←back to thread

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

(developer.chrome.com)
552 points freedomben | 3 comments | 11 Oct 24 14:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
bdcravens ◴[11 Oct 24 15:16 UTC] No.41810227[source]▶
Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?
replies(5): >>41810357 #>>41810595 #>>41811286 #>>41814527 #>>41834599 #
1. surajrmal ◴[11 Oct 24 15:29 UTC] No.41810357[source]▶
Id argue pihole is roughly equivalent to what you can do with manifest v3 based afld blockers. I use it as my primary ad blocker as well, and don't really understand why folks are upset about losing V2 that much. It seems like removing root in favor of more granular permissions which is generally a good thing.
replies(2): >>41813470 #>>41815960 #
2. shbooms ◴[11 Oct 24 20:37 UTC] No.41813470[source]▶
I agree that more granular permissions is better (in terms of dictating which sites an extension has access to) but I think the main problem as I understand it is that this is an entirely seperate issue from the one that nukes uBO.

V3 introduces a hard limit on the total number network filters an extension is allowed to set and it's a laughably low number. Far below what uBO uses even on a barebones, default setup

3. Dylan16807 ◴[12 Oct 24 02:45 UTC] No.41815960[source]▶
There was already a specific permission for messing with raw network requests.

v3 removes the ability to block, but not the ability to monitor. It doesn't make anything more granular.