Request for Manifest V3 implementation in Chromium could result in breaking AdBlockers
-
@guigirl said in The Register article on latest Manifest v3 status.:
@stardepp said in The Register article on latest Manifest v3 status.:
the Vivaldi tracker and ad blocker
Uh. It is much better to have it than not, yes fair enough. However i'm afraid it is unrealistic to think that what we currently have in V [purely a list-based tool] is in any way comparable to the extreme power we have atm with the dynamic-filter user-configurability rules-based control in uMatrix, & to a lesser extent uBO. It might be hard for anyone not yet familiar with those extensions to visualise this, if they're only used to a static list paradigm, but seriously it is chalk & cheese.
EXACTLY!
-
@stardepp said in The Register article on latest Manifest v3 status.:
On this topic also here:
Luckily we have the Vivaldi tracker and ad blocker :I know I was VERY clear in my wording. I did not ask for links to articles. I SPECIFICALLY Valdi really needs to make a clear statement on how they plan to address this since it will be in Chrome 88.
-
@jochen01 If uMatrix (or uBlock in advanced mode) is a must-have for you, and if uMatrix stops working in Vivaldi: I'd reluctantly suggest Firefox. Firefox isn't Chromium-based,
so uM should keep working there. And Firefox, while not Vivaldi, does have a lot more customizability then Chrome.But I hesitate to suggest Firefox, because I don't know how secure it is. My understanding is: Firefox security was pretty bad, compared to Chrome. But that might have changed with Firefox's Quantum update.
Edit: Well, I've seen signs that even Firefox may stop working with uM. But Waterfox might still work with uM, even if that happens. Waterfox is a fork of Firefox, that keeps old things Firefox dropped.
-
@Eggcorn Firefox has been my only browser before using Vivaldi. In terms of security: A good combination of brain 1.0 with the mentioned add-ons is secure enough for me.
-
@guigirl That's what I'm afraid of tooâŚ
-
@guigirl I wondered too if V3 would prevent these kind of extension from working properly as I expect evil of all sorts from G. But really I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this damned crap will be quite challenging. Sigh
-
@guigirl @hlehyaric I just looked into this and found lots of disheartening discussions, but there is this comment in the github repo for Tampermonkey:
https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issuecomment-742680842
And this is the relevant change in MV3 that is worrying for the type of extension:
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-migration/#remotely-hosted-code
-
@guigirl said in The Register article on latest Manifest v3 status.:
could v3 also basically kill aesthetic extensions like stylus
Fortunately, this is Vivaldi. I would think that userscripts and userstyles are on the Vivaldi team's to-do list. Userscripts/styles are a lot more secure then traditional extensions, after all!
-
@jochen01 Simple, Firefox, the only one that cares.
-
-
@guigirl Iâm really hoping Vivaldi will do the same.
-
@code3 That doesnât matter much, because all extensions previously using the api will either disappear from chrome webstore, or switch to declarative netrequest. Vivaldi would have to build up their very own extension store for this to make a difference. But this is all in the future, manifest version 2 isnât disappearing that fast.
-
@luetage Maybe, but some extension developers will still have a crx file for the extension.
-
Updated EFF commentary on Manifest V3.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/11/manifest-v3-open-web-politics-sheeps-clothing
Still no reason for optimism here afaict [wrt eg, uBO].
-
More gloom.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening
But donât just take our words for it. Here are some thoughts from technologists, privacy advocates, and extension developers who share our concern over Manifest V3:
"A web browser is supposed to act on behalf of the user and respect the user's interests. Unfortunately, Chrome now has a track record as a Google agent, not a user agent. It is the only major web browser that lacks meaningful privacy protections by default, shoves users toward linking activity with a Google Account, and implements invasive new advertising capabilities. Google's latest changes will break Chrome privacy extensions, despite academic research demonstrating that no change is necessary. These user-hostile decisions are all directly attributable to Google's surveillance business model and enabled by its dominance of the desktop browser market." Jonathan Mayer, Princeton University âManifest V3 positions Chrome as the all-powerful arbiter of what software lives and what dies, shattering the ideal of a diverse array of extensions serving the legitimate preferences and values of equally diverse users. In 2017, when Google banned AdNauseam from the Chrome store, it summarily cut off tens of thousands of users from data they had accumulated, and deprived them of a free and open-source extension to counter online profiling and manipulation. In hindsight, AdNauseam was the canary in the coal mine, as Mv3 is now poised to cut off users from a range of invaluable privacy tools (including ad blockers) that thousands if not millions rely on. A browser that plays favorites to advance its ownersâ interests effectively chokes out innovative, independent developers, while shrinking the options for individuals to shape their online experiences.â Helen Nissenbaum and Daniel Howe (creators of AdNauseam and TrackMeNot) âManifest V3 is a detrimental step back for internet privacy.â Ghostery company blog âNearly all browser extensions as you know them today will be affected in some way: the more lucky ones will âonlyâ experience problems, some will get crippled, and some will literally cease to exist.â Andrey Meshkov, AdGuard company blog -
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-makes-the-perfect-case-for-why-you-shouldnt-use-chrome/
Journalist opines
Google says Manifest V3 is focused on security, privacy and performance, but it could also break Chrome browser extensions used by millions of people.
Well duh! You're rather late to this party.
The EFF is right, and Google's plans for MV3 is yet another reason why the best browser for Linux, Windows and Mac isn't Google Chrome
It never was. MV3 simply compounds the problem, not creates it.
And for developers, this could lead to many of them having to work with two different code basesâone for Chrome and one for all other browsers. That's a proposition many devs won't accept
Well duh!
Google and other browser makers have way too much time, capital and resources invested into their creations to allow a third party to take control. On top of that, Google would have to collaborate with Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi and any other browser maker that has a vested interest in this issue. Again ⌠not gonna happen.
Sigh.
So, what can you do? The solution is simple. Change browsers. Migrate to a browser that doesn't prevent you from using ad blockers or other extensions, which prevent the collection of your data. Switch to a browser that's not based on Chrome, such as Firefox (for Linux, macOS or Windows) or Safari (for macOS). Use any browser based on Chrome and you run the risk of losing the ability to install those extensions.
Oooha, cat, meet pigeons.
As the time draws nearer for the death of MV2, it would be reassuring, or at least helpful, for our community to receive updated policy guidance from The V Team on their intentions for dealing with this serious issue. I don't recall reading anything official on it for a comparatively long time. As i continue to see it, assuming gargle does not back down, & MV3 deploys as planned with MV2 ending also as planned, essential extensions like uBlock Origin will die in Chrome/Chromium. Does V believe that it would be sustainable in the long-term, with an unrelenting 4-weekly release cycle, to keep their chromium codebase free of all this gargle MV3 garbage?
Additionally, what would the entire userbase do if important independent extension devs like @gorhill decide that it's all become too hard & entirely cease work on uBO for chromium? At that point, we Vivaldifarians would have to decide: stick with V & accept the serious privacy detriment, or jump to FF. An obvious theoretical "wish" would be for V to incorporate uBO code, but for such a small team, that seems unrealistic... & i presume @gorhill would have no interest in joining V?
This slow-moving train-crash is nearly reaching its terminus.
-
Couldn't you just wait 1 day so that it would be 28 days later?
bummer
anyway my FF is waiting in the corner...
-
@npro said in Chrome Extension Manifest V3 could end uBlock Origin for Chrome:
my FF is waiting
You'll never guess with what i posted. Never in a gaquillion years. Thanks to my scrupilously leaving No Clues At All, i know my secret is safe.
-
@guigirl Itâs at least another 14 months for Vivaldi. As a user calm yourself, sit back and enjoy the show. More interesting is what developers on the webstore will do. If a grand majority of extensions doesnât get migrated until January 2023, I feel itâs likely Chrome will back down and continue to provide support for v2 in Chromium for the time being. It would simply be a terrible mistake to disrupt millions upon millions of users worldwide, who suddenly wake up to dysfunctional extensions they rely on. This is not about ublock like extensions foremost. Any extension will fail, even the oneâs which donât need v2 capabilities (almost all). In my opinion thatâs the real problem for Chrome.
-
If your browsing at home and on the WIFI. You can use a dedicated pi-hole device or just run pi-hole on an old PC. Pi-hole only needs to be on the network in your house somewhere. It is more than just an ad-blocker you can wildcard deny any domain. and it can handle hundreds of thousands of blocked domains. if your limited to just a mobile. you can use a simple dns filter running on your phone. you dont have to do anything to the phone in either case and is house-wide when using pi-hole.
*