TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Google resumes transition to Manifest V3 for Chrome extensions

171 点作者 ghostwords超过 1 年前

11 条评论

gary_0超过 1 年前
Anyone remember &quot;DOS ain&#x27;t done until Lotus won&#x27;t run&quot;? Now it&#x27;s &quot;Chrome ain&#x27;t done until uBlock won&#x27;t run&quot;.<p>If it&#x27;s not Manifest V3 that makes the Internet safe for advertising, it&#x27;ll be a &quot;browser integrity&quot; token or some other kind of DRM-by-another-name. Google has made it clear with YouTube that the arms race is <i>on</i>, and sooner or later they&#x27;ll go nuclear.
评论 #38300865 未加载
评论 #38295075 未加载
评论 #38293866 未加载
PoignardAzur超过 1 年前
&gt; <i>Improving content filtering support by providing more generous limits in the declarativeNetRequest API for static rulesets and dynamic rules</i><p>Anyone here know more about this?<p>From the article linked in that quote:<p>&gt; <i>We determined that some filter rules, such as those with an action of block or allow, are much safer and are less likely to be abused. They also happen to make up the large majority of ad block filter rules. Based on this, I drafted and shared a proposal in the Web Extensions Community Group to define a set of rules that we consider lower risk and allow up to 30,000 of these.</i><p>From what I remember of the discourse at the time Manifest v3 was first announced, the most major complaint from developers who were otherwise open to the idea of static filters was that the number of filters allowed was way too small for the modern web.<p>Google&#x27;s proposed changes seem to address that, maybe? I don&#x27;t know how effective they are in practice.
评论 #38295093 未加载
red_admiral超过 1 年前
Some, but not all of the problem, can be mitigated by pointing your DNS to mullvad (the no-ads one; DNS doesn&#x27;t need a subscription unlike the full VPN product).<p>Ironically, this might be a market opportunity for MS to get a few users back to chrome&#x27;s poor cousin Edge, if they allow proper extensions again.
评论 #38296421 未加载
bloppe超过 1 年前
So, does this still cripple ad blocking? It&#x27;s pretty hard to parse from the post.<p>I don&#x27;t really care anyway. Chrome is not the internet. Just use Firefox.
评论 #38294246 未加载
评论 #38294323 未加载
redder23超过 1 年前
You should not be using Chrome anyway but if you still do, its time to switch and advocate for different browsers. Brave has a uBlock Origin based adblocker build in, written in Rust. Firefox is the best browser for uBlock Origin.
评论 #38294986 未加载
评论 #38294976 未加载
account-5超过 1 年前
I don&#x27;t use chrome but if I did why is this a good or bad thing? Is this just a part of Google&#x27;s push to force users to give up all their data under the pretense of security?
评论 #38294329 未加载
jauntywundrkind超过 1 年前
How&#x27;s the situation with debugging tools &amp; userscripting extensions (grease monkey, violetmonkey, tamper monkey)?<p>Outlawing dynamic code (use of <i>eval</i> for example) is a huge locking down of the system, one I have some sympathy for but also think deeply narrows the type of extensions that can be built, in a chilling way.
评论 #38294871 未加载
tholman超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve got maybe 4 extensions that are manifest V2 that just purely don&#x27;t seem worth upgrading&#x2F;fixing up (my largest with 5-10k installs) due to the time&#x2F;5+ year old code that has been working fine on the old apis... Has chrome done some outreach to the popular extensions, or maybe just gone past a point where they&#x27;re happy to kill off the old and move onto the new? Or is this purely about ublock etc?
评论 #38301716 未加载
PoignardAzur超过 1 年前
Title seems to be editorialized? That&#x27;s against HN rules, IIUC.
评论 #38294810 未加载
PikachuEXE超过 1 年前
Is Chromium based browsers affect in any way? I throw away Chrome years ago but still using Chromium based browsers.
评论 #38309816 未加载
siproprio超过 1 年前
so, adguard sold out?
评论 #38297374 未加载