Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers

barbudo2005

That they will continue to run doesn’t mean Google will allow updates.

The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support

uBO it is such a polished and excellent extension that in a year I don't think I will notice that there have been no updates.

bariton

However, v2 will die, we need to accommodate to v3.
Google sets the rules.

antekone

Even if Vivaldi will stay with MV2, it will not help in the long run. Chrome's migration to MV3 will effectively kill Chrome's extensions. So they won't be available on Vivaldi either.

Vivaldi Firefox is probably just a wish than a realistic product, which is extremely sad.

I really hope Vivaldi team will resolve this somehow. Embracing MV3 together with creation of an internal ad-blocker on par with uBlock Origin and uMatrix-style resource loading management seem like a cheapest solution. It's not uncommon to integrate extensions directly into the browser -- older guys remember that on the beginning there was Firebug extension, and later every browser has created their own developer tools integrated with the browser (including old Opera), modelled after the original Firebug. So I suspect a similar thing can happen with ad-blockers. (I hope.)

Ayespy

@antekone said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:

It's not uncommon to integrate extensions directly into the browser

I would modify this to: "It's not uncommon to integrate 'extension' FUNCTIONS directly into the browser." And, of course, Vivaldi, being Vivaldi, does this all the time. That's why it's Vivaldi. That's why I don't have to use extensions.

LocutusOfBorg

@luetage said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:

@barbudo2005 Updates will be disabled sooner. But yes, Vivaldi potentially has a full year to create the best internal adblocker there is.

@Demizz said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:

@jknapp1208:

I agree. The Brave Rust-based content blocker is open-source and freely-licenced (see below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbko-tcviFc&t=963s

It would make sense for Chromium-based browsers to adopt and work with that, rather than trying to keep webRequest functioning to allow uBlock Origin to continue working. The uBlock Origin developer has shown disdain towards Chromium-based browsers in the past; it wouldn't surprise me if he ditched Chromium support at some point and just concentrated on Firefox (which is the browser he's really interested in). Brave would have more accountability than relying on a single anonymous extension developer.

Catweazle

@Demizz said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:

@jknapp1208:

I agree. The Brave Rust-based content blocker is open-source and freely-licenced

uBO https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock (GPL v3). Brave Blocker has MPL v2 License with the limitations of Liability, Trademark use and Warranty Is part of the Brave Experiments. That means that it is more reliable for Vivaldi to use the code of uBO as the one from a competidor

mred

As a user of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, I have to agree to what @LonM wrote in this post.

The blacklist-everything and then allow things step-by-step way that uMatrix works is definitely not something for casual websurfers, but I really like the detailed control about which requests are allowed and which are blocked. The visual matrix interface is quite helpful, too.

I'd love to continue having this kind of fine-grained control after Manifest v2 is disabled. Hopefully Vivaldi will find a way to make this possible. Reading what @julien_picalausa wrote in this thread, I am a tiny little bit more optimistic than before.
Please, Vivaldi, give him a team to work on making the Vivaldi internal adblock more powerful!

zakius

@Daktyl well, my feature request to add WE support was recently archived for no real reason even though that's what we desperately need as an important step in escape from Chromium clutches

zakius

@TalGarik it uses the same tricks as uBO to maximize memory and compute efficiency so it's nice in that aspect
and additionally it would be better to not do the same thing twice, if there's a decent filtering engine pluggable into Chromium available why make and maintain a new one? it would be best to cooperate to make both of projects benefit with more power and flexibility

zakius

@TalGarik there never was Firefox on Android, both Fennec and Fenix are not Firefox

that aside, Fenix is the only usable Android browser currently, others have way too many annoying issues

zakius

@Ayespy yes and no, extensions are an excellent way to cater to individual needs, having everything built in with extreme configurability is absurdly costly, even if preferred for performance and reliability reasons

from my POV currently Vivaldi lacks:

toolbar configurability
some mouse gestures features (and API to make the extension reliable)
advanced content blocking (and API to make it, even before Mv3 hits it's severely limited)
proper text rendering (it's so blurry! Chromium is a pain)

additionally I'd still use my own fork of Smart RSS due to some small QoL features that M2, OG Smart RSS, M2 and Feedbro lack, though that's another thing that's going to die due to Mv3 nonsense (it relies on persistent in-memory database, that's impossible with Mv3)

so while I'd love to have all these built in, preferably with compiled code for heavy lifting, it's often infeasible and a proper extensions API is still a must (one of the few things that Opera missed)

zakius

@Catweazle code of uBO could be used as a reference, maybe to replicate the GUI part, but due to API limitations of Chromium Mv2 and even more so upcoming Mv3 it can't be easily integrated as-is as a kind of "system extension" (Mozilla uses that mechanism to integrate some features and allows forks to easily add their own)

thrust26

@julien_picalausa said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
The only reason development on our adblocker have stalled is because I have been a bit too busy with sync as of late.

You better hurry then. Because I figure I will not be the only one switching to FF when ad blocking starts to suck in Vivaldi. My tolerance for advertising is low and I also like to do "cosmetic" changes to my favorite websites. And once I get better used to FF, I might not return to Vivaldi.

luetage

@thrust26 ublock will likely remain functional until next summer, or even longer. Google has postponed the deadline for v2 again just recently, so there is enough time to put some work into the internal adblocker. Try to testrun it, it’s not too bad right now, if you know what you’re doing. I have already switched over. And how will you provide input, if you don’t test it?

barbudo2005

@thrust26

Said:

And once I get better used to FF, I might not return to Vivaldi.

When you are there, please send photos and seasonal fruits.

DoctorG

@thrust26 said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:

And once I get better used to FF, I might not return to Vivaldi.

Sad, but that is your freedom of choice. Farewell.

fahrenheit451

I've been using the AdGuard AdBlocker extension with Vivaldi

DoctorG

@luizavvv Oh, yeah, Mozilla is independent from big companies money - NOT. Most users ignore that and gives a sh.... when money comes from US companies and tax evasion "foundations".

Yes, it is sad that there is no free browser engine. But we live in a real world outside of a Stallman FOSS universe.

Catweazle

@luizavvv , FF is subvencioned by Google, in change Mozilla send data to Alphabet.inc, a Google advertising company.

xyzzy

Some good news, I suppose -- the full transition to Manifest V3 has been delayed/postponed: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/more-mv2-transition/