I like that Ars tries to defend ad blocking, but please, prepare better, maybe talk to actual developers and avoid false accusations.<p>It’s completely okay to criticize Google for doing really controversial (to say the least) stuff like getting rid of blocking webRequest, but criticizing them for prohibiting inclusion of remote JS in the extension is simply bad work.<p>They could do a minimal fact check, remote JS was never allowed in Mozilla Addons store. A bit more research and they’ll learn that cosmetic filters updates do not require an extension update. A little bit more research and one can learn about the no-review-fast-track that Chrome WebStore plans to implement next year.
What about MV3 requires going through the Chrome Web Store to update block lists? A quick look at the declarativeNetRequest docs (<a href="https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...</a>) shows that there are indeed static rulesets which need to be declared in the extension's manifest, but also dynamic rulesets which can be updated via JavaScript (and so presumably can be fetched and updated dynamically). I can't seem to find any specific limitation of dynamic rulesets vs. static rulesets.
I don't understand why Google counteracts indirectly. Why can't they just ban adblockers from the Chrome Web Store? If that's not possible, why not just remove specific adblockers one by one? Removing the big ones would probably stop most people from using them.
Absolutely clickbait. Nothing in the article suggests that review times are increasing, they’ve always been “from a few minutes to a few days”.<p>Also filters do not depend on extension updates at all, they are plain text files that can be updated at any time. Not to mention that they can contain “scriptlets”, which make them quite literally “remotely hosted code” and still allowed by MV3 (because they’re not raw JavaScript)
Not only does Google take a long time to review extension updates, but Chrome pulls extension updates infrequently. So even if you manage to get an update pushed to the store in 24 hours, it may take another day or more before your users actually get the update.<p>All of this put together means you really shouldn't trust Chrome extensions for anything important. If there's a security vulnerability in something like your password manager, the update is going to take days to reach your system.
Weirdly, earlier today I had a bunch of problems loading Google web properties on Firefox - GMail hung completely (wouldn't even load all the way! no more basic HTML option!) and Sheets was showing half-rendered documents (even after several refresh attempts). All the other sites were fine.<p>It's probably just a coincidence...
Google might as well skip all this dancing around and build their ads straight into Chrome. Good luck doing some work while you have to watch a video ad every hour or so, and every page has ads literally in browsers "chrome".
That's cute. Seems like a classic case of "you can't make someone understand something when their job depends on not understanding it", but in case anyone at Google reads this, here's a hint: People won't use Chrome if adblock is ineffective. They will use Edge, or Safari, or (in case you think you can make backroom deals with Microsoft and Apple to implement this in their browsers too), they'll use Brave. It's not a winnable game, save your money and play something else.
Now, right now, this is the moment for Mozilla to pull their heads out of their asses and really push to improve Firefox. Google is cranking up the user hostility, but if there's no viable alterative, people are gonna be stuck being spied on and tracked everywhere by chrome.<p>If we had an alternative, this would be the time for an organized push to get people on it. But Mozilla has either become complacent or been quietly bought out behind the scenes and Firefox isn't really competitive anymore.<p>Sure, you can still use Firefox. I do, begrudgingly. But it's not good enough to convince people to switch. It hasn't been for a very long time which is why we're in this mess in the first place.<p>I expect nothing will change and everyone will suffer for it.<p>Maybe people will get offline more. The internet as a whole is becoming exponentially shittier as time goes on. How much longer before it's completely intolerable?
Dunno, but it seems ublock origin's version in Chrome Web Store is 1.53.0, was last updated on 8-th of November. As of yesterday, that version can't get around Youtube's adblocking detection.<p>I built Ublock latest 1.54.2 from source, and so far (apart from being manifest v2), it can easily go around Youtube's adblock detection with no problem.<p>I wonder if the delay in the 1.54.x release in Chrome Web Store has something to do with Google purposefully delaying updates.
This might be a stupid question but will this affect Edge as well?<p>Right now it's unclear to me how much Edge extensions are tied to the Chrome Store policies.
Is there a way to backup current Chrome version + settings + extensions, preferrably in a portable app/container. I'm pretty content with my setup and wouldn't mind running it for as long as possible. Hopefully in a few years we can have AI convert currently chrome exclusive extentions onto another browser. But right now it's still hard to swtich.
Doesn't this just ignore the fact you can install the updates outwith of the Chrome store?<p>I assume they are betting on most users not side loading them.<p>All this seems like a complete waste of time, if you want to "war on ad blockers" the why not just ban them from the store?<p>Why have a "war" at all?
In principle, if they need ads to keep the lights on, then it is reasonable that they would block ad blockers on, e.g., YouTube, no?<p>(What upsets me more is purposefully degrading the experience of FF users.)
Are there any decent alternatives for the Chrome Web store? Are there unified extension hubs for chromium/firefox with version history similar to how android has apk websites
Looks like Chrome is digging a hole they'll not get out of.<p>I run Chrome as little as possible. Sadly, there are a few places where it is the best still.
Not sure about the larger impacts of V3. But, we have gone with V3 since the beginning, and now there is a better turn around time for reviews, typically in an hour and sometimes 24hrs max. Its been a much smoother process rather than having to wait for couple of days or even weeks sometimes earlier. I've heard it being much worse on V2.
Why can't adblockers fetch updated filter lists and adblock strategies from a server and execute them dynamically? This would allow not having to update extension source every time to fix updated website adblocking.
Fuck Google. They do evil.<p>You don't need Chrome. You have Firefox.<p>Download Firefox now: <a href="https://www.mozilla.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.mozilla.org</a><p>Addons for Firefox: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://addons.mozilla.org</a>
I feel like at this point, Google could just officially disallow extensions blocking ads (or just Google ads?).<p>What's happening here is just stupid, IMO.
> Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay.<p>So the author can't think of any other reason for this change other than to "slow down ad blocker updates"<p>Well how about stuff like this: <a href="https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670">https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670</a><p>Where an extension dev details offers to "monetize" his extension and basically perform a bait and switch and make it malicious.<p>Pretending that V3 is all about ad blockers is more than a little disingenuous.
I still don't get why people who care about privacy (and ad-blocking) use Chrome. Firefox works really well these days, even if Mozilla's track record isn't the greatest of late. I haven't had a need to open a website in Chrome in... years? I can't even remember the last time.
Firefoxer here, HN folk are one of the most if not the most tech savvy communities in the whole planet. I don't understand why, in the name of an open internet for ours and the future, you don't refuse to use an actively hostile Chrome in your <i>personal</i> devices. Someone please explain this to me
And it's sad that hackers are still using MV3 to write malware extensions, then what is the point of improving non-existence security ?<p><a href="https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stand.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...</a><p>> Is it true that Manifest V3 will increase privacy and security of the browser?<p>> Honestly, I wouldn’t say so. I see the advantages of MV3 in terms of unification, cross-platform compatibility, and performance, but *I don’t see any advantages in terms of increasing user security, unfortunately*. *The amount of scam extensions in the Chrome Web Store remains high despite the fact that it has been a long time since the store stopped accepting non-MV3 extensions.*<p>And what, people are more likely to get virus from Google Ads or Ads overall than those improved security:<p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_entire_digital_livelihood_drained_after/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10fi01q/nft_gods_...</a><p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networkidn_show_punycodetrue_to_protect/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17p68i7/set_networ...</a>
Manifest v3 offers free performance and increased security & privacy. Gone are the days where any/every extension had access to every website you visited.<p>It would be a damn shame to throw this baby out with all the water.
I really want to keep http but replace html and js with something more strict, lighter, secure and safe by design, that would prevent the use of targeted ads like it's possible in HTML.<p>I understand that companies might probably not use something else if it's harder to put ads because they could not make money, but there are still a lot of use cases where companies will prefer having a technology that's safe.<p>The law is evolving which means targeted ads will not be viable anymore.<p>Also, maybe a lot of internet media companies, including reddit, instagram, etc need to rethink their business model, why don't they try to sell news article through a platform like netflix?<p>I still don't understand why media companies are able to make money over content they never make on internet infrastructure they did not build, this baffles logic.<p>HTML is way too permissive.