Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024

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.

npro

@ybjrepnfr said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

did you do it their recommended way via editing your hosts file?

ofc

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.

understandable, but that's part of the price to pay these days where "we can't just have nice things".

solution: get more acquainted with 2 commands: grep and sed

Catweazle

@npro, it is somewhat complicated to find a balance, between finding the right filters to block ads and trackers on all sites and too many and breaking many pages. Although I have a 100% result in the adblocker test with the Vivaldi blocker, I start to see ads on YT without the iFrame script. However, if I also activate the Quantum filters, YT search stops working and other pages no render well. That is, it is advisable to continue using the previous configuration and the iFrame script, which is the best combination, at least for the moment.

Current Filters which give 100% in the test

Easy list (the default in Vivaldi)
https://github.com/StUser4pda/filtrite/releases/latest/download/bromite-4pda.txt
apart
iFrame script

against Cookie advice pop-ups

npro

@Catweazle I don't have any issues with youtube search and other pages at all, but I use the updated list in the recommended way (in hosts). Try that I'd say, as those lists you've used look unmaintained to me (2 years). Now how you will put ~121 MiB of text lines into your Microsoft Windows' hosts file is your task/problem

These are more than 4 million lines

Catweazle

@npro, anyway, at the moment I go fine with the mencioned filters and iFrame script, more using mainly front-ends for YT.
Apart Canvas Blocker, SiteBleacher, Link Unshortener, URLTracking Stripper, Nitter redirect, as secondary protection (desirable that in the future are also some there as Vivaldi own functions). Quite sad that nowadays so many extensions are necessary to avoid these surveillance data hogs

npro

@Catweazle said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

Nitter redirect

I use this https://libredirect.github.io/ in Floorp

Catweazle

@npro, yes, i use it before, but often problems with instances, apart there are no good front-ends for the worst Zuckerbot sites. Anyway with SiteBleacher "I've never visited the other pages", it's somewhat outdated, but make its job very well, maintan HD and browser clean of any unwanted crap.

npro

Hi @TheQuantumAlpha ,

said in Google will deprecate Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome by June 2024:

@npro I can't really update it..

Gitlab put a cap on blob size upload and transfer, which the list exceeds...

I'm not paying for gitlab either, the entire server system already costs over 10s of thousands of my pocket..

totally understandable

I might transfer to GitHub or an alternative, or will force it through piping.

Meanwhile, if you want an update, I can WeTransfer it lol

Don't worry it's working fine as it is already together with uBlock, I'm fine with whatever you decide, take as much time you need for figuring out the best solution

malikzeeb

@Greenphlem Manifest 3 is built into Chromium. It mainly impact extensions. Vivaldi has to use manifest 3 eventually because it based on Chromium.