←back to thread

552 points freedomben | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
emaro ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
bad_user ◴[] No.41812478[source]
Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.
replies(1): >>41812852 #
chlorion ◴[] No.41812852{3}[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 #
1. pyre ◴[] No.41813148{4}[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 #
2. chii ◴[] No.41816565[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.
3. mrkramer ◴[] No.41817539[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.