-primary"],
[class *= "labels"],
[class *= "legal"],
[class *= "masthead"],
[class *= "navbar"],
[class *= "nav-bar"],
[class *= "navigator"],
[class *= "nudge"],
[class *= "post-sidebar"],
[class *= "promo"],
[class *= "related"],
[class *= "right-most"],
[class *= "services"],
[class *= "scroll"],
[class *= "share"],
[class *= "Shared"],
[class *= "sharing"],
[class *= "sidebar-main"],
[class *= "sidebar-content"],
[class *= "sidebar-part"],
[class *= "sidebar.section"],
[class *= "small.left"],
[class *= "small-sidebar"],
[class *= "social"],
[class *= "topbar"],
[class *= "trend"],
[class *= "widget-area"],


[id *= "access"],
[id *= "aside"],
[id *= "cabecera"],
[id *= "column-left"],
[id *= "column-left-inner"],
[id *= "column-right"],
[id *= "column-right-inner"],
[id *= "comments"],
[id *= "comentario"],
[id *= "favicons"],
[id *= "feedback"],
[id *= "features"],
[id *= "footnote"],
[id *= "footer"],
[id *= "Form1"],
[id *= "google_ads"],
[id *= "google-ads"],
[id *= "googleads"],
[id *= "masonry"],
[id *= "meta"],
[id *= "network"],
[id *= "pie"],
[id *= "popular"],
[id *= "respond"],
[id *= "rightcontent"],
[id *= "right"],
[id *= "secondary"],
[id *= "scrll"],
[id *= "site-header"],
[id *= "sticky"],
[id *= "tags"],
[id *= "top-stories"],
[id *= "widgetbox"],


aside,
footer,
section.footer,
header#header

{display:none !important;}

Create a style called GENERIC and use this setting with the most visited sites:

nirin

So... is the end result of all this back and forth basically:

Vivaldi works at the moment, as long as you use uBlock origin.

It'll continue to work until around June 2025.

Then it'll stop working and everyone will have to move to Brave or Firefox. Or put up with being spammed by ads.

I have personally tried everything I could to get Vivaldi adblocker to work to an acceptable level, but it just can't handle it. Youtube by itself is enough to completely baffle vivaldi.

nirin

Which is annoying, because I just spent days tinkering and learning vivaldi and actually liking it. I could stick with it, but if I end up having to change to Firefox (Floorp) in 6 months anyway it would seem like a waste of time. Depends on how much faith people have in the Vivaldi devs that they will somehow manage to upgrade their built-in adblocker from "terrible" to "actually functional" within the next few months.

electryon

@RasheedHolland
For removing elements I am using Violentmonkey.
Not as easy as uBO emelent picker, but more powerful.
Tampermonkey already has a MV3 version available and the difference is that you have to enable the extensions developer mode for it to work. But it works great.
Violentmonkey developer has said that he is also working and will release a MV3 verison of Violentmonkey.
All popular userscript managers will release MV3 versions and they will work. The only thing needed for them to work is to have developer mode enabled.
If Vivaldi under the hood when MV2 gets dropped enables the needed APIs of developer mode by default the user won't even have to enable himself anything manually.

Catweazle

@electryon, I use the LibertyBear extension, i'ts an ViolentMonkey fork Mv3 I think. But as said in other thread, the best will be an inbuild Script Manager in Vivaldi, the Chrome Store isn't anymore an reliable source for privacy and security tools.

CummingCowGirl

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

So... is the end result of all this back and forth basically:

Vivaldi works at the moment, as long as you use uBlock origin.

It'll continue to work until around June 2025.

Then it'll stop working and everyone will have to move to Brave or Firefox. Or put up with being spammed by ads.

I have personally tried everything I could to get Vivaldi adblocker to work to an acceptable level, but it just can't handle it. Youtube by itself is enough to completely baffle vivaldi.

st of us don't believe that Vivaldi won't rise to the occasion. They have consistently had our backs.

barbudo2005

@Catweazle

Said:

…..the Chrome Store isn't anymore an reliable source for privacy and security tools.

On what technical support do you base your assertion that the Chrome store as of July 1st became a place unreliable?

That is, if someone installs uBO today, this "new" one as of July 1st is not reliable and maybe with a virus?

On two other occasions you have made assertions and you have not technically backed up where you got that assertion from.

I have asked you to back up where you got it from and you have not responded:

1.-

@Catweazle

Said:

This mean, also if Vivaldi, Brave or any other browser can use Mv2 adblockers, like uBO, it will be meaningless when in the next year they can't block ads anymore.

Why do you say that they will not be able to block ads, if the browser maintains MV2?

On what basis do you say that? Where did you read it?

2.-

@Catweazle

Said:

….the blocker can do what is for in pages prepared for Mv3, that means that the blocker need to surround this limitations,….

Are the pages prepared for MV3?
or
Extensions can interact with the page depending on what the manifest allows.

it depends entirely of what the page allows, at least of these controlled by Google ad providers (Alphabet).

I am not convinced by your explanation. Where did you read it?

I have to understand that if you have not answered it is because you have not read it from a serious and knowledgeable technician on the subject, and they just came out of your head?

Please, let's keep the forum serious based on facts and not make assertions that are not backed up, especially on this sensitive topic such as MV3, Ads, YouTube and adblocker built-in.

electryon

@Catweazle
If someone wants custom and more rules in Vivaldi native adblocker, their syntax used is ABP, and adblocker is pretty basic but at least supports something advanced as $rewrite, I hope it will get better and be able before MV2 gets dropped to support more advanced syntax and lists.
Btw, ABP already upgraded everyone to MV3 few months ago. Recently Adguard Experimental, became "Adguard MV3 (Beta)" which means they will upgrade everyone with MV2 to MV3 when the time comes for the official version with the ID bgnkhhnnamicmpeenaelnjfhikgbkllg, they also seem like they finally fixed Scriptlet Injection so now it can be recommended again because you won't see Youtube ads.
The reason why uBlock Lite is going to be 'less powerful' is also a developer choice, he is open about not even providing custom adblock rules in uBlock Lite because "I don't have time to maintain another extension and I want Lite to stay Lite and having custom adblock rules is not lite". It's not a secret Gorhill has been a Firefox user for very long time, and just as he didn't even bother to upload uBlock to Edge extension store and it is maintained by some random person because "I don't use Windows OS" he will do whatever he wants with his project and don't make Lite, less Lite or at least not for now.
PS: I am NOT critizing Gorhill, it's his free time, and he has the right to spend his free time on things he wants to work on.

Catweazle

@electryon, certainly you can't critizise Gorehill, nor other devs to migrate to Mv3, because they are forced to migrate if they will stay in the stores. But as said before, to block Google ads, it needs adblocker which can do this with the new rules in Mv3.

YouTube is a good terrain for testing how to do it, because next year all pages, which are using Google crap, will go the same way.

The solution for the user certainly can't be found in the stores in the near future, only in own or third party tools/scripts independent from there.

electryon

@Catweazle
I do not disagree. Vivaldi needs to impove the native ad blocker. It needs to support the advaced syntax of uBO and it needs to support scriptlets.
I expect in the future when I add as custom lists the uBO lists to work and not having non working rules.
An element picker like the one uBO has in my humble opinion is too much to ask and this functionality can be replaced anyway with userscripts.
Also a native userscript manager would be more than welcome:)
Btw, in the native adblocker I tried the following and it looks very promising.

AdGuard Tracking Protection
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdguardTeam/FiltersRegistry/master/filters/filter_3_Spyware/filter.txt

Fanboy Social Blocking list
https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/fanboy-social.txt

Fanboy Ultimate List (This includes Easylist, Easyprivacy, Enhanced Trackers List and Annoyances List)
https://fanboy.co.nz/r/fanboy-ultimate.txt

Hagezi Multi Pro++
https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/hagezi/dns-blocklists@latest/adblock/pro.plus.txt

I scored 99% in adblock tester:)

barbudo2005

@electryon

Said:

Also a native userscript manager would be more than welcome:)

I am asking for a little consistency.

I imagine that you consider uBO to be the best ad blocking extension out there, and if the MV3 issue hadn't happened, you would still be using it forever.

Since MV3 happened, you want the built-in ad blocker to be as close to it as possible.

So if there is a very powerful userscript manager extension like Tampermonkey, then what's the point of wanting Vivaldi to develop a built-in one?

On top of that, if the team created it, then you would be asking the team to develop it just like Tampermonkey.

PS: It would be different if MV3 did not allow Tampermonkey to maintain its current power.

electryon

@barbudo2005
I personally consider AdGuard Home the best adblocking solution. I have a lifetime license.
AdGuard Home includes not only a system wide ad blocker, it also includes a system wide userscript manager.
I use PWA's, secondary profiles etc and a system wide solution is a better solution than having to install extensions multiple times.
But that's not the point, it's not only about me and what I want.

Catweazle

@barbudo2005, inbuild Tampermonkey would be so easy, because Tampermonkey is proprietary soft, but Greasymonkey, Violentmonkey and its improved fork LibertyBear are full FOSS.

barbudo2005

@Catweazle

If you replaced the word "Tampermonkey" with any of these words "Greasymonkey", "Violentmonkey" or "LibertyBear", my approach would be just as valid.

electryon

@barbudo2005
Vivaldi already supports installlation of local userscripts.
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/66719/userscript-installation
And when you install them they load faster than loading them though an extension.
It is not only about MV3, native loading of a userscript is a better option than loading it from an extension. It is faster.
MV3 just makes it a good opportunity for developing even more and polishing a feature Vivaldi already has.

Catweazle

@electryon, yes, I know that you can install userscripts directly as extension, but it's not the same. For this, like also with extensions from other sources than the webstore, you need to download the script or the extension first to your HD in a folder and drag it from there to the extension page in dev mode to install it.

But with this, the script or extension don't point to the source/homepage and because of this they are not updated automatically, you must update the localfile by hand on every new release. That is the difference to use it without an script manager.
It's certainly a option, even to backup the scripts, but it's way easier to handle it from the extension, where you can update it, if needed, with a click, without the need to search and download the script again.

Imagine having to download the uBO filters to your disk to use them and deal with updating them, which is now almost daily.

@barbudo2005, of course, I only mentioned it because Tampermonkey cannot be forked as a function in Vivaldi, since many people do not know that Tampermonkey is proprietary closed source, unlike the other UMs.

electryon

@Catweazle
Yes, it supports only local userscripts that can't be updated, can't be managed and they need to be re-installed.
If it supported everything and online userscripts we wouldn't having this discussion:).
What I am trying to say is that userscripts even in the very basic support already exists.
And having native support for easy installing, updating and unistalling userscripts opens new possibilities for Vivaldi.
It's like having a new store inside Vivaldi without Google's monitoring on it.
Let;s not forget also that it would be easier for the end user too since MV3 usercript manager extensions would need to have Vivaldi always in developer mode. Not only when you install the usercript, but always. A native userscript manager could avoid that.

Catweazle

@electryon, that is the idea, going to be independent from the Chrome Store and Google, at least for privacy and security related extensions (most others are anyway redundant in Vivaldi)

barbudo2005

@Catweazle

Said:

(most others are anyway redundant in Vivaldi)

Please tell me where I can find in Vivaldi the functionalities that Stylus (to name an example) gives me?

PS: And please don't tell me that you can inject CSS into the web page via a User.JS.