[HN Gopher] "UBO Minus (MV3)" - An Experimental uBlock Origin Bu... ___________________________________________________________________ "UBO Minus (MV3)" - An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3 Author : antonok Score : 210 points Date : 2022-09-07 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | krono wrote: | Tangent but let's stop referring to it as a mere ad blocker, it's | a content blocker - it's even a very useful and impactful | accessibility tool in that capacity. | | ADHD sucks and I have a lot to thank to these types of tools for | acting as my "crutches" that allowed me get where I am today. | jasonhansel wrote: | 100%. This is an a11y issue, not just about protecting privacy. | notriddle wrote: | I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering | to as an ad blocker, is in fact, a content/ad blocker, or as | I've recently taken to calling it, a content plus ad blocker. | Ad blockers are not an extension unto themselves, but rather | another downloadable block list for a fully functioning user | agent made useful by the extension, browser chrome, and vital | web engine components comprising a full user agent content | customization system, which, in this case, can be customized | using the ABP blocklist syntax. | | Many computer users run a modified version of a content blocker | every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of | events, the version of the content blocker which is widely used | today is often called an ad blocker, and many of its users are | not aware that it is basically a generic content blocker with a | particularly popular block list preloaded. | LordDragonfang wrote: | For the uninitiated: | | https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Interjection | ChemicalScum wrote: | No. | [deleted] | yamazakiwi wrote: | driverdan wrote: | If you're still using Chrome now is the time to switch to | Firefox. This is an interesting experiment but the only solution | is to stop using Chrome. | wnevets wrote: | The moment I need to deicide between installing UBO Minus or | making Firefox my default browser is the moment I make Firefox | my default browser. Browsing the internet without a fully | functioning uBlock Origin is a nightmare. | [deleted] | ianlevesque wrote: | Firefox still isn't a suitable Chrome replacement. Chrome may | be beaconing half your browsing data back to Mountain View | quietly in the background, but Firefox shoves its monetization | strategy right in your face every time you open a new tab | (Pocket, VPN ads, etc). Firefox is also drastically more | complex in the UI and menus, and is missing a lot of UX | niceties in the window and address bar itself (extra clicks to | search all open tabs comes to mind). Mozilla has no one to | blame but Mozilla for where Firefox isn't in terms of market | share. | sfink wrote: | Search all open tabs in Firefox: prefix your search with "% " | (percent followed by a space). | | Or don't, and it'll probably be in the list of suggested | results anyway. | | ( _Unless_ you 're using container tabs, in which case it'll | only search open tabs in the current container, which is | sometimes good but usually a nuisance.) | | I much prefer Firefox's address bar search heuristics over | Chrome's, but it definitely depends on your usage patterns. | Firefox is very good at suggesting relevant things from my | history, to the extent that I will _gasp_ actually close tabs | now and rely on search to rediscover them, rather than | forever accumulating open tabs that I might want to get back | to. | Melatonic wrote: | Firefox FTW | dilap wrote: | First time in a while running Firefox on Mac, and I'm happy to | report it finally supports bounce scrolling! In general | scrolling is very smooth and performance seems excellent. | jbverschoor wrote: | Nope, not here. No bouncing, maybe due to 'no animation | settings' in display. Also, scrolling feels different. | Different speed, different acceleration. | | Still doesn't feel native at all. | dilap wrote: | > Nope, not here. No bouncing, maybe due to 'no animation | settings' in display | | Where's that setting? | | > Different speed, different acceleration. | | Huh, interesting! Are you mouse or trackpad? I'm comparing | side-by-side on trackpad and I can't detect any difference. | If I flick the trackpad at the same speed they will both | land roughly in the same place on the page, and the | variation, as near as I can tell, is because of variations | in my flick speed. | | In both Safari and Firefox I find it basically effortless | to scroll exactly where I want to. (This was emphatically | _not_ true for me in previous versions of Firefox.) Feels | totally natural. Though maybe there is a difference I 'm | just not sensitive enough to detect! | | FWIW, I'm on Firefox 104.0.2, macOS 12.5.1, MB Pro / M1 | Max. | | (Spark, which is a supposedly-native email app, somehow has | weirder feeling scrolling to me than Firefox.) | jbverschoor wrote: | Reduce Motion in display or accessibility settings I | think it's called. | | I'm on M1. Just updated FF from the menu. | | I'm using the trackpad, but again, I changed my system | settings, as I don't like the default speed and | acceleration. | dilap wrote: | Huh, yeah, turning on "Reduce motion" does indeed disable | bounce scroll in Firefox. Definitely a strange choice on | their part! (It doesn't affect it in other apps.) | | > I changed my system settings, as I don't like the | default speed and acceleration | | I see, that could make sense, if Safari was honoring | those changes and Firefox wasn't, in some way. I've got | mostly stock settings (slightly bumped up speed and | three-finger drag) and it feels spot-on. | aeharding wrote: | Something must be wrong on your machine. On my Mac Mini and | Air (m1) Firefox scrolling is extremely smooth and feels | much more native than Chrome. Overscrolling has worked | great since they revamped the engine, even in nested scroll | views! | | Firefox's scrolling engine is so good, CSS scroll snapping | feel more native than Safari's implementation (with chrome | feeling the least native - too little friction and takes | too long to stop moving on large scroll snap areas) [1]. | | [1] https://ppg.report/41.876,-87.624 for example of CSS | scroll snapping that performs best on Firefox on Mac | tapoxi wrote: | You can also use Brave, which implements its own native | adblocker and isn't impacted by Manifest v3. | contravariant wrote: | Do you mean that particular adblocker is not impacted or is | Brave going to maintain support for the APIs dropped by | Manifest v3? | [deleted] | therealmarv wrote: | Brave's adblocker is internal and written in Rust. | | https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust | | I'm pretty sure it's also faster than any adblock extension | like uBlock. | bkallus wrote: | Both. | | "We will continue to support Manifest v2 to the extent that | we can" | | "Brave's adblocker (Brave Shields) is not an extension, and | is natively implemented. So, it will be totally | unaffected." | | Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/rda | b12/how_w... | nightpool wrote: | Brave has committed to retaining support for all of the | APIs that were removed by Manifest v3 | https://github.com/brave/brave- | browser/issues/20059#issuecom... (There are other mentions | in the wiki and other places) | antonok wrote: | Brendan Eich has committed to supporting the Manifest V2 | version of uBlock Origin in Brave [1]. | | Brave's built-in native adblocker also definitely won't be | affected, as it doesn't use any webextension APIs at all. | | [1]: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/discussions/14 | 544#di... | prvc wrote: | Any disadvantages to switching from Chrome or Firefox? | gapo wrote: | From the commit msg: | | At this point I consider being permission-less the limiting | factor: if broad "read/modify data" permission is to be used, | than there is not much point for an MV3 version over MV2, just | use the MV2 version if you want to benefit all the features which | can't be implemented without broad "read/modify data" permission. | Raed667 wrote: | I think uBlock Origin providing a manifest-v3 compatible | extension would be a net negative for the community. As it will | help more people accept the status-quo and accept a mediocre | state of ad blocking, instead of switching to Firefox | TheRealPomax wrote: | What community? "People who use chrome"? Because that community | couldn't care less about which version of manifest is the | current version, and what its restrictions are. If they did, | they'd already not be using Chrome anymore. | Tenoke wrote: | If uBlock doesn't provide a compatible extension or if their | extension is worse than possible I'd likely just switch to the | best alternative which will pop-up. I imagine most users will | do the same. | redox99 wrote: | Why are you willing to accept an inferior adblocker, instead | of switching to another browser that maintains support for | fully featured adblockers? | comex wrote: | Until recently, Firefox was an inferior browser, at least | on macOS where it did a bad job of fitting native UI | conventions, had a much less secure sandbox than Chrome, | and was also behind in performance. Seems like things have | improved on all of those fronts, so perhaps it's time to | take another look. (That said, I've only ever used Chrome | as a secondary browser for certain sites - my current | primary one is Orion - so I have less incentive to | experiment.) | Tenoke wrote: | I've had multiple (typically but not always google) sites | not work as well with firefox, as well as minor things like | more captchas. I also don't want to worry and keep checking | if my subpar performance on a site is because Google, a | lazy dev or a lib didn't optimize for FF. Further, I just | have a bunch of settings, extensions, saved password, | history etc. already setup in Chrome. | cyber_kinetist wrote: | A pragmatic reason for me: Firefox has been lagging a lot | on my Windows machines for months, and I couldn't figure | out the problem. Tried extensive googling, even tried | debugging it in the developer profiler to see if anything's | strange. | | I've now given up, and switched to Chrome without regrets. | I still miss Tree Style Tabs, but the sluggishness isn't | really worh it. | | I'll start using Firefox again until they fix this issue | and realign their funding towards actual better engineering | & performance instead spending on vanity "activist" | projects. | Dalewyn wrote: | Because Firefox is shit to use. | | Adblocking means little if the actual browser is terrible | to use. Between proper adblocking and a shitty browser, or | a shitty adblocker and a shitty-but-still-usable browser I | will take the latter because ultimately I have shit that | needs to get done. | | Practicality cares not for ideology. | blibble wrote: | this is actually a clever way of hurting Google | | if gorhill simply refused to release UBO for manifest V3 then | someone would, and release something similar without the negative | branding | | (plus eyeo crapware "ad blocking" extensions would gain market | share) | | this way the users are being reminded that on Google's platform | you're getting an inferior blocker | ryeights wrote: | Great point! Initially I thought it would be wrong to kowtow to | Google by releasing a MV3-compliant version, but I think you're | more correct. | btown wrote: | It's also an interesting magnet for traditional media - imagine | if CNN ran a lede "Ad blockers. You may use them, you may not, | but Google is on the warpath against them. Here's the developer | of the popular uBlock Origin Minus describing why his software | suddenly has that odd name." | | Sadly, this is likely not to happen, as every newsroom relies | on online ad clicks for a revenue stream... | puffoflogic wrote: | Wait, are you suggesting that technologies that may be bad | for news media profits get unfavorable coverage? | s-video wrote: | No cosmetic filtering might still tip me over into switching to | Firefox. | bot41 wrote: | What is "Manifest v3"? | swat535 wrote: | see this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 | loxias wrote: | I was wondering the same. I think it's a new standard for how | Chrome extensions work? | | I hope it doesn't affect FF users, and uBlock Origin will | continue to function same as it always has. | Havoc wrote: | That naming convention is an absolute stroke of genius. Not | enough to get sued, but enough to convey to millions that they | are using an intentionally crippled product. | nightpool wrote: | Just so I understand correctly: This version removes *all* of the | features that read or modify a user's data, so as to abide by the | ""stated intent"" of MV3, rather than taking full advantage of | all of the actual MV3 APIs? For example, this commit removes the | "scriplet injection" and cosmetic filtering features, which AFAIK | work perfectly fine on MV3? if broad | "read/modify data" permission is to be used, than there is not | much point for an MV3 version over MV2, just use the MV2 version | if you want to benefit all the features which can't be | implemented without broad "read/modify data" permission. | | Huh? But ... the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting | removed by MV3? I don't understand how this follows. This is like | saying "Google implemented all of the same things we could do in | MV2 in MV3, so we went ahead and removed all of the features | anyway". I don't see any way to interpret this as anything except | cutting off your own nose to spite the face of Google. It | certainly doesn't seem to be a good faith attempt to reproduce | the features of uBlock within the new technical framework of MV3. | [deleted] | ohgodplsno wrote: | > this commit removes the "scriplet injection" | | Considering this is stated in ManifestV3's announcement and | that no APIs have been made for it: | | > Beginning in Manifest V3, we will disallow extensions from | using remotely-hosted code. This will require that all code | executed by the extension be present in the extension's package | uploaded to the webstore. Server communication (potentially | changing extension behavior) will still be allowed. This will | help us better review the extensions uploaded, and keep our | users safe. We will leverage a minimum required CSP to help | enforce this (though it will not be 100% unpreventable, and we | will require policy and manual review enforcement as well). | | Scriptlet injection is as good as dead. | | > and cosmetic filtering features, | | Cosmetic filtering can only happen by making a service worker, | that will turn on five seconds after the page has loaded. | | > the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by | MV3? | | No, but Google will heavily restrict any extension using this | permission, and make the requirements to be published on their | extension store so draconian that an ad blocking extension | (which directly threatens their business model) has no chance | of ever being accepted. | | So, no, Google, as usual when they implement a new API, does | half assed shit, breaks compatibility, forces everyone to | follow on their bad decisions before deprecating it later. | Going all in on MV3 is just bringing yourself to the slaughter, | and MV3 should be laughed off by any serious extension | developer. | caladin wrote: | One interesting consequence of this is that Google's own | javascript api client will no longer work with MV3 and there | are apparently no plans to ever make it work. | | See https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript- | client/issue... | | Chromium bug marked WONTFIX: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chro | mium/issues/detail?id=116445... | | Updated readme: https://github.com/google/google-api- | javascript-client/blob/... | | So effectively this means extensions on MV3 can't easily | access Google apis, which is quite unfortunate since Chrome | extensions in particular made Google authentication super | straightforward (piggybacking off of chrome's built-in google | authentication). If someone knows a better way I'd love to | hear it. | | I believe the reason that the current incarnation of the | javascript library won't work is because it modifies the dom | to add script tags to fetch and run the api library (or | components of it), which is specifically what MV3 will | disallow AFAIK. | nightpool wrote: | > Considering this is stated in ManifestV3's announcement and | that no APIs have been made for it | | I'll admit--when I first made this comment, I assumed (based | on the initial manifest v3 draft) that this change only | affected _privileged_ context execution, and did not affect | execution in the "main world", outside of privileged | extension contexts. That said, it would still be possible to | do this using the dynamic addContentScript feature, even | though I'd imagine it's a very low priority change to | implement for the uBlock team (how many rules even use | scriptlets?). | | > Cosmetic filtering can only happen by making a service | worker, that will turn on five seconds after the page has | loaded. | | What? Content scripts still exist. Scriptlets may be harder | to implement, but there's absolutely no reason cosmetic | filtering should be. | | > No, but Google will heavily restrict any extension using | this permission, and make the requirements to be published on | their extension store so draconian that an ad blocking | extension (which directly threatens their business model) has | no chance of ever being accepted. | | Source? Have they said that they're going to do this to | uBlock origin? They've said time and time again that making | sure ad blocking extensions continue to work is one of their | highest priority goals with MV3. | | Also, the DNR changes absolutely _do not_ make a meaningful | impact on Google 's business model--Google's ads are very, | very easy to block, and you could do it with a one-line | chrome extension. The vast majority of complexity in ad | blockers is required for _other_ ads that live outside of | Google 's ecosystem. If you really believed that Google was | making their MV3 changes based on their business goals for | their ads team (a pretty ludicrous idea when you think about | how big Google is and how far separated the ads department | and extensions teams are), then the inescapable conclusion is | that Google should be _supporting_ ad blockers themselves, to | hurt the smaller companies that threaten their monopoly by | trying to work around ad blockers. | sgc wrote: | Maybe I am missing something here. But google is a well-known | pull-the-rug-from-under-you type company, with a long proven | track record of doing just that. Don't use undocumented, not | officially supported anything from them. ever. Don't use apis | that go against their stated goals. They WILL remove them. | Unless MV3 has officially committed to a changed changed scope | to allow this, it is irrelevant if it incidentally works. | nightpool wrote: | I'm talking about features that the Chrome team has | explicitly said time and time again will continue to work, | like content scripts and user styles (cosmetic filters), and | which MV3 never threatened in the first place. It would be | ludicrous to consider these "undocumented". It's hard for me | to see any other reason for gorhill to remove these features | from the MV3 version of the extension except out of some | perverse inclination to twist around the meaning of the | Chrome team's words to support the conclusion that he | obviously wants to find (that Chrome is trying to kill ad- | blockers)--when in fact the *stated goals* of the extension | team have always been the exact opposite (to provide APIs and | extension points that allow ad blockers to continue to work) | michaelmrose wrote: | Google is an ad company. The logical strategy is embrace extend | extinguish ad blocking. If your extension is getting attacked | and stripped of functionality minimal investment in keeping it | working likely to continue to work the longest is logical | nightpool wrote: | Many people have said this across many different threads, but | this is just the exact opposite of true. Google's ads are | very, very easy to block, and you could do it with a one-line | chrome extension. The vast majority of complexity in ad | blockers is required for other ads that live outside of | Google's ecosystem. If you really believed that Google was | making their MV3 changes based on their business goals for | their ads team (a pretty ludicrous idea when you think about | how big Google is and how far separated the ads department | and extensions teams are), then the inescapable conclusion is | that Google should be supporting ad blockers themselves, to | hurt the smaller companies that threaten their monopoly by | trying to work around ad blockers. | stonogo wrote: | You are conflating a "present/absent" question of this | permission with Google's stated intent. The key modifier here | is _broad_ "read/modify data" permission. If an extension | attempts to assert that permission across a user's entire | traffic, the extension will not be permitted in the store. | Google's been very clear on this and it's already caused | problems for other extensions. | | Furthmore the webRequest API has been nerfed to the point that | it cannot block requests any more, only track them. The | replacement declarativeNetRequest API is not flexible enough to | serve uBlock Origin's needs. | nightpool wrote: | > If an extension attempts to assert that permission across a | user's entire traffic, the extension will not be permitted in | the store. Google's been very clear on this and it's already | caused problems for other extensions. | | Do you have a source for this? Have other ad blocking | extensions been removed from the store? I find it very hard | to believe that Google would block uBlock over something so | clearly and obviously required for its functioning when | they've said over and over again that making sure ad blocking | extensions continue to work is a high priority for them. | | > The replacement declarativeNetRequest API is not flexible | enough to serve uBlock Origin's needs. | | Well, the stats from the commit in question clearly disagree | with you--of 22,245 rules, only 145 use unsupported regexes. | How is DNR "not flexible" enough here? | fezfight wrote: | How many people use adblockers? Is there any chance manifest v3 | will lead to enough users abandoning Googles Chrome to build a | community around an open alternative, like we did when we | abandoned IE for Firefox all those years ago? | kibwen wrote: | Adblockers are an existential threat to Google. If any | appreciable percentage of the population started using a | browser that allowed adblockers, Google (and Facebook, and | Twitter, and Reddit, and...) would do everything within their | power to block that browser from all the web properties they | control (this is not an exaggeration: _everything within their | power_ , because the alternative is the death of their entire | business model and the end of the company). Even if you can | play cat-and-mouse games to get around the adblocker-blocking, | the inconvenience of that alone would be enough to shift most | non-power-users back onto Chrome. | causi wrote: | We've been living in a golden age for some time now. We | browse the clean, crisp web for free and the ignorant "plebs" | pay our way by living in an ad-riddled nightmare. | googlryas wrote: | Are they? I see ad blocker ads on YouTube all the time. | Presumably google would block them if they were a real | threat. | kibwen wrote: | If adblockers can afford to pay for ads, that means they | have a business model, and the one and only adblocker | business model is "pay to play", where companies pay | adblockers to allow their ads through. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Nagware/scareware (pushing subscriptions on users, | possibly with misleading claims) is also a business model | I've seen used. | | I honestly don't mind the "pay to play" model. It's a way | to establish a healthy ad ecosystem. Ad blockers define | what they consider acceptable, and collect money. They | have an incentive to find a reasonable balance: The less | restrictive they are, the more money they make, but the | second they go over the line, users will jump to another | ad blocker that's more restrictive. | | I've intentionally and knowingly tolerated the | "acceptable ads" from ABP until they started allowing the | Outbrain/Taboola chumboxes. (There even were two versions | of those, the normal one full of bright colors, tits and | disgusting disease images, and a slightly toned down one | for the "acceptable ads" users!) | | Since those ads rely on making you psychologically | uncomfortable (feeling like you're missing out) unless | you engage with their worthless, misleading and | unsatisfactory clickbait content, they're 100% | unacceptable to me, and ABP lost a user. | | If uBlock Origin offered an ad whitelist that only allows | ad networks that a) serve only their own JavaScript, no | third party crap b) only serve static text and re-encoded | static, non-animated images c) have some meaningfully | enforced editorial standards, d) have some privacy | oversight and follow tracking opt-outs, I would | definitely give it a chance. I don't mind supporting web | sites and content creators, and I don't mind seeing | relevant ads (which can usually be targeted based on the | content I'm looking at just fine). | | I do mind having my fan try to reach escape velocity due | to crappy JS, getting served malware and exploits, random | "this site is trying to play DRM protected video" popups | indicating that something is trying to do fingerprinting, | 300 different companies getting my browsing data and 20 | of them executing code in my browser (code that they | haven't written themselves but have been handed by an | intermediary of an intermediary), and last but not least | graphic images of diseased body parts. Solve these | problems, and I won't need to use an ad blocker. Don't | solve these problems, and I will put protecting myself | over your revenue. | | I also mind having to constantly explain to my parents | why the new cool product or shop they saw an ad for is an | utter scam, and how exactly they'll lose money if they | fall for it. I also mind having to constantly scrape | crapware and malware from my friends' and relatives' | computers, _including Chromebooks_. As long as ads lead | to that, I have no choice but to deploy ad blockers. | amluto wrote: | > If uBlock Origin offered an ad whitelist that only | allows ad networks that a) serve only their own | JavaScript, no third party crap | | Wait, why would an acceptable ad network have JavaScript | at all? _Maybe_ a minimal, pre-approved bit of JS to help | the network understand where the ad is being placed, but | even that is questionable. | | Frankly, I consider it somewhere between bizarre and | obviously wrong for any serious website that needs to | follow HIPPA, PCI, or any other reasonable security | standard to allow un-audited third party JS at all. | staticassertion wrote: | Adblockers might be an existential threat to Google, but MV3 | won't change anything for Google. Google AdSense ads will | almost certainly still get blocked, they're not hard to | block/ obfuscated. | | I really doubt this will change anything for Google with | regards to ads. At most you can argue that this is "step 1" | in a larger plan to eventually bypass these adblockers or | something, which I'll totally buy, but V3 has gotten _better_ | at blocking ads over time, not worse. | antonok wrote: | > V3 has gotten better at blocking ads over time, not | worse. | | That may be true, but it's still significantly limited | compared to MV2. And at the current rate, that is unlikely | to change by the time Manifest V2 support is removed. | | What's important is that MV3 adblocker developers no longer | have full control over _how_ they 're allowed to modify | pages. Given how adversarial the relationship between | adblockers and websites is, that lack of control will be | exploited almost immediately. | staticassertion wrote: | Yeah, so I'm against V3 mostly because I think that the | pros of developers having power outweigh the cons of | potential malicious extensions. I personally would have | preferred rethinking a few other areas first: | | 1. Auditability - both in terms of the code and the | behaviors | | 2. Improved permissions - could we have split WebRequest | up? | | 3. Improved performance - could we have leveraged new | APIs, like the declarative API, for improved performance? | What about compiling to wasm? Or new APIs? | | 4. Capabilities/ Sandboxing - Within an extension could | we slice out capabilities? | | 5. Improved UX around permissions. Surfacing the | permissions and performance implications of extensions | would be worth exploring and aided by any ability to | slice up permissions more. | | Chrome could even create 'sanctioned' extensions that | wouldn't trigger scary popups in order to make it that | much clearer when something is scary - something like "if | you publish your extension such that it is digitally | signed, you use 2FA or whatever, you have good standing | with us, blah blah blah, we will waive that popup". IIRC | Firefox did this to lower their review burden, NoScript | was one of the ones on the list _I think_ , but that | would have been many years ago and I don't know if it has | changed since. | | That said, I don't think V3 is the end of the world. I | would have _preferred_ the other options, and I bet some | people at Google explored them too and know much more | about why they are /aren't viable, but I'm OK with V3. I | don't really think that Google Adsense is driving this | decision at all nor do I expect it to benefit them, at | least not in the short/medium term. | antonok wrote: | Great suggestions. The "third party buys popular | extension and quietly adds malware" approach is also a | huge attack vector. There really ought to be some way to | prevent an extension from updating until you've had a | chance to review and approve that change, especially if | it requests a lot of sensitive permissions. | staticassertion wrote: | Well, even today, if the attacker modifies the | permissions it will require a re-acknowledgement. Google | can also do things there, like if the extension is tied | to a key (as it should be), tell developers that they are | required to _not_ provide that key to anyone else, even | if they sell / transfer ownership of the extension. | Instead, the new owner should register a new key, which | can trigger review/ scrutiny. | | Key + 2FA means the attacker has to have code execution | on a developer's machine in order to publish an update | (via the local session token, which you should make short | lived). And Google could require a FIDO2 token if you | want to bypass the "alert users that this thing uses lots | of permissions". | | There's a lot of stuff I'd be working on to avoid having | to remove developer power. | | edit: K I've been rate limited by HN so I can no longer | reply for today, but them's my thoughts. | blibble wrote: | if someone offers a typical small extension author | $500,000 for their extension, I think they're going to | ignore Google's rules and handover the keys | dessant wrote: | Google will be able to use a variety of ad delivery methods | that are not yet blockable with the filtering API they will | now also fully control in Chrome. | staticassertion wrote: | Google AdSsense has always been able to bypass | adblockers, as other advertisers have worked to do. At | least in the "they _could_ if they tried ", they | obviously have the technical prowess. But they haven't | because _that_ would be a scandal and invite scrutiny | that they likely want to avoid - they own a massive part | of the market without resorting to such things, it 's not | yet in their interest to do that. | | So yes, as I said, maybe this is step 1 in a longer term | plan to completely remove adblockers. Maybe one day so | many people will rely on adblockers that Google is forced | to take a drastic measure. | | I personally don't expect that to be the case _any time | soon_ , but that's really not based on much. | shadowgovt wrote: | From Google's point of view, they generally use "How many | people are running adblockers" as just another quality | signal on whether the ads are actually working as intended. | Google doesn't really care if a little under half the users | on the web block them. | titaniczero wrote: | > If any appreciable percentage of the population started | using a browser that allowed adblockers, Google (and | Facebook, and Twitter, and Reddit, and...) would do | everything within their power to block that browser from all | the web properties they control (this is not an exaggeration: | everything within their power, because the alternative is the | death of their entire business model and the end of the | company) | | Even easier, they would just sabotage their own web versions | (like reddit with mobile.reddit.com) to force people to use | the app versions where tracking/ads is harder to block. | | The web is the best platform for us, the users, and the way | to go - good sandbox, transparent, customizable. We should | fight tooth and nail to preserve it. | bambax wrote: | They would have to be pretty stealth and smooth to pull this | off because that kind of behavior would attract even more | scrutiny from regulators. They don't operate in a vacuum. | LelouBil wrote: | Personally,that will be the motivation I needed to switch to | Firefox on my main computer. | | So... thanks Google I guess ? | redox99 wrote: | It really depends on the platform and target audience. | | For example for a website I manage that targets PC gamers, | 80-90% desktop users use adblockers. On mobile however the | majority settles for chrome (which intentionally doesn't | support extensions to avoid adblockers), therefore most mobile | users don't have adblockers. | vbezhenar wrote: | The question is: how many people will miss manifest v2 options. | | I'm using adblocker written by myself. It's pretty primitive, | it uses declarative blocking by URLs and optionally inserts | some CSS and JS to selected websites. So far I was able to | solve all my ads issues with this approach. | shadowgovt wrote: | I'm a little surprised Google hasn't seen more pushback from | enterprise. I'd expect the weirdest uses of broad permissions | to be on intranets, where the inherent risks of such breadth | can be mitigated by controlling the accessed data itself. I'm | comparing the situation to one of the things that kept Flash | on life support for so long: it had been used to build key | internal and external tools for fortune-500 companies that | they needed time to replace. | | That Google hasn't seen such pushback suggests to me that | corps writing their own extensions for internal use never | caught on like Flash did. | staticassertion wrote: | That's an interesting point, but I think it may also speak | to the fact that v3 isn't _that_ restrictive other than for | very specific use cases. | antonok wrote: | Google actually is allowing MV2 extensions to work under | enterprise policy for much longer than anyone else: https:/ | /developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/mv2-sunset/ | ainar-g wrote: | > How many people use adblockers? | | About 43 %, according to [1]. | | > Is there any chance manifest v3 will lead to enough users | abandoning Googles Chrome [...] | | No. Google Chrome is pretty much in the same position as | Internet Explorer used to be. It's the default browser in the | most popular mobile OS and the first thing people install on | their PC (or get it installed by someone else). Mozilla can | barely play catch-up with all the complex web standards pushed | by Goog&co., to say nothing about adding killer features that | could bring enough users back from Chrome. | | Modern web browsers are rapidly approaching the YouTube | territory. That is, becoming a technology so complex that only | a multibillion-dollar conglomerate can really maintain it | without losing money. | | [1]: https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | I'm using Firefox with moderately aggressive ad blocking and | privacy settings. Almost everything works, and the few | breakages that I encounter are usually due to the | blocking/privacy settings (i.e. they'd happen the same on | Chrome if I configured it similarly). | | The only thing I actually have to start Chrome for is | (ironically) Microsoft Teams. | josefx wrote: | > Mozilla can barely play catch-up with all the complex web | standards pushed by Goog&co. | | To be fair they also spend a lot of resources on dreaming up | their own shit tier solutions. Like the time Google proposed | federated learning of cohorts, which was universally shot | down by critics. Mozilla saw that as a sign and jumped into | bed with Meta to create their own version of it. Because who | could think about user privacy without immediately thinking | of Meta? | | It is almost as if Mozillas leadership wants to prove that | Mozilla is a waste of money. | revlolz wrote: | The 43% number is huge imo. A large quantity of devices | either cannot install adblock (or cannot do so easily) such | as "smart" tvs. | | Even to install on Android Firefox it took more effort than I | expected. | connicpu wrote: | It seems the actual number is 43% of those surveyed use an | ad blocking tool at least once a month, so a lot of those | may only have their ad blocker installed on their PC, plus | the bias that comes from only having the answers of those | who responded to the survey | hsbauauvhabzb wrote: | Still that's a fairly overwhelming number of people who | feel strongly enough about the topic to install a plug- | in. I'm sure there's a portion of 'no' responses that are | not aware of what adblockers are or do | Jaepa wrote: | 42.7% of internet users worldwide (16-64 years old) use ad | blocking tools at least once a month. | | That framing sets of multiple mental alarm bells. | | EDIT: it looks like the source is HootSuite may have a | conflict of interest, as they seem to focus on social media | advertising campaigns. | kelnos wrote: | What does it even mean to use an ad blocking tool "at least | once a month"? Like... do people have an ad blocker | installed, but disabled most of the time, and just enable | it temporarily when they come across a site with | particularly egregious ads? That seems... an unlikely use | model? | NavinF wrote: | It means they only use an adblocker on desktop. | horsawlarway wrote: | I approve (of both the release and the name). | | I see plenty of folks in here lamenting this release at all - in | the hopes that the lack of it will push folks to Firefox. It | won't. Those who care about this are already on Firefox, and | frankly - Firefox isn't going to be the answer here (to be clear, | this is opinion). | | I'm also not thrilled at manifest v3, although for very different | reasons than the adblocking limitations - I do lots of extension | development, and I think the service worker approach taken is a | _bad_ mistake, forcing a distributed consensus model onto | extensions without understanding the limitations that model | imposes given how often extensions span multiple js contexts | (across tabs /frames/content_scripts/windows/etc). | | Frankly - the environment is also still riddled with bugs... | everything from docs that are wrong, to _serious_ issues like a | service worker not activating on simple, basic, required events | (like chrome.action.onClicked, which is literally about as basic | as it gets for extensions). | | Overall - my first impression of the manifest v3 upgrade was | fairly neutral (it's not really solving any of my pain points, | and it requires a lot of changes to support - but it seemed | functional). My opinion after porting several large extension | projects to the space is... bad. It's a bad set of changes as | implemented in chromium right now. | clumsysmurf wrote: | > I do lots of extension development | | Off topic, but since you seem experienced at this, do you | recommend any resources for extension development for someone | that's beginning from scratch with no experience in this area? | mfrisbie wrote: | I was frustrated with the lack of resources, so I'm | publishing a book on it: "Building Browser Extensions". | Available later this year. | https://www.buildingbrowserextensions.com/ | | And check out the companion extension: | https://www.buildingbrowserextensions.com/b2x | horsawlarway wrote: | I would still recommend the docs from MDN and Google. | | If you're relatively familiar with web development in general | - you can just peruse the APIs that are available for | extensions | | Chromium based: | https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/ | | Or for Firefox: https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... | | Then hit the MDN "My first extension page" to get a mostly | functional manifest file: https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... | | Get familiar with `about:debugging` in firefox, and | `chrome://extensions` in chrome - you'll need them to load | your test extensions. | | Finally - It's very worth it to read and understand the "core | concepts" as outlined here, starting with the | content_scripts: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions | /mv3/content_scr... | svnpenn wrote: | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | Maybe some of us are sick of Firefox fans taking this | moralizing tone that we're somehow "damaging the cause" by | simply speaking our mind when we disagree with your | assessment. That doesn't make me a google shill, nor cynical. | Just tired of the nonsense. | kaibee wrote: | I switched to FF a few months after I started hearing about | this change coming down the pipe. It was totally fine and | easy. I haven't had any issues because of it outside of one | weird old website not working perfectly. And I still have | Chrome installed so I just used it for a minute in that one | case in the last year-ish. | vntok wrote: | Please don't tell people to refrain from posting their | analysis here, especially when their point is both clear and | very logical. | | It would be better and much more productive if you would | explain why you think that Firefox has a bright path ahead | given all we know about it's management, strategy, corporate | practices, and frankly raw figures about new installs / usage | over the past 5 years. | kaibee wrote: | Switching browsers is not some herculean task. Its like 15 | minutes of "work" and a day or two of getting used to it. | And your ad-blocker works. | Zagill wrote: | Does Google autofill transfer over to Firefox easily? I'd | reckon that's a big pain point for a lot of people when | considering switching browsers | linza wrote: | It sounds simple enough but it's not so easy actually. I | found myself spending some time doing it, and there were | enough annoyances to abandon switching to firefox. | | I really want to like it, it just doesn't click for me. | There is just no practical incentive at the moment to | switch (for me), just the more idealistic ones about | privacy and so on. | bambax wrote: | > _Those who care about this are already on Firefox_ | | I don't think that's true. Many, many more people would care | immensely if they were suddenly deprived of good adblocking on | Chrome. | horsawlarway wrote: | > if they were suddenly deprived of good adblocking on | Chrome. | | Ok - but that _won 't_ happen (at least not yet, given the m3 | api available, who knows what google will do long term). | | The majority of users won't genuinely notice any difference | between an adblocker running on m3 vs m2, and plenty of | companies are going to make them. | | My point is that despite the push back from the UBO dev (and | I sort of agree - this does limit some capabilities, although | not nearly as much as he claims) M3 is absolutely not going | to kill the adblocker extensions available in chrome. | | It just makes them... slightly minus. Which is why I think | the name is a good call. I don't approve of the direction | google is going, but this is not the deal breaker for any | sort of public audience - it's just a talking point among the | tech literate. | tyingq wrote: | _" The majority of users won't genuinely notice any | difference between an adblocker running on m3 vs m2"_ | | I think that'll be true for a short time. But once the | advertisers figure out that ad blockers have been crippled | on the most popular browser... | | They'll figure out how to take advantage of that. | | Once Chrome takes away the ability to do live heuristics, | and leaves you with just a static-ish blacklist, it's | pretty easy to get around the ad blocker. | horsawlarway wrote: | But you can already work around adblockers by just | serving ads directly from your own servers. | | Frankly - you can also move to a service that implements | adblocking at a different layer (I've seen an explosion | of dns based adblockers as a service, likely inspired by | the likes of pi-hole). Those services are using roughly | the same feature set that's still available in m3. | | The big dealbreaker (imo) was the inability to configure | rules at runtime, and the requirement that they be | declared in the manifest - and that never actually | happened (you can dynamically configure them with https:/ | /developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...) | tyingq wrote: | >But you can already work around adblockers by just | serving ads directly from your own servers | | The available heuristics in UBO can block those with many | different techniques today, especially for a short list | of very popular sites. I assume many of them stop working | with MV3. | | I'm aware of the DNS based adblockers, what I'm saying is | that the advertisers might take action on all of them | once the best option is hobbled. Then it's worth doing | something that will break almost all the adblockers. One | effort that puts everything to rest. | elephanlemon wrote: | I plan to switch to Firefox if this happens. Some like me are | just too lazy to do it before we need to! | rjh29 wrote: | > I see plenty of folks in here lamenting this release at all - | in the hopes that the lack of it will push folks to Firefox. It | won't. Those who care about this are already on Firefox | | Huh? I'm going to switch to Firefox the second uBlock Origin | stops working on Chrome. Otherwise I'll continue to use Chrome | because it's a better browser (for me). I don't think I'm some | rare minority here. | Vinnl wrote: | I don't think you are either, but like the rest of that group | , I expect that you'll keep using Chrome anyway. Because it's | not like uBO will _stop_ working, it 'll just be a bit worse. | rjh29 wrote: | I dunno. The new version does not strongly affect end users | (according to the devs) but there is a psychological | barrier around switching from the full version to the minus | version, which I think will cause me to switch to Firefox. | | Even if the new version works now, Google are clearly going | to tighten the vice over the next few years. | TimTheTinker wrote: | > Huh? I'm going to switch to Firefox the second uBlock | Origin stops working on Chrome. | | uBlock Origin already blocks a lot better on Firefox than on | Chrome. | | https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin- | works-b... | blibble wrote: | I was fully in the Google world prior to gorhill's posts on | manifest v3 | | as a direct result the only thing I have left is a pixel phone, | which will be going with the new iPhone | | (and in the meantime my entire family has been 'helpfully' | migrated too) | | I may be up the extreme end of the distribution, but this sort | of grassroots push is what dethroned IE, and the resultant loss | of control of the web eliminated Microsoft's near total | influence over the computing industry | monopoliessuck wrote: | Just install GrapheneOS on your Pixel and call it a day. | You'll be better of than anything browser based on iOS, talk | about software limitations... | Steltek wrote: | Can you explain why you'd switch to an iPhone over a web | browser? iPhone is a huge step back for having an open | browser with user focused extensions. | | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios | blibble wrote: | I am hoping the US/EU anti-competitive bills are going to | go through | | (plus my phone is falling apart, and I don't want to give | Google another penny after their manifest v3 behaviour) | christophilus wrote: | I know it's Safari under the hood, but Brave on iOS is | great. | | I do hope that Apple decides to / is forced to allow real | 3rd party browsers at some point, though. I also hope that | a decent Linux phone becomes a realistic alternative. | | I'll check back in 10 years to see if either of those | materializes. | hoten wrote: | Probably more like one year. The DMA just passed (I | think? I don't follow too closely) | anabis wrote: | Its kind of strange , but there are more options to block | YouTube ads on Android than iOS. | johnchristopher wrote: | I'd bet market share is the explanation ? Though it seems | it's 50/50 in the US. | uneekname wrote: | IMO Firefox on an Android is better than anything you can get | on iOS. It fully supports uBlock Origin! | | I also use a Pixel phone, though I use LineageOS so I feel | less tied to Google | carom wrote: | I came from Android, while I agree with Firefox + ublock | supremacy, I've been using Sarai with Ad Guard Pro (VPN | based) and it has been good. | redox99 wrote: | I find firefox on android unusable because it has this | awful, non-native scroll behavior. | | On android I use either Brave or Samsung Browser. | cycomanic wrote: | What do you mean by non-native scroll behavior? I'm | asking seriously, never noticed anything. | easrng wrote: | Check out https://www.bromite.org/, it's a android | chromium fork with adblocking built in like brave but | without the crypto stuff. Also has support for | userscripts! | jorvi wrote: | To be clear: it is a willful choice by Mozilla to fully | protect Android users but to leave iOS users in the turmoil | of a constant stream of invasive and malicious ads. I | specifically took my parents off of Firefox for this | express reason. Brave has a built-in adblocker, as do many | other iOS browsers. | | And it is not like Mozilla isn't aware, I believe there are | 2-3 open issues on Bugzilla, years old, that have just been | left to wither. | jdmichal wrote: | Isn't there some rule that any browser on iOS must use | the native Safari engine? So if iOS Safari doesn't | support something, there's no way for Firefox to add that | support. It's basically just a skin. | jorvi wrote: | Yes, but like I said, many other 3rd-party browsers have | perfectly fine built-in adblockers. | | Hell, you can install Firefox Focus (which is a 'private | mode only' browser) and that does have built-in | adblocking. More perversely, you can use it as a content | blocker for Safari. | | (No, other browsers using Safari's engine do not inherit | the content blocking) | | I repeat: Mozilla is willfully choosing not to protect | iOS Firefox users from ads. Plain and simple. | pessimizer wrote: | I think that what dethroned IE is that using your monopoly to | maintain a moat of bugs only works for so long. If the | browser is going to continue to be developed, eventually | you're going to have to fix the bugs. By then, they were | competing with Chrome, which was not bug-ridden and also | backed by a juggernaut. | | The grassroots push that dethroned Microsoft's browser was | Google's browser (aided by Firefox's suicide.) | ethbr0 wrote: | The only thing that ever gets mass migration is substantial | superiority in features they use. | | Originally, it was tabbed browsing, which Opera and Mozilla | had ~5 years before IE. Yes, Microsoft sucked that much in | those days. | | With Chrome, it was an embedded PDF viewer and V8 | performance. | | So essentially, mostly people don't switch browsers unless | there's a _very_ good reason to do so. | refulgentis wrote: | Not clear to me why you'd do this, the Manifest v3 changes | resulted from Apple's adblocker approach using a list and | trumpeting it as Privacy(tm). | _V_ wrote: | I will, for sure, switch to FF the second uBlock stops working | in Chrome/Chromium. | | I switched from the Safari on MacOS for just the same reason | even though I lost things like ApplePay etc. | | I am _not_ giving up on uBlock. The web is too bloated and | unusable for me without it. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-07 23:00 UTC)