[HN Gopher] Manifest v3 Update ___________________________________________________________________ Manifest v3 Update Author : TangerineDream Score : 107 points Date : 2021-05-27 16:47 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.mozilla.org) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.mozilla.org) | guilhas wrote: | Can't wait for a better Firefox fork to take its place, maybe | bring back browser addons | | Improve performance, reduce bugs, stop tying to badly implement | existing community extensions. The UI also does NOT need more | redesign | | Or maybe we just need a fresh new browser | Yaina wrote: | Maintaining a browser requires an _enormous_ amount of people. | Building a new one or even forking existing ones is essentially | impossible if you don 't have huge financial means. | | The only other companies doing it are among the richest | companies in the world (Google and Apple). Wishing for fewer | bugs and better performance isn't invalid, but you have to put | the stuff Mozilla is doing into perspective. There are only so | many things you can do. | | The addons post shows a compromise in trying to the keep | browser compatible (even if that means adopting the `chrome.*` | namespace and implementing stuff from Googles wishlist). But it | also shows that where it matters -- where Google wants to abuse | their market position -- they diverge from the spec. | Yoric wrote: | That sounds unlikely. | osmarks wrote: | This is probably impossible. Web APIs are too complex now. | Nicksil wrote: | >Google has introduced declarativeNetRequest (DNR) to replace the | blocking webRequest API. | | ... | | >After discussing this with several content blocking extension | developers, we have decided to implement DNR and continue | maintaining support for blocking webRequest. | | We've seen this before -- a number of times. This is what's put | forth to avoid a cacophony and push back from developers and end- | users alike. Both technologies will be supported for a short time | before blocking webRequest is taken out altogether at a | relatively short time thereafter. | | >We will support blocking webRequest until there's a better | solution which covers all use cases _we consider important_ ... | (emphasis mine) | | And there it is. | | In a short time we'll read a statement -- released on a Friday | afternoon -- stating the EOL for blocking webRequest with little- | to-nothing in the way of analogous behavior because it wasn't | considered important by Mozilla (or, perhaps, the pressure from | Google was too much). | | That's my cynical, entirely pessimistic outlook of it all anyway. | | I'd like to read Raymond Hill's thoughts on this. | tomjen3 wrote: | That is a very cynical view. You assume Mozilla will give up | their one huge advantage over Chrome (ie a browser where actual | privacy is somewhat possible), you assume they will go about it | in a round-about way. | | And you assume that nobody will fork it to keep webRequest. | This seems strange as Firefox is itself a fork of Netscape | create because the dominant browser was horrible to use. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > That is a very cynical view. You assume Mozilla will give | up their one huge advantage over Chrome (ie a browser where | actual privacy is somewhat possible), you assume they will go | about it in a round-about way. | | Yes? It would be the... third or fourth, I can't remember | anymore, mass extinction event for extensions, and be | consistent with previous instances of sidelining | functionality before killing it (say, tab groups, which were | native functionality, then moved to an extension, and then | completely killed off in one of the aforementioned extinction | waves). Previous behavior is an _excellent_ reason to be | cynical. | | > And you assume that nobody will fork it to keep webRequest. | This seems strange as Firefox is itself a fork of Netscape | create because the dominant browser was horrible to use. | | I guess someone will, but they'll always lag, and accrue | security flaws and bugs and missing features (ex. pale moon) | since modern web standards helpfully move too fast to keep up | with unless you're huge and/or making only the most minor of | changes (and even then, really; icecat failing to keep up is | a reasonable argument that it's impractical). | Nicksil wrote: | >And you assume that nobody will fork it to keep webRequest. | | No, I'm not sure how you got that idea. There are plenty of | instances in the past where Mozilla/Firefox has been forked. | wnevets wrote: | If this wasn't Mozilla I would agree with your post. However I | believe Mozilla killing support for the webRequest API without | a suitable replacement would be suicide with its core user | base. I know for me the moment uBlock Origin is crippled on | Chrome is the moment I go Firefox full time. Browsing the | internet without it is simply a non-starter | jackewiehose wrote: | > If this wasn't Mozilla ... | | They already disabled (private) extension support on the | Windows build (you have to upload your extension to Mozilla | servers) and they completely disabled extension support on | Firefox mobile (no, that small list of approved extensions | isn't enough). I'm not sure they care much about their user | base. | dralley wrote: | I guess you're a Firefox user now? | | https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin- | works-b... | Narishma wrote: | > I know for me the moment uBlock Origin no longer works as | well as it does on Chrome is the moment I go Firefox full | time. | | Hasn't that been the case for a while now? | wnevets wrote: | As far as I've noticed uBlock Origin works just as well now | than it ever has on Chrome. I've certainly haven't noticed | a downgrade in performance or increase in adverts. | matheusmoreira wrote: | _Surely_ they consider uBlock Origin important. Right? | Nicksil wrote: | I'm actually a _bit_ optimistic about it. I know Mozilla has | reached-out to uBlock Origin before (I believe it had | something to do with uBlock Origin 's UI) in what I would | consider to be a positive light. | | It's also why I'm very interested in hearing what, if any, | Raymond Hill's (author of uBlock Origin) thoughts on this | matter. | Qub3d wrote: | Yes, Gorhill has published the communication between him | and Mozilla when working on the mobile UI for firefox | Android. It was all pretty great to see. | OJFord wrote: | It's on the very short list of hand-picked available-on- | Android (iOS doesn't allow it at all) extensions, so I think | so. | Semaphor wrote: | I think it was actually the first extension available in | the new FF Android version, it's availability was the | reason for me to switch as I need no other extension on | mobile. | ufmace wrote: | Maybe, but if they were going to do that, why bother telling us | they were going to continue supporting blocking webRequest at | all? They'd be in perfectly good company if they maintained the | exact same API as all the other browser vendors and deprecated | and turned off webRequest along with them. If they did this | because they think they maintain a genuine business advantage | from it, why would they change their mind and throw that away | at some later date? | Vinnl wrote: | If Mozilla intended to remove blocking webRequest, sure, this | is what it'd look like. | | However, if Mozilla intended to keep the option of blocking | webRequest (or whatever's necessary to keep uBlock possible), | it would _also_ look like this. It 's not an option for Mozilla | not to support the Chrome API, because the entire point of | WebExtensions is the admission that Chrome is the dominant | browser, and extension makers will only consider porting to | Firefox if it's as little effort as possible. Hence they need | to support the same API's. | | Given that uBlock Origin was the first extension they added | support for in Firefox for Android, I'm relatively confident | that they're intent on making sure it stays able to do its job. | nonbirithm wrote: | > _extension makers will only consider porting to Firefox if | it 's as little effort as possible. Hence they need to | support the same API's_ | | At least the last time I developed a browser extension, this | was not the case. I found that what was considered the | WebExtension API was not 100% portable across browsers, and I | had to rewrite parts of my code between Chrome and Firefox | because Chrome had many extra APIs that Firefox lacked. | Yoric wrote: | If you compare with attempting to share code between XUL | addons and Chrome extensions, you'll notice that things | have gotten muuuuuuuuch simpler, though. | throwaway77112 wrote: | Also ublock origin on Firefox has significant advantages over | that in chrome | | https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin- | works-b... | kgwxd wrote: | If he's not one of the several content blocking extension | developers they talked to, I'm just going to assume this is all | going to end up very badly. | jcranmer wrote: | Your quote snipping here is somewhat disingenuous: > >We will | support blocking webRequest until there's a better solution | which covers all use cases we consider important ... (emphasis | mine) | | The sentence continues: > since DNR as currently implemented by | Chrome does not yet meet the needs of extension developers. | | That's an admission that webRequest won't be removed until | there is something better than DNR on the table. | Nicksil wrote: | Not at all; I cover that when emphasizing "we consider | important" (as well as including the ellipsis to indicate the | continuation). I did not include it as it would have been | redundant. | Ajedi32 wrote: | Seems like the best solution; maintain compatiblity with Chrome | while keeping the more powerful APIs available for those who want | to take advantage of it. | | If Google screws this up, more effective ad blocking extensions | could end up being a good, concrete way for Firefox to | differentiate itself from other browsers. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Glad to see Mozilla is holding up it's independence on this key | issue, whereas Edge chose to implement Google's changes as-is. | whymarrh wrote: | There could be a simple explanation for this: Mozilla has its | own browser stack whereas Edge is Chrome. | butz wrote: | If all extensions are using same standard, what about possibility | of "universal" extensions that run on any browser without | changes? | Macha wrote: | So, running from the same source code? That's already the case | for many extensions. | | Running from the same artifact is a bit harder as Chrome will | only accept extensions signed by Google from the Chrome Web | Store. I guess Firefox could let you install them, but then it | leaves the possibility of installing an extension that is | actually incompatible and confusing users. | comfyinnernet wrote: | >DNR as currently implemented by Chrome does not yet meet the | needs of extension developers. | | "Yet"? | livre wrote: | I find it ironic that the only API Google decided to cripple was | the one used for adblocking when there are countless of ways to | exfiltrate data from an extension. I share the same pessimistic | view as Nicksil with respect to Firefox, this is the direction | Mozilla has been going with other parts of the browser. | | Edit: I know Mozilla said they are waiting for a better | alternative, but any alternative that can be proposed will end up | being less powerful than what we currently have. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Google's new extension interfaces are reasonable though. They | really are more secure. I want extensions to have as little | access as possible. | | uBlock Origin just happens to be important and trusted enough | that these limitations should not be imposed on it. | handrous wrote: | If they're serious about keeping uBlock Origin around, and | aren't just stalling while intending to remove what it needs | eventually, they should agree to the new API for extensions | ASAP... but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring | it under their wing (to whatever extent the author's willing | for that to happen). | | Now _that_ would be an interesting and pro-user move that | sets their browser apart from others. | | But it might piss off Google a little _too_ much, which is | probably why they 've not made that or a similar move long | before now. One of FF's earliest differentiators, before it | was even _called_ Firefox, was a form of ad-blocking, after | all (pop-up and pop-under blocking, which at the time mostly | meant blocking really annoying ads) | shawnz wrote: | I don't think this would be the best thing to do for uBO | users. This creates the possibility that the "Firefox | internal uBO" could diverge in functionality from the one | maintained by gorhill and get neutered by Mozilla managers. | | I think it is ultimately necessary due to the incentives at | play that the adblocking technology can be delivered by any | third party. | handrous wrote: | If other major browsers are cutting off critical | functionality for it, the concern may be moot. | | As long as Mozilla aren't themselves in ad | sales/brokerage I wouldn't be worried about a browser | shipping an ad-blocker, as far as incentives go. Google | doing it, that'd be concerning. Mozilla? Good. | | [EDIT] though actually this is another case of their | relationship with Google being kinda crippling, since | that _does_ introduce a conflict of interest... which is | part of why Google does it, I 'm sure. | ufmace wrote: | I'd rather not make any one adblock extension the single | blessed one that's included with browsers and given | exclusive permission to actually block ads reliably. | Browser makers and extension authors have gone bad before | and surely will again. We need to retain the ability for | anyone insufficiently satisfied with ad blocking | effectiveness to be able to fork and deploy as a new | extension with the same access to the browser as the last | one. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | > but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it | under their wing (to whatever extent the author's willing | for that to happen). | | Great, and now websites are _actively incentivized_ to not | support Firefox, because they 'll know Firefox users | generate zero advertising revenue by default. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it | under their wing | | I totally agree with this. At this point uBlock Origin's | technology is so important and essential it should be a | standard feature of every browser. I've posted this many | times before. People usually say that uBlock Origin is | better off independent because Mozilla is funded by Google. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Except that the new interfaces don't stop an extension from | recording all of your activity, they _only_ break blockers. | jackewiehose wrote: | > Google's new extension interfaces are reasonable though. | They really are more secure. I want extensions to have as | little access as possible. | | Maybe then just don't install the extension -> voila, zero | access given! Of course this is a stupid advice because | obviously you want the working extension for some reason. | Just like others want their extension to be able to do | whatever it needs to get its job done. | refulgentis wrote: | I wonder if it's because it's the one API that gets a full | firehose log of every single ask my browser makes for data | Nullabillity wrote: | The asynchronous API is still around and still gives you the | firehose. Removing the synchronous API _only_ locks out | adblockers. | livre wrote: | It is possible that that's the explanation but stopping just | one API only affects people/extensions willing to follow the | rules (uBlock Origin for example) while the bad players will | just change a few lines and begin using other APIs. The end | result is people are less protected because they have | crippled adblockers and data can still be exfiltrated, and | worse than that, malicious ads can't be prevented from | loading anymore. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-27 23:00 UTC)