The whole manifest v3 announcement happened years ago and it's been at least a year since the timeline for the deprecation of manifest v2 got announced so it seems like as good a time as any to remind...
The whole manifest v3 announcement happened years ago and it’s been at least a year since the whole timeline…
Basically, Google trying to kill adblockers internet wide via containing addons in restrictive containers. Firefox and anything branched off of it are the only browsers not jumping on. Google apparently starting it up now with V3
Some argue that certain chromium browsers, like vivaldi and I think brave will keep Mv2 support.
The weirdest is maybe how vivaldi handles this.
They say in the headline they are “future proofed”, as if they would keep Mv2 support for the foreseeable future, but later in the article they admit they’ll eventually remove Mv2 support when chromium does it too (that’s understandable, they cannot commit to maintain it, but this way the headline is misleading).
They also don’t have answers for how will users install Mv2 extensions from now on, and how will they update them (and though it’s not vivaldi’s fault, most of these addons or at least their Mv2 editions will be abandoned by their devs, so “futured proofed” is a weird statement here too).
But then they also applaud these changes: e.g. they portray an extension running remote code as a scary bad thing that must be abolished.
Did you know that uBlock Origin partly relies on this being possible? It employs scriptlets, which are vetted javascript snippets, that can be used by certain filterlists (not all) and your own rules. You can even set up additional repositories (including your own ones) that contain additional scriptlets.
Yeah I also see the security implications that any extension can do that, but then what about putting that very powerful ability behind a permission with a scary sign? Because for a growing number of websites simply blocking (or even editing) requests is not enough anymore! Of course the CSS based cosmetic filter will make it seem like they are gone, and then the Mv3 praising crowd can confidently tell that “I don’t see any difference!”, but they are still being loaded, consuming your resurces, and collecting as much information about your visit as they can.
Sorry that it got this long. This is not a response to something you said, but… I don’t even know why did I write it here specifically.
Vivaldi’s intention seems to be to roll UBO’s capabilities into their built-in ad blocker, which isn’t subject to MV3’s restrictions. This way they get the security benefits without losing the one thing that really needed those capabilities. Maybe there are other extensions that need the MV2 capabilities, but I don’t know what they are, because thus far everyone’s only talked about adblock.
Basically, Google trying to kill adblockers internet wide via containing addons in restrictive containers. Firefox and anything branched off of it are the only browsers not jumping on. Google apparently starting it up now with V3
TA-DAH!! Seven seconds of reading and something I already knew
Thanks!
And if you want to know exactly what will stop being possible with V3:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3
Thanks!
Some argue that certain chromium browsers, like vivaldi and I think brave will keep Mv2 support.
The weirdest is maybe how vivaldi handles this.
They say in the headline they are “future proofed”, as if they would keep Mv2 support for the foreseeable future, but later in the article they admit they’ll eventually remove Mv2 support when chromium does it too (that’s understandable, they cannot commit to maintain it, but this way the headline is misleading).
They also don’t have answers for how will users install Mv2 extensions from now on, and how will they update them (and though it’s not vivaldi’s fault, most of these addons or at least their Mv2 editions will be abandoned by their devs, so “futured proofed” is a weird statement here too).
But then they also applaud these changes: e.g. they portray an extension running remote code as a scary bad thing that must be abolished.
Did you know that uBlock Origin partly relies on this being possible? It employs scriptlets, which are vetted javascript snippets, that can be used by certain filterlists (not all) and your own rules. You can even set up additional repositories (including your own ones) that contain additional scriptlets.
Yeah I also see the security implications that any extension can do that, but then what about putting that very powerful ability behind a permission with a scary sign? Because for a growing number of websites simply blocking (or even editing) requests is not enough anymore! Of course the CSS based cosmetic filter will make it seem like they are gone, and then the Mv3 praising crowd can confidently tell that “I don’t see any difference!”, but they are still being loaded, consuming your resurces, and collecting as much information about your visit as they can.
Sorry that it got this long. This is not a response to something you said, but… I don’t even know why did I write it here specifically.
Vivaldi’s intention seems to be to roll UBO’s capabilities into their built-in ad blocker, which isn’t subject to MV3’s restrictions. This way they get the security benefits without losing the one thing that really needed those capabilities. Maybe there are other extensions that need the MV2 capabilities, but I don’t know what they are, because thus far everyone’s only talked about adblock.