Yeah, we saw this coming. When Manifest v3 first talked about.
Google an ad company are killing ad blockers. Yeah, that sounds right.
Google an ad company are killing ab blockersChrome browsers. Yeah, that sounds right.
FTFY
I wish, but I don't see it happening. Most people are just content with seeing ads absolutely everywhere, I just don't get it.
I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there. But the fucking obnoxious mid page ads, auto playing videos, scam link shit can go die in a hole.
I used to not mind them, now I do. They over did it and I can't go back. I will block ads untill I can't and then I'll probably climb a clock tower with an Uzi.
I won't really climb a clock tower with an Uzi.
I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there.
Since those are semi-regularly vectors for malware now, even those are not safe to allow.
It's things like this that keep me using an ad blocker. I was researching when sunflowers develop their seeds, for crying out loud.
Edit: this was on Opera. It's.. fine.
killing ab blockers
I might finally get a six-pack!
MV3 doesn't kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.
Some of these "features" that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.
The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.
Then allow a savvy user to choose to keep MV2 mode via an opt-in control instead of depreciating years of hard work by non-malicious extension authors. uBlock Origin is, in fact, the ONLY browser extension I use in Chrome, as Firefox is my main browser.
I agree they should have tried to find more ways to keep the old behavior. MV3 rollout has already been delayed for a long time, and now users merely get a message. I'm not sure that the community (mostly Google contributors) won't give in or try to find a way to keep MV2. However, what was done with MV2 can now be done with MV3 with native messaging or other network tools... I think the concern is that allowing an exception makes it much easier for a malicious extension or software to get users to agree not realizing what they're agreeing to. Furthermore, the declarative approach is actually preferable by many. You get most of the same features without exposing all your traffic to an extension.
From my understanding, MV3 kills vital features of ad-blockers in that
Some filtering rules do rely on the ability to read the content of the webpage, which can't be migrated, per the FAQ linked in the article
The declarative API means an update to the rules requires an update to the plugin itself, which might get delayed by the reviewing process, causing the blocker to lag behind the tracker. It might not be able to recover as quickly as uBO in the recent YouTube catch-up round.
uBOL GitHub does a pretty good job of explaining some challenges, and some of them are better tracked in the issues.
Your second point isn't accurate though and MV3 does support dynamic rules.
And yet the likelihood of Google publishing a malicious extension is quite low. Not sure why you're so adamant about defending their shitty anti-adblock actions, making excuses for a mega corporation.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, Arch Linux, NixOS, Flathub, etc. all end up publishing malicious software in their stores and package managers. It is inevitable. If you're not worried about sandboxing then you might as well proxy all your traffic using third party software.
The fact that something is possible does not make it frequent or likely.
. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging.
Some? Or all?
uBlockOrigin would still loose some of its features and capabilities nonetheless, even if a sub-set of them could be implemented in other ways. Not?
Yeah, we saw this coming. When Manifest v3 first talked about.
Google an ad company are killing ad blockers. Yeah, that sounds right.
FTFY
I wish, but I don't see it happening. Most people are just content with seeing ads absolutely everywhere, I just don't get it.
I wouldn’t mind the basic shit like a banner here or a side bar there. But the fucking obnoxious mid page ads, auto playing videos, scam link shit can go die in a hole.
I used to not mind them, now I do. They over did it and I can't go back. I will block ads untill I can't and then I'll probably climb a clock tower with an Uzi.
I won't really climb a clock tower with an Uzi.
Since those are semi-regularly vectors for malware now, even those are not safe to allow.
It's things like this that keep me using an ad blocker. I was researching when sunflowers develop their seeds, for crying out loud.
Edit: this was on Opera. It's.. fine.
I might finally get a six-pack!
MV3 doesn't kill ad blockers. uBOL (uBlock Origin Lite) blocks ads, is by the same author and uses MV3. The issue is MV2 made it way too easy for malicious browser extensions to do bad things, like read the content of every page you visit. MV3 makes it much harder for malicious browser extensions to do these things, but makes it harder to do things like intercept network requests.
Some of these "features" that classic uBO used are available in MV3 but requires different permissions. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging. The main uBO author though feels slighted by Google and went on a trash talking campaign against Google, and to be fair had a few good points. Anyway, most people on social media now care more about how Chromium and Firefox makes them feel now irregardless of facts. They think their emotions somehow are the same as facts.
Then allow a savvy user to choose to keep MV2 mode via an opt-in control instead of depreciating years of hard work by non-malicious extension authors. uBlock Origin is, in fact, the ONLY browser extension I use in Chrome, as Firefox is my main browser.
I agree they should have tried to find more ways to keep the old behavior. MV3 rollout has already been delayed for a long time, and now users merely get a message. I'm not sure that the community (mostly Google contributors) won't give in or try to find a way to keep MV2. However, what was done with MV2 can now be done with MV3 with native messaging or other network tools... I think the concern is that allowing an exception makes it much easier for a malicious extension or software to get users to agree not realizing what they're agreeing to. Furthermore, the declarative approach is actually preferable by many. You get most of the same features without exposing all your traffic to an extension.
From my understanding, MV3 kills vital features of ad-blockers in that
uBOL GitHub does a pretty good job of explaining some challenges, and some of them are better tracked in the issues.
Your second point isn't accurate though and MV3 does support dynamic rules.
And yet the likelihood of Google publishing a malicious extension is quite low. Not sure why you're so adamant about defending their shitty anti-adblock actions, making excuses for a mega corporation.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, Arch Linux, NixOS, Flathub, etc. all end up publishing malicious software in their stores and package managers. It is inevitable. If you're not worried about sandboxing then you might as well proxy all your traffic using third party software.
The fact that something is possible does not make it frequent or likely.
Some? Or all?
uBlockOrigin would still loose some of its features and capabilities nonetheless, even if a sub-set of them could be implemented in other ways. Not?