How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?

luetage

@ybjrepnfr If you want privacy, use Tor, there is no way around that. Anything else is comparable to using a band aid trying to fix a broken leg.

ybjrepnfr

@luetage i disagree with such a cavalier attitude. if you wish to apply it for yourself, fine, but others will make their own decisions based on their own priorities & needs.

luetage

@ybjrepnfr You can disagree as much as you like, it’s still true.

ybjrepnfr

@luetage you can restate that as much as you like, it's still false.

RasheedHolland

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

@RasheedHolland I’m solely using the inbuilt blocker for about half a year now and got no issues and I ran a highly customized ublock prior. They wouldn’t have to change anything and it would be fine for people who know how blocklists work. Problem is people don’t know and want something with aggressive defaults, but that isn’t likely to happen.

I think Vivaldi's current built-in blocker isn't user friendly enough. I would like to see a more advanced interface similar to uBlock and Ghostery for example. And not to forget, I would also like to see uBlock's element picker that let's you remove all kinds of annoying stuff. This isn't implemented in uBlock Lite, and it also doesn't have the matrix where you can allow or block scripts from domainnames. In other words, uBlock Lite isn't good enough, so if it won't be improved, then Vivaldi's built-in blocker should become even better.

barbudo2005

@RasheedHolland Said:

I would also like to see uBlock's element picker that let's you remove all kinds of annoying stuff.

This function can be replaced by using the Stylus extension and selecting the item with Inspect of Developers Tools.

Selector
{display: none !important;}

RasheedHolland

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

@RasheedHolland Said:

I would also like to see uBlock's element picker that let's you remove all kinds of annoying stuff.

This function can be replaced by using the Stylus extension and selecting the item with Inspect of Developers Tools.
Selector
{display: none !important;}

I'm sorry but I think you misunderstand. uBlock's element picker works out of the box, not really comparable with Stylus. In fact, I just remembered that Adblock Plus also has an element blocker. And for the record, this feature only hides stuff, so it's not really blocked from loading.

barbudo2005

@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?

barbudo2005

A question for the Moderators:

Has it been measured what percentage of Vivaldi users use uBO?

Ayespy

@barbudo2005 That is not measurable. Vivaldi can't collect such data - and a survey to try to find it out would not generate meaningful information.

Ayespy

@barbudo2005 The "practical" use is that users don't see stuff they find distracting - unless of course it's an ad that has paid Adblock+ for white-listing.

barbudo2005

@Ayespy

Apparently you did not understand my approach. I meant that one uses the picker element to remove annoying elements over the ads that the adblocker has already removed.

So the important thing is that they are not seen, not that they are not loading.

Catweazle

Until now I don't see any ad with the Vivaldi blocker. Cookies and other crap from Webpages are deleted with the Site Bleacher, even Cookie advices are blocked by the Vivaldi blocker. If I feel to need a Tinfoil hat (never know what else is going to happen to Google), maybe I also activate this one.

barbudo2005

@luetage @Ayespy Said:

That is not measurable.

What do you estimate?

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].