Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

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

    (developer.chrome.com)
    552 points freedomben | 14 comments | 11 Oct 24 14:20 UTC | HN request time: 1.049s | source | bottom
    Show context
    emaro ◴[11 Oct 24 14:38 UTC] No.41809865[source]▶
    For people that have somehow missed the story, manifest v3 removed support for certain powerful network apis, severly limiting ad-blockers capabilities. uBlock Origin will not work anymore without manifest v2 (there's a v3 compatible lite version of uBlock Origin).
    replies(2): >>41810024 #>>41810092 #
    btown ◴[11 Oct 24 15:01 UTC] No.41810092[source]▶
    It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 - and while there's no plan yet to discontinue the Chrome MV3 compatible version, there are a million ways that this could go wrong.

    My only long-term hope for this space is that a nonzero segment of congressional representatives have had ad blockers installed by their aides, realize that their experience online takes a nosedive when MV2 is discontinued, and calls for hearings! Blocking isn't just about not seeing ads, it's about a user's freedom to set up their "user agent" to preserve their privacy online from sites that don't respect their wishes. That's a right that Google is using its market power to erode, and it's not something we should take sitting down.

    More on MV3 from a few years ago: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

    replies(6): >>41812158 #>>41814592 #>>41815400 #>>41815495 #>>41816001 #>>41816859 #
    Kbelicius ◴[11 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41812158[source]▶
    > It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile:

    Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?

    replies(4): >>41812478 #>>41812645 #>>41812697 #>>41813945 #
    1. bad_user ◴[11 Oct 24 19:08 UTC] No.41812478[source]▶
    Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.
    replies(1): >>41812852 #
    2. chlorion ◴[11 Oct 24 19:40 UTC] No.41812852[source]▶
    Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist.

    Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google.

    Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".

    replies(8): >>41812954 #>>41813148 #>>41813528 #>>41815448 #>>41815787 #>>41816413 #>>41817812 #>>41818069 #
    3. tpm ◴[11 Oct 24 19:48 UTC] No.41812954[source]▶
    Reason: Removing user control from browsers is strictly bad.
    4. pyre ◴[11 Oct 24 20:06 UTC] No.41813148[source]▶
    Sounds like the real issue is "we are replacing X with Y" and there are use-cases for both X and Y to co-exist.
    replies(2): >>41816565 #>>41817539 #
    5. knowitnone ◴[11 Oct 24 20:43 UTC] No.41813528[source]▶
    you get to downvote?
    replies(1): >>41814775 #
    6. MissTake ◴[11 Oct 24 23:07 UTC] No.41814775{3}[source]▶
    When you get Karma of 501 or more…
    7. sys_64738 ◴[12 Oct 24 00:59 UTC] No.41815448[source]▶
    Which GOOG team are you on?
    replies(1): >>41817535 #
    8. Dylan16807 ◴[12 Oct 24 02:13 UTC] No.41815787[source]▶
    > nobody will admit exist.

    This is not true.

    People talk about the upside of the declarative API plenty, but adding one function doesn't mean removing another, and the conflation required to use that as a defense of google is what gets downvotes.

    9. eviks ◴[12 Oct 24 04:30 UTC] No.41816413[source]▶
    "in theory" is not a real benefit
    10. chii ◴[12 Oct 24 05:03 UTC] No.41816565{3}[source]▶
    and just conveniently, X has some features that the owning company doesn't like as it is antithesis to their business model. Therefore, by replacing X with Y, and touting some performance improvements (which is real, but marginal), they get to remove X with plausible deniability.
    11. mrkramer ◴[12 Oct 24 08:37 UTC] No.41817535{3}[source]▶
    He is on Extensions team. lol
    12. mrkramer ◴[12 Oct 24 08:38 UTC] No.41817539{3}[source]▶
    They should let them co-exist but probably they figured out it is just easier to kill V2 extensions all together. What a shame.
    13. wruza ◴[12 Oct 24 09:35 UTC] No.41817812[source]▶
    Is uBOL as ad-removing and privacy protecting as uBO?

    We aren’t talking just an extension here. If it didn’t exist, that would make web browsing insufferable to many. It is a part of web browsing itself. Let me put it as clearly as it can be:

    ***

    uBO is a Holy Grail and gorhill is our Jesus Christ.

    ***

    If MV3 (and further development) tries to touch it in any inappropriate way, comments promoting it deserve 5x downvote mutiplier without the usual -4 limit.

    14. sebzim4500 ◴[12 Oct 24 10:24 UTC] No.41818069[source]▶
    I get the security benefits, but the performance benefits seem weak. Won't the benefits of not having to run as much js to do the filtering be cancelled out by having the run additional advertising code that isn't being blocked by the lobotomised adblockers?