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

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/mv2-deprecation-timeline

by freedomben • 2 years ago

552 472 2 years ago

developer.chrome.com

Kelteseth• 2 years ago

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

varun_ch• 2 years ago

Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a pain)

For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close.

elashri• 2 years ago

For users switching from Arc, there is no good alternative, but Firefox with Sidebery and custom CSS comes close.

I would suggest zen browser [1] for those people.

[1] https://zen-browser.app

tapoxi2• 2 years ago

Arc has a built-in adblocker, so it depends if you're tied specifically to uBlock Origin (non-lite) features.

I'm not sure what other extensions would be broken in Manifest v3.

beached_whale• 2 years ago

One feature that is missing, removed, from Firefox is PWA's/running sites as apps. This is super handy for low trust apps

husam212• 2 years ago

I've been using Floorp for a while to get proper vertical tabs.

afranchuk• 2 years ago

Note that Firefox profile management is getting an overhaul right now, including an easy profile switching UI. I'm not sure when it will be landing in release, but it is being actively built!

Lukas_Skywalker• 2 years ago

I don't know if this is what you meant, but as an alternative to profile switching, there are Multi Account Containers [1]. It allows assigning a container to each tab, and the containers are isolated from each other. If you have an MS or Google account for both work and personal, you can open them at the same time in different tabs.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

byteknight2• 2 years ago

Firefox containers are amazing

sbrother• 2 years ago

In the past I've had a lot of issues with Google properties not working properly on Firefox -- either outright broken or using crazy amounts of CPU on Firefox but not Chromium-based browsers. Does anyone know if this is still an issue? I'd love to try again before I'm forced to by uBO breaking.

nalinidash• 2 years ago

Profile is already available in Firefox(before chrome implemented it). Details on how to use it: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...

Also in chrome, multiple profiles need multiple google account(If I understand the UI correctly)connected, but in Firefox no account is needed.

grounder2• 2 years ago

I don't know much about Arc. But Arc users could give Firefox "Nightly" a try to preview new features coming up. It has vertical tabs and you can "pin" a few tabs at the top. Nightly also has containers already built-in, so you can have multiple accounts open for the same site in different container tabs.

starky2• 2 years ago

I've tried to switch from Vivaldi to Floorp and there is some things that Firefox does that drive me absolutely nuts.

The main one is the behaviour of pinned tabs. Pinning in Firefox turns it into an icon that is harder to hit and doesn't even protect it from closing. This makes them essentially useless, they should be moved to the front of the tab bar and be protected from closing.

The second is that when you use vertical tabs the tab bar acts like a title bar instead of a separate entity. This means you can't double click to create a new tab, and trying to drag a tab often results in the entire window moving. I have to use Tree style tabs and disable the normal tab bar completely to prevent this.

There are also things that I don't like such as how downloads are handled and I've has issues with my session tabs being saved properly.

TwoNineA• 2 years ago

uBlock Origin + Multi Account Containers makes Firefox enjoyable to use.

anovick• 2 years ago

Main reason I'm still using Chrome and can't switch to Firefox: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/feature-suggestion-fire...

undercut3• 2 years ago

There is something wrong with your Firefox installation (maybe try a new profile with vanilla settings). I use search shortcuts all the time (w + spacebar for wikipedia) and it's exactly the same behavior in Firefox than Chrome/Edge.

prettymuchnoone• 2 years ago

hm i'll post this in the thread over there later but i'm pretty sure ff has that?

https://imgur.com/a/gXrsBq3

foxandmouse• 2 years ago

I love Mozilla, but I’m concerned about its future. Since 80% of its income reportedly comes from the Google search deal, do they have a plan to replace it after the recent ruling? And can they maintain their current level of autonomy while doing so?

cma2• 2 years ago

The Android version of Firefox still doesn't have working keyboard shortcuts after 13 years or a way to delete individual history items to prevent broken auto complete. The money is going into lots of other things than the browser.

EasyMark7• 2 years ago

Killing adblocking in Chrome might be a boost they need to attract someone else to pay for being the landing search page. I doubt if anyone will pay as much as google though. Or probably even close.

neoromantique2• 2 years ago

On Mac OS: https://kagi.com/orion/

codetrotter2• 2 years ago

From the Orion FAQ:

Is Orion open-source?
We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future.
Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please consider becoming active on orionfeedback.org.

vinnymac• 2 years ago

I won’t be touching this binary with a ten foot pole until every line of code is open.

Many excellent alternatives already exist that are also open and free, I don’t see a compelling argument to use this software on any device at the moment.

madeofpalk2• 2 years ago

Isn't Webkit GPL? How is it not open source?

frizlab• 2 years ago

Orion is amazing.

Etheryte• 2 years ago

I love Kagi, but I wish they focused on their core product first. Search is a hard problem to nail down and there's no shortage of bugs in Kagi right now, their issue tracker is a solid testament to that. When they spread their attention and resources between multiple products, they run the risk of pulling a Mozilla and shooting themselves in the foot multiple times.

Spivak• 2 years ago

They do focus on their core product first. I hang out in their discord, it's first priority always. Their other ventures are in service of the search engine— FastGPT powers quick answers, universal summarizer powers the "summarize this link" feature, small web is their go at an index of their own.

Orion is kind of a stretch I think, but they do see it as being in service of their search product as it's the only way they'll ever be the default search engine anywhere.

daveidol• 2 years ago

Interesting! So it’s basically like Safari but with actual good web extension support (safari’s answer to extensions is terrible)

faefox• 2 years ago

Switch to a different browser! The Chrome monopoly only exists because we collectively allow it to exist.

andrewjf• 2 years ago

Same with all the other google ecosystem. Gmail, maps, android. All just mechanisms for data collection and ad networks.

blakesterz• 2 years ago

Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?

kccqzy3• 2 years ago

I have been using the Firefox version of it for more than a year by now, basically as soon as it came out. I commented on HN that I was going to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071

There's no difference whatsoever.

And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking.

Of course this differs with the kind of sites you visit. So you need to try it on your own. I can believe that perhaps for some people this is a downgrade, but don't automatically assume uBlock Origin Lite won't work well for you.

drivebycomment2• 2 years ago

Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".

michaelt• 2 years ago

And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking.

Really?

Because I find adblockers on iOS are nowhere near as good - they let far more ads through, and they leave far more sites broken so I have to disable the ad blocker for the site to work.

the_gipsy2• 2 years ago

There's no difference whatsoever.

That's simply not true. Have you ever donde a side by side comparison, or are you just going by feeling?

joshdavham• 2 years ago

I use Adblock Plus, and ad blocking still perfectly works. Not sure about uBlock origin though.

tyingq7• 2 years ago

Static list of uris versus live heuristics. So "much of a difference" depends a lot on what you browse. If your browsing is covered by the static list, yes...there's little difference.

Also, keep in mind advertisers are not unaware of all this movement. You don't think they'll try new tactics once they know everyone using chrome is now hobbled to solely static lists? That cloaking (or other approaches) won't then become really popular?

fpoling2• 2 years ago

A lot of other ad blockers use static lists for years. The fact that they work tells that ad industry does not see the blockers as a problem that needs to be dealt with. It can also be that so far the increased cost of development of ads that are immune to simple static lists is not worth it.

tapoxi2• 2 years ago

I've been using Lite for the past few months, I've seen no real difference. I think if you're particular about rulesets or are heavily customizing uBlock you may want to consider switching browsers, but I'm happy enough that I'm remaining on Chrome.

kuhsaft14• 2 years ago

I’ve been using AdGuard. There are some limitations with MV3, but it’s not noticeable [1]. AdGuard uses dynamic rules for updating rules between extension updates and for custom user rules. There’s the option using their system level AdBlocker too.

[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-mv3-re...

internet2000• 2 years ago

Another happy user of uBlock Origin Lite on Chrome here. No difference. 1Blocker on Safari user since Apple came out with the declarative adblocking system there as well.

Cthulhu_3• 2 years ago

I for one am just going to wait it out and see what the internet looks like nowadays without an adblocker, if it doesn't auto-update. It's been so long.

chlorion2• 2 years ago

I used the lite version while on chromium for some time. I noticed no difference in terms of blocking ads.

The main thing I missed was the ability to block arbitrary elements with the zapper. I use this for more than just ads, so losing it is a real loss in functionality. Otherwise it worked fine.

igornadj2• 2 years ago

Yeah the zapper is indispensable. Being able to filter content on platforms by the words in post titles is one of the best ways to not be exposed to toxic content.

Never leaving your subscriptions (never using the algorithm recommended feed) is not a solution because of second-hand toxicity, e.g. political posts in meme subreddits in an election year.

If anyone knows of a solution that works in Manifest V3 I'd love to hear it!

est4• 2 years ago

Can't we avoid the Manifest bullshit altogether?

I remember how IE plugins roles: just dll inject into the process.

emestifs2• 2 years ago

Inject dll's from the internet right into the browser. Yes, let's!

yjftsjthsd-h6• 2 years ago

I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, but I don't think that's the reason; don't all your dlls come from the internet?

arp242• 2 years ago

Why not avoid all this unnecessary DDL overhead and just load as a kernel module?

betaby• 2 years ago

TempleOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS

Scion9066• 2 years ago

Chrome tries to block the majority of third-party software from injecting code into it:

https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/reducing-chrome-crashes-ca...

est4• 2 years ago

yeah modern browsers are pretty secure, it's business moat.

smittywerben• 2 years ago

Captain, we're sinking.

emaro• 2 years ago

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).

jokoon• 2 years ago

I saw there is a manifest v3 ublock lite.

I don't understand why and how it would be less capable, and so far I have not read the details of how/why.

So far, it's just rumors to me.

I will keep using firefox anyway, but honestly I am still waiting for a clearer explanation.

kristofferR• 2 years ago

You can't just call stuff you simply don't bother to look up "rumors".

Read up here:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

sjnonweb• 2 years ago

With manifest v2, the extension could dynamically intercept requests and block them based on a custom rule.

With v3, extensions have to predefine the rules for blocking. Which is the limiting factor

byteknight2• 2 years ago

So because you don't understand it, its rumors? A Simple google search would answer all of your questions in a literal sentence. It removes APIs used by ad blockers.

https://gprivate.com/6dp1q

btown2• 2 years ago

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...

Kbelicius• 2 years ago

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?

sockaddr2• 2 years ago

I think everywhere that you used “nonzero” you could have also not and it would have still made exactly the same point.

ikekkdcjkfke• 2 years ago

Looks like FF got unlucky with a subcontractor that is "manually reviewing" extensions on the cheap

justinclift• 2 years ago

My only long-term hope for this space ...

Some of the anti-monopoly investigations of Google might achieve this too.

The removal of MV2 is extremely clearly Google abusing their dominant market position to line their pockets at the expense of their users.

When this goes through, there will be another EU anti-monopoly investigation just for this.

boredhedgehog• 2 years ago

I imagine the focus of the developers will very quickly shift to Lite once Chrome flips the switch and 95% of uBO's user base disappears overnight. It might not be what they want, but such events have their own dynamic.

freedomben7• 2 years ago

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024)

Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.[1]

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manif...

simcop2387• 2 years ago

Along with that, I'd hope they'll add needed support for proper adblocking even with v3 and beyond

EasyMark7• 2 years ago

To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible

echoangle• 2 years ago

This sounds like Android phone manufacturers making fun of apple for removing the headphone jack and then doing it themselves a year later. Are they seriously going to maintain V2 support for a relatively small percentage of Powerusers which probably are mostly already using Firefox anyways? The point of being economically infeasible is probably in a month or so.

zamalek4• 2 years ago

Though it is less of an issue for those two, given that they have built-in adblocking. Still a laudable effort.

luuurker• 2 years ago

Aren't these v2 extensions being removed from Chrome's store? If so, are the alternatives based on Chromium running their own store?

Sophira2• 2 years ago

Are you certain? The last I heard about it from Vivaldi[0], they were only going to keep the MV2 code around so long as it's in the upstream codebase:

We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium. We expect to drop support in June 2025, but we may maintain it longer or be forced to drop support for it sooner, depending on the precise nature of the changes to the code.

Note that June 2025 is the same date Google plans to drop support completely[1].

[0] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...

red_admiral• 2 years ago

I think the supermium chrome fork plans to keep V2 in.

FuriouslyAdrift• 2 years ago

Microsoft Edge announced the move to Manifest v3 back in 2020 and stopped accepting new code on v2 back in 2022...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...

Springtime• 2 years ago

Brave is an odd one. They've publicly stated[1] they plan to support parts of Manifest v2 for a handful of popular addons (uBlock Origin included) by making limited patches, but they make no promises.

It seems Shields was their main focus for MV3 mitigation, much like Vivaldi's now native content blocker made for the same reason (though Vivaldi has said[2] they won't be supporting MV2 past the last Chromium build that includes it).

[1] https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

[2] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...

sebazzz• 2 years ago

That is easy talking as long as it is still a config flag, then after a compile-time flag. Once the internal APIs for MV2 or where MV2 get removed or changed it becomes very difficult to maintain. Never mind the possible security issues you introduce, but won’t get so quickly discovered.

TiredOfLife• 2 years ago

But they are removing adblock extensions that use v3

sunaookami3• 2 years ago

No they removed uBO Lite due to a misunderstanding/mistake and gorhill choose to not bother with Mozilla's annoying "review" process.

askvictor3• 2 years ago

I guess I'll be moving my work browser across to firefox as well (moved personal across a year ago when these shenanigans started)

GreenWatermelon2• 2 years ago

Take a look at Zen! It has vertical tabs

sirolimus• 2 years ago

Goodbye Chrome, hello firefox

freedomben7• 2 years ago

I hoped this day would never arrive, but alas all good things must come to an end. Since adopting uMatrix, my web experience radically changed and I can never go back to a pre-uMatrix world. With the v2 removal, I've got to eliminate Chrome from my life.

I also adopted a workflow that has been very conveninent for many years, essentially using Chrome for personal stuff and Firefox for work and other various things (especially once container support arrived!). It's not going to be easy to undo years of muscle memory, but I guess it's time to bite the bullet.

rtawsc• 2 years ago

Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason.

I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.

archerx• 2 years ago

The Brave Browser still blocks YouTube ads.

atmavatar• 2 years ago

I run uBO on FF, and I've yet to see any forced ads or video stops.

I'm on FF 131.0.2 with uBO 1.60.0.

zamalek4• 2 years ago

Are you on premium. YouTube seemingly doesn't care about my adblocker because I am on premium.

aspenmayer• 2 years ago

You probably need to update your filter lists. There is a megathread on Reddit for this issue, because it can have a lot of other causes also.

https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1etvawp/youtu...

eek21212• 2 years ago

Disable all other extensions and update your lists. It will work then.

deadbunny• 2 years ago

Works for me. I have Youtube on constantly when at my desk as background noise and uBo is still blocking everything perfectly fine.

Edit: Seems Google/Youtube are experimenting/testing with injecting ads directly into the video streams:

https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtu...

sho2• 2 years ago

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely.

Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's did with IE.

Rychard• 2 years ago

The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth, people like you and I installing it on our friend's/relative's computers and telling them it was safer/faster/better.

Nothing stops us from doing the same thing again. I've been recommending Firefox to all my family/friends/colleagues for years (ever since I've seen the writing on the wall for Chrome). While Firefox isn't perfect, it's in a much better place than Chrome is, and meets the the needs of nearly 100% of people.

undercut3• 2 years ago

The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth

No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.

Izkata2• 2 years ago

I swear I also remember it getting included in installation wizards for unrelated software (on Windows), so people would end up with Chrome/Chromium without even realizing it.

EasyMark7• 2 years ago

Did you miss the barrage of ads for Chrome that google played for literally years on the internet and television?

icehawk• 2 years ago

The adoption of firefox was driven by word of mouth.

I still can't search on google with them trying to shove chrome down my throat

freedomben7• 2 years ago

Agreed on hoping this is the inflection point, but only partial agreement that it's about adblock. For sure Google wants adblock to die, but I think it goes even deeper than that.

I think it's part of a much bigger trend in tech in general but also in Google: Removing user control. When you look at the "security" things they are doing, many of them have a common philosophy underpinning them that the user (aka device owner) is a security threat and must be protected against. Web integrity, Manifest v3, various DoH/DoT, bootloader locking, device integrity which conveniently makes root difficult/impossible, and more.

To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in. The next generation won't have the wonderful and fertile computing environment that we enjoyed, and it's (partly) your fault.

justanotheratom• 2 years ago

yes, iOS now restricts Apps from getting blanket access to their contacts, photos, and even clipboard. On the one hand, it does protect the user from malicious Apps that trick users into giving blanket access. On the other hand, they could have atleast done it like location access - where user still has an option to give blanket access. It is not fair that Siri is the only one that can access these things now.

kbolino3• 2 years ago

It is important, I think, to understand that personal computing is just one part of the picture. "Enterprise" environments (governments, businesses, large organizations, etc.) have demanded many of these "features" even before Google started implementing them. Your workplace, by and large, does not want you, the replaceable person who happens to be sitting at the keyboard, to be in full control of the device that they own and which is connected to their network. Often this is made more explicit by the device just being a "thin client" or other totally locked down narrow viewport to some other computer you can't even touch. It sucks and the general trend of workplaces trusting their employees less and less has been demeaning and degenerative to the point of often fostering self-fulfilling prophecies of mistrust (don't trust anyone => get untrustworthy people => bad things happen => don't trust anyone => ...).

However, it is important to also understand that the employee is not the only stakeholder. Government agencies answer to legislators, nonprofit management answer to donors, corporate management answer to investors, etc. There are layers of compliance that must be considered as well (internal policies, external regulations, different insurance costs, etc.). It is unsurprising that these fewer but generally deep-pocketed entities have an outsized influence on the market compared to more numerous but less moneyed end users. If you refuse to serve the former, you may quickly find yourself out of business.

Cthulhu_3• 2 years ago

I get why they built in all of those protections; the vast majority of tech users are not knowledgeable about the details of the stuff they use. And I think a big chunk of those that are, overestimate their own abilities, knowledge, and control. They all need to be protected against themselves.

That said, I don't like that the choice is being taken away. If you do want to tinker at that level with the technology you own, you should be given the choice. By all means make it not obvious how to get there - like, have people reboot their computers while playing Twister on their keyboards with interesting key combos, but give them the option.

Arch-TK2• 2 years ago

The technologies themselves are mostly a good idea. The problem is that the companies designing them also like to abuse them.

Take, for example, hardware attestation on android. There's not really any serious issue with this feature, it can be used to ensure your device is not compromised. This is for example how GrapheneOS enables its use with the auditor application.

But, on the other hand, Google abuses the feature to ensure that you are running a google signed OS if you want to use Google Pay. Meanwhile you can use banking apps which also use hardware attestation (although, from their perspective, they don't use enough of it to ensure it isn't being spoofed, and even then...) without any problem on GOS. Moreover, before Google Pay completely killed all of its competition, it was possible to even find third party banks which would provide you with the ability to pay with your phone without using google pay.

Likewise, secure boot is a great concept if you want to be more sure about the integrity of your laptop throughout its lifetime. But some companies have abused it to force you to use Windows. If you want to set up your own signing keys for secure boot, you end up having to deal with poorly managed UEFI keys from third parties which weaken the security of your machine. The feature, as it's implemented, is rarely designed with helping end user's secure their machines. But the core of the design is fine.

I think limiting root on a phone is also a really good idea, the issue is that Google likes to give themselves and their "system apps" special privileges. If APIs were exposed to allow you to bless your own applications with the right permissions, you would probably not care so much about root restrictions.

So all in all, fundamentally, most of these features are fine. They're genuinely great for security. But the main problem is how they're abuse by the companies in control and how little effort is put into allowing power-users to use those features for their own benefit.

kuhsaft14• 2 years ago

To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in.

That was a world where the user base was much more limited and devices were less capable. Now we have children, grandparents, educated, and uneducated users with access to web connected devices. These devices now contain everything about you. Compromise of a device can destroy someone’s life.

Not only that, but compromise of a device can cause collateral damage to other devices on the same network.

We now have to cater to every user. Not just to the technologically adept. Look at what people believe on social media. The bar is so low to con people into compromising their device.

pipo234• 2 years ago

To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in.

I recently quit my job, developing among others the means to "protect" media using DRM. While this was not a primary motivation, I'm glad to somewhat clean my hands.

The technology (dubbed Common Encryption) is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that a childishly easy to hack around. Yet clearly aimed against good faith consumers.

shadowgovt• 2 years ago

Their incentive is really to make the Chrome Web Store a tractable problem with minimal human effort. That's about 75% of the incentive. You can't actually make any guarantees at the CWS level regarding safety of audited code if the API allows audited code to execute non-audited code.

To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in.

May I be blunt? I grew up in it, so yes. I am. I was there for the Windows virus wildfires. I was there for the malware distribution schemes. I was there for the first wave of enshittification. For the dotcom crash. For the spam wars. For the search engines that didn't work. For the JavaScript injection attacks. For the world where "nobody knew you were a dog" as long as you didn't talk like yourself. I couldn't trust most of my relatives to use a computer the way we had to use them in the late '90s / early aughts. That's not a problem now.

For all its flaws, the modern system is cleaner, simpler, faster, and better for end users and no longer requires them to be super-nerds (and meanwhile, open and malleable devices are still there for the super-nerds to play with and work with). This was the goal---to make computers something that benefit everyone, not just the technorati and the priest-class.

May the past become a foreign country, hard for the modern mind to comprehend. May it always be so.

userbinator3• 2 years ago

IMHO that's actually part of an even bigger societal trend. "You will own nothing and be happy."

The ones in power want to control everyone and turn them into mindless sheeple to be exploited and milked. It's not just tech. There's another comment around here that mentions features being requested by large corporations and governments.

cookiengineer5• 2 years ago

You should stop seeing the Browser as a software as a program that's controlled by the user. This idea was over when Microsoft started to display ads in the file manager program (explorer).

The modern Web Browser is an advertisement terminal. If Google would manage to eliminate having to serve content, they would certainly do it.

akira2501• 2 years ago

and it's (partly) your fault

Punching down into a brutal labor environment instead of punching up into a Congress which was blatently bought off to foment this outcome? Odd choice.

crazygringo5• 2 years ago

everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective

I thought I knew that.

Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox...

...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through.

And at the same time, loading pages feels a little faster, though I haven't measured it.

Which has now got me wondering -- what if Manifest v3 really was about security and performance all along?

Because if Google was using it to kill adblockers, they've made approximately 0% progress towards that goal as far as I can tell. If they really wanted to kill adblockers, they'd just, you know, kill adblockers. But they didn't at all.

moi23882• 2 years ago

It makes things a bit more annoying? But in v3 you can still do everything you need to do to block ads

flohofwoe• 2 years ago

...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through.

When I tried UBO Lite recently it couldn't block YouTube ads, not sure if that's impossible with Manifest V3, or if UBO Lite just isn't updated regularly like UBO to defeat the YouTube anti-ad-blocking updates.

Update: looks like it's fixed now, not bad :)

surajrmal3• 2 years ago

People seem to see what they want. And many seem to be blinded by Google hate and must find ways to be unhappy with all decisions they make. Google has publicly delayed v2 depreciation to ensure ad blockers worked well under v3.

Spunkie3• 2 years ago

This is just because Google was especially insidious about how they crippled ad blockers in v3.

Adblockers do multiple things:

1. Visibly block ads from the user

2. Block the user tracking that's attached to those ads

3. Protect the user from malware

4. Save bandwidth and cpu cycles by not loading all that junk

5. Allow control to users over how a webpage is displayed to them

Arguably uBlock Origin Lite can only accomplish some of #1 and a sprinkle of #2 now. And even those abilities are compromised by artificially low limits imposed by chrome in v3 that will eventually allow ad networks to overwhelm those limits and get ads through to users.

Google is 100% boiling the frog here and you/the average user is left in the pot unaware.

eikenberry• 2 years ago

If I remember right then the difference is more about ad-tracking/privacy than blocking. V2 allowed UBO to find and intercept the calls to the ad servers before the calls were made. Where V3+UBL still makes the calls it just doesn't display the results. So while you might not see the ads, the ads see you.

immibis2• 2 years ago

The same Google that's currently in legal hot water for always hiding its true motivations so effectively that even lawyers can't get any relevant documents?

BiteCode_dev• 2 years ago

Haven'y tested, is it blocking youtube ads?

moooo99• 2 years ago

Adblock doesn’t only make Google Chrome bearable, it makes the internet bearable. I recently uninstalled my Adblock for testing purposes. Most websites nowadays are just ads with a little bit of text in between

DataDive• 2 years ago

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome.

Here is one empirical data point.

I switched over to Firefox this morning and will advocate for it.

I've considered it for a while, but I never felt motivated to make the switch. It took me a good half hour to set it up the way I like it.

heelix• 2 years ago

This is sort of like planting trees. I cut bait on chrome when they first announced they were dropping/impacting adblockers. For the most part, things are good enough the only time I spin up chrome is confirming something renders as expected on a personal site. Firefox works well enough for streaming and surfing.

karaterobot• 2 years ago

I'd like to think that's true, but I don't know, because people seem to have a very high tolerance for advertisements. Surprisingly so. I have a very low tolerance, and do what I can to get rid of them. But then, every once in a while I use someone else's computer and see how they live with them. I say "I can show you how to get rid of those ads," but they usually just don't care enough to do it. I bet the majority of people are like that—maybe the vast majority—and Google is probably making the same bet, but with even more information. My prediction is that if (God willing) Chrome loses significant market share, it'll be for some other reason than this.

kmlx2• 2 years ago

making adblock less effective

adblocking still works just fine on Safari, which has been doing the same thing as Manifest V3 for years now.

timeon2• 2 years ago

Ad-blockers are not just about displaying the actual ads.

Does the Chrome blocks trackers even without ad-blocker Like Safari?

yupyupyups• 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't browse the web without an ad blocker.

wooque• 2 years ago

I'd argue it won't make a dent in Chrome market share.

People who really care about this (tech minded people) are not using Chrome anyway, others (regular people) will switch to less powerful Manifest V3 adblockers that would probably be good enough and won't switch from Chrome.

throwaway484765• 2 years ago

So, are you going to leave chrome then?

spankalee• 2 years ago

What makes you say the security reasons are made up?

Zak2• 2 years ago

I can take this question.

They removed webRequestBlocking, used mainly by adblockers, but left webRequest. The security implications are the same for both, but only the former is optimized for content blocking.

ragnese6• 2 years ago

The vast, vast, majority of normies I know use Google Chrome and use zero extensions.

mossTechnician• 2 years ago

I've been checking browser stat counters religiously, looking for evidence that this change is driving their numbers down. No luck so far.

Am I missing any? https://gs.statcounter.com https://analytics.usa.gov https://www.w3counter.com

matheusmoreira• 2 years ago

Manifest v3 changes are pretty reasonable. Declarative filtering that prevents untrustworthy software from getting access to data is objectively a good thing.

It's just that uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should have access to everything. Truth be told it should be literally built into the browser itself and deeply integrated with it. Only conflicts of interest prevent that. Can't trust an ad company to maintain ad blockers after all.

quotemstr2• 2 years ago

The problem isn't the declarative filtering per se. The problem is the draconian limit on the number of filters. Given that we can compile regular expressions to DFAs and evaluate them in O(len(url)) time no matter how many patterns we have, there's little reason to place an arbitrary cap on the sophistication of an extension's filtering.

10000truths• 2 years ago

There was already an established solution for running untrusted code - the WebAssembly engine sandbox. Data can't be exfiltrated if imported functions are forbidden, which would be very easy to verify via static analysis of the WASM module. All of this hullabaloo about Manifest v3 could have been avoided if the Chrome team did the sane thing and exposed an API for using a WebAssembly module for filtering.

Mrdarknezz• 2 years ago

Totally unrelated, firefox is an excellent browser

zb32• 2 years ago

But not when you want to install GrapheneOS using the web-based installer, because Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB

contravariant2• 2 years ago

Sounds like a reasonable trade-off.

I imagine they couldn't figure out what an appropriate warning window would look like for that kind of protocol.

ck2• 2 years ago

Time to try Supermium again, I couldn't get it to install using my Chrome profile last time, maybe fixed by now.

Unless Supermium is following the manifest path too? Doubt it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermium

greenie_beans• 2 years ago

can i just setup dns blocking on my network to block the ad requests? especially on youtube, ublock origin stopped working a few weeks ago.

WesolyKubeczek3• 2 years ago

Not enough, especially since your browser may weasel out of it by using its own DNS via DoH.

surajrmal3• 2 years ago

Are you aware of any that do this? I've been using pihole for years and have no complaints. I've only seen smart TVs seem to do this, although it's usually configurable.

sunshowers6• 2 years ago

So yes... but the issue with DNS blocking is in the exceptions.

First, exceptions are at the domain level. So you can't say "allow this domain on this site", you have to blanket-allow a domain or not.

Second, the UX for making exceptions isn't great. With uBO it's just a couple of clicks. With something like Pi-hole it's more complex: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/how-do-i-whitelist-or-blackl...

WesolyKubeczek3• 2 years ago

I wish some brave enough (no relation to Brave) soul patched Blink so it became possible to delegate URL blocking decisions to an external process via some sort of IPC. In goes a full URL and maybe an opaque session ID so some state may be tracked, out goes a boolean value. Assume all are allowed if this process cannot be connected to.

userbinator3• 2 years ago

You can already do this with a MITM proxy, and it works in all browsers.

jakeogh2• 2 years ago

Bypassing pinned certs is always going pass attention? (or whatever deliberately harder to lookup term they make up?)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo

wbadart• 2 years ago

I thought this was a cool idea, so I looked around for existing implementations and found https://github.com/barre/privaxy

Been a while since the last commit, so I'm not sure if it's maintained, but I might try adding it (or something similar) to my pihole.

lemagedurage• 2 years ago

For people who want to stick with a Chrome-based browser while still using the full-featured uBlock Origin: Brave will keep supporting uBlock Origin even after Manifest V2's removal from Chromium.

https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

the_gipsy2• 2 years ago

For how long, though? And what will be the next marketing scam after crypto/tokens? Something with AI?

ParetoOptimal• 2 years ago

Note that Brave's creator opposes same sex marriage, is a Coronavirus "skeptic", and his silly cryptocurrency is made to work with brave browser.

gabrielsroka• 2 years ago

Brave's creator, B. Eich, also created JavaScript, so I assume you have that disabled everywhere.

sunaookami3• 2 years ago

opposes same sex marriage

That's not true, he donated to organizations supporting California Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage which by the way was supported by the majority back then in California. That was also 16 years ago, it's time to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You should instead not rely on ad-hominem and critize Brave for being ridden with cryptocurrency and doing shady stuff.

jovial_cavalier• 2 years ago

I don't care.

PKop• 2 years ago

Nothing wrong with any of those positions. And largely irrelevant to whether he's good at his job and whether Brave is a good browser which it is for various reasons, one of which being he leads the company.

grounder2• 2 years ago

Brave browser should probably not be trusted. They violated basic trust by redirecting URLs to their own affiliate links for those URLs. That is pretty bad. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...

bdcravens• 2 years ago

Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?

surajrmal3• 2 years ago

Id argue pihole is roughly equivalent to what you can do with manifest v3 based afld blockers. I use it as my primary ad blocker as well, and don't really understand why folks are upset about losing V2 that much. It seems like removing root in favor of more granular permissions which is generally a good thing.

shbooms• 2 years ago

I agree that more granular permissions is better (in terms of dictating which sites an extension has access to) but I think the main problem as I understand it is that this is an entirely seperate issue from the one that nukes uBO.

V3 introduces a hard limit on the total number network filters an extension is allowed to set and it's a laughably low number. Far below what uBO uses even on a barebones, default setup

Dylan168078• 2 years ago

There was already a specific permission for messing with raw network requests.

v3 removes the ability to block, but not the ability to monitor. It doesn't make anything more granular.

kstrauser2• 2 years ago

Yep, and it's great. Beyond ads, you can also configure it to block malware. Got a phishing email from scammer.ru? Nothing happens even if you to click the link in it because that name won't resolve. There were a very short list of exceptions, maybe 2 or 3, I had to add to ours over the years, mainly for hostnames like tracking.shippingcompany.com that got added by mistake.

Note that it does nothing to block DNS over HTTPS lookups. If your browser insists on going around your LAN's DNS setup, Pi-hole can't help you.

bberrry• 2 years ago

It can't handle YouTube ads unfortunately.

matthewcford• 2 years ago

I'm using nextdns - happy with it.

magnetowasright• 2 years ago

I love my PiHole. I block more stuff than just ads with it. No problems with false positives in default setups. I went a bit nuts adding blocklists, personally (it's not necessary lmao; be judicious with what blocklists you add!) so sometimes run into something, but whitelisting things is really simple and I can't remember the last time I had to do it. My not-very-technical husband learned very quickly how to look in the query log to check if the PiHole is blocking something. He hasn't had to in ages. Temporarily disabling blocking is also super easy (simple, quick, effective escape hatch), and so is managing the various lists, so if my husband whitelists something from the query log and I want to refine it for some reason, I can without working hard. The configurability of blocking per configured group or client is amazing (and simple) as well; the video game consoles have separate rule sets than everything else which works super well for me.

Once again, I went stupid adding blocklists so the level of management previously required is kinda worst case-y and it is absolutely my own doing and since working through my idiocy it just works its magic without needing intervention. If you're more careful about not adding blocklists which say 'this will break things' (not hard) you'll be fine.

lapcat5• 2 years ago

This submission title does not appear to be accurate. Here's what was actually said:

October 9th 2024: an update on Manifest V2 phase-out.
Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels.
We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks. Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. For a short time, users will still be able to turn their Manifest V2 extensions back on. Enterprises using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025. See our May 2024 blog for more context.

wtallis4• 2 years ago

They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.

lapcat5• 2 years ago

That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420

The change here is actually about the stable channel.

Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.

freedomben7• 2 years ago

The most relevant part is:

Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels.

Title could have been a bit more broad (probably should say "pre-stable" instead of "canary"), but I would say it is inaccurate.

lapcat5• 2 years ago

The most relevant part is:

That's actually not the most relevant part. The most relevant part is "We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks."

Google had already started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels, prior to October 9.

The first paragraph is "what we've been doing." The second paragraph is "what we'll do now."

dang2• 2 years ago

Ok, I've replaced the title with that language from the article (shortened a bit to fit HN's 80 char title limit). Thanks!

Submitted title was "Manifest v2 is now removed from Chrome canary"

sunaookami3• 2 years ago

Adblockers are my least concern, a lot of other useful add-ons won't work, like Imagus, Redirector, Violentmonkey, etc. So I switched to Firefox a few months ago.

Gimpei• 2 years ago

What does this mean for browsers derived from chrome, like Arc? I heard they plan on continuing to support Manifest v2, but will ublock continue to be maintained for chrome?

paulryanrogers• 2 years ago

MV2 code should remain well into 2025 since enterprises can still enable MV2 extensions. After that they may have to hard fork, which could become increasingly costly. Though they could coordinate to minimize duplicated efforts.

noname120• 2 years ago

https://resources.arc.net/hc/en-us/articles/25540117353623-W...

pentagrama2• 2 years ago

Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension.

I'm curious about which extensions will be recommended to replace uBlock Origin after it's disabled. I'm sure those alternatives will see a surge in installs.

Also, why doesn't the creator of uBlock Origin update the V2 version to the V3 version? I know V3 version isn't as good as V2, but if you're developing that product, at least give your users something instead of leaving them with nothing. Otherwise, they may end up choosing poor alternatives.

tredre33• 2 years ago

Everything you said has already been done: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...

pentagrama2• 2 years ago

This V3 version will be pushed as a regular update on the current V2 version before is disabled? I think that must be done now to avoid even the alerts on users.

dtgm92• 2 years ago

I will recommend Librewolf. Default Firefox has a lot of garbage and bloat.

OptionOfT2• 2 years ago

I am tied to Microsoft Edge for sync between desktop and phone, and Microsoft Edge on iOS has AdBlock built in. But looking at this it seems inevitable that Edge will retain V2.

As to switching to Firefox? I'd love to, but Firefox on iOS refuses to put in an AdBlocker. Yea, you can use Firefox Focus but that one doesn't sync.

I don't understand Mozilla's stance on this.

throwaway484765• 2 years ago

Firefox doesn't exist on iOS, it's just reskinned safari. It's not Mozillas fault that Apple won't let you install a different web engine.

OptionOfT2• 2 years ago

Edge on iOS, which is also reskinned Safari, has AdBlock Plus integrated.

So it IS possible.

pavon• 2 years ago

AFAIK, Microsoft is disabling manifest V2 extensions in Edge following the same timeline as Chrome[1]. Brave is continuing to run V2 extensions, but has no plan to stand up their own extension store[2], so it isn't clear how users will get the extensions, beyond a few handpicked ones that Brave is supporting[3].

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-...

[2] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15187

[3] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/28367

int_19h2• 2 years ago

Take a look at Vivaldi, as well - it covers all major desktop and mobile platforms now and syncs across all of them through their own servers, and it also has integrated adblock.

imbnwa2• 2 years ago

Why is this thread not on the first 4 or 5 pages of HN?

instagib• 2 years ago

Down weighted? Happens when mods see too many comments and not enough upvotes.

imbnwa2• 2 years ago

dang2• 2 years ago

Recent and related:

Chrome Canary just killed uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757178 - Oct 2024 (46 comments)

That one never made the frontpage, so I'm leaving the current thread up.

bijection• 2 years ago

I've finally switched (back) to firefox today.

I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up.

Everything old is new again!

echelon• 2 years ago

This is why we need to break up Google.

Google is a de facto monopoly. They own the entire web. The gateway, the browser, the protocols, advertising, discovery.

Google is too big.

ragnese6• 2 years ago

Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons at all from Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

But, every time Mozilla does something slightly abrasive, HN users pile on about how Mozilla is ruining their privacy-respecting reputation, and then go back to using Chrome... The double-standard is really something else.

Maybe instead of getting someone else to break up Google for us, we could just... stop using their shit? I'm typing this from Firefox, I use Proton Mail (and pay for it!) for email, and I mostly search with DuckDuckGo (I know that's not perfect, either). I certainly don't feel like I'm living like a caveman...

/rant

ttt3ts• 2 years ago

IMO they are still not as good although they have improved. I just develop in chrome and use Firefox for everything else.

KTibow• 2 years ago

What makes them less good? I'm used to Firefox and while the Chrome devtools have more features they're harder to use (eg smaller touch targets, can't accept JS suggestion with enter key)

knowitnone3• 2 years ago

Same. I use Chromium for dev and firefox for browsing

ezst• 2 years ago

I know chrome dev tools are capable, but to me they feel much more dumb and convoluted. There's lots of convenience and golden nuggets in Firefox dev tools that makes you feel they've been designed by and for developers.

aftbit3• 2 years ago

I use a little `chrome-new` script to develop (and sometimes take video calls or use buggy apps) against a totally clean fresh Chrome profile, then I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and uMatrix for daily driving.

    #!/bin/sh
    [ -z $CHROME ] && CHROME=chromium
    TMPDIR=$(mktemp -d /dev/shm/chrome-XXXXX)
    $CHROME --user-data-dir=$TMPDIR --no-first-run --no-default-browser-check "$@"
    rm -rf $TMPDIR

The first line lets me override which Chrome version I launch if I want to try instead google-chrome-stable or google-chrome-beta for example. I keep them all installed from the AUR on Arch.

knowitnone3• 2 years ago

their dev environment is still pretty bad

huhtenberg• 2 years ago

Have you seen Mozilla leadership team though? That is something else altogether.

ethagnawl• 2 years ago

I was going to make a joke about giving Firebug a look but (TIL) Firefox's Devtools actually subsumed Firebug a few years back. That's pretty cool and a nice note for that project to end on.

https://getfirebug.com

Izkata2• 2 years ago

They make it sound nice, but the last release of Firebug was after that page says they were unified, and only about half a year before Firefox Quantum removed XUL, which would have killed Firebug anyway. I was still using Firebug because its console was still better than the built-in devtools.

modzu• 2 years ago

chrome hasnt been cool for a while

greatgib• 2 years ago

It is really crazy that we are taken hostage/blackmail by whatever harmful decision Google takes in their own interest.

IncreasePosts2• 2 years ago

Chromium is open source, you're free to use it.

vehemenz• 2 years ago

This is irrelevant because the changes are occurring upstream in Chromium by mostly Google developers.

sva_• 2 years ago

I was looking for an excuse to switch back to Firefox anyways.

QuantumGood• 2 years ago

"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025"

To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key

(When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceeded by a warning.)

Alternatively, you could do this manually by pressing the Windows key, type "run" (without the quotes) and enter, type "regedit" (without the quotes) and enter, then navigate as far as you can to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key

You may find there is no "Chrome" key and will need to create it, as well as creating ExtensionManifestV2Availability

--------------------------------------

  [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome]


  "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002

exikyut• 2 years ago

And IIRC including the quotes in a filename in a save dialog, líke "manifestv2.reg" (incl quotes), will save it with the extension you typed, so you won't end up with 'manifestv2.reg.txt'. So you skip a potentially otherwise needed rename step.

gzer0• 2 years ago

Wow, thanks for this tip. Saves the effort of having to manually find "all types" in the drop down... this is so much easier.

Also, just for clarification:

  Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

  [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome]
  "ExtensionManifestV2Availability"=dword:00000002

Apparently, the line Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 is necessary at the beginning of the .reg file. This line indicates the format version for the registry file and tells Windows that it is compatible with the current registry editor (according to GPT). This worked for me.

Save the file as:

  EnableExtensionManifestV2.reg

EvanAnderson• 2 years ago

Single command line (Run as Administrator-- you can do that from the Windows key-R dialog by holding CTRL-SHIFT and pressing ENTER):

   REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome /v ExtensionManifestV2Availability /t REG_DWORD /d 2

tech234a• 2 years ago

Note that this will also disable Chrome’s DNS Over HTTPS as Chrome disables the DoH resolver by default when the browser is managed by enterprise policies like this one. See the platform-specific links mentioned on the uBlock Origin subreddit [1], many of which also include instructions for enabling the DoH resolver while managing the browser using policies.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1/manif...

account426• 2 years ago

Good. Letting Google MITM all your DNS queries is insane.

askvictor3• 2 years ago

What about Linux and Mac?

rootsu• 2 years ago

Link for Mac command

https://old.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/1d799pa/tutorial_on...

paravz• 2 years ago

    echo '{"ExtensionManifestV2Availability": 2}'  | sudo tee -a /etc/chromium/policies/managed/ExtensionManifestV2Availability.json

bobajeff• 2 years ago

I'm addition to all the calls to switch to another browser I'd also have people consider the websites they use as potential dependencies on chrome.

Right now most websites don't seem to require any specific chrome feature but with Google's pushing some API's like their Web Environment Integrity proposal I'm worried sites will start to lock their site to Google Chrome and their official Mobile clients.

mbs1592• 2 years ago

But what about Safari users? Such a lock-down could force Apple to drop the $20B search engine deal with Google.

etimberg• 2 years ago

Time to switch my last machine that still uses Chrome as the default.

jbverschoor• 2 years ago

Well, the web is unusable without an adblocker. Time to move to another browser.

zb32• 2 years ago

Manifest V3 is not the problem itself. But removing webRequestBlocking and creating some ridiculous limits for the DNR api are, these changes should be reversed downstream.

amatecha• 2 years ago

... can we just have a browser that has the functionality of uBlock Origin built-in?

Feeling nostalgic for a time when browsing HTTP wasn't such a persistently-adversarial experience :(

jakeogh2• 2 years ago

URL requests should go to a OS level, where the user can intercept them at will. We do not need to give browsers the socket API.

AstroJetson• 2 years ago

And people ask me why I don't run current versions of browsers.

rrrix1• 2 years ago

If anyone has any guides or blogs related to migrating away from Chrome for a multi-decade user (thousands of bookmarks, saved pages/read later, etc.) I would sure be interested.

Every time I try to migrate my very large bookmark collection to another browser, it either misbehaves and partially loses some data or fails completely.

Ylpertnodi• 2 years ago

Every time I try to

It would be good to know what not-chromes you have tried, so as not to suggest 'x', which may have not worked for you.

marcell• 2 years ago

Would it be possible to do an OS level ad blocker that works similarly to uBO?

KeepFlying• 2 years ago

Seems unlikely with how many different ways ui elements are handles across an OS (including apps that do their own rendering). Though I bet you could block some subset of well known ones and block a lot of the network traffic that feeds ads.

riiii• 2 years ago

I'm years ahead of them. I disabled Chrome years ago.

lofaszvanitt• 2 years ago

V3 has some utterly/unnecessarily complicated shite going on, like offscreen documents, and I think it will get worse as time progresses. Google really needs some bludgeoning.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 2 years ago

I have not kept up -what is the steel man argument for V3? Presumably Google has a rationale other than “ad blockers are bad for business”

contravariant2• 2 years ago

Ad blocker-wise I think the best argument is that internalising the traffic blocking can be made a lot more efficient than putting a javascript interpreter in between.

The counter argument is that ad-blocking is an arms-race and the only reason a subset of traffic blocking methods is going to work at all is because there isn't a big enough incentive yet.

Other than that the arguments in favour of V3 are going to be about the same as for any API update. My guess is a few extra APIs and more granular permissions.

neilv• 2 years ago

Does Mozilla have a PR blitz, to pick up a big chunk of users who have a moment of disruption, and want their full uBlock Origin?

It might've been better, had uBlock Origin Lite not happened, but is there still a migration opportunity here, and is Mozilla working it?

politelemon• 2 years ago

They seem to have the opposite going on, they often manage to fumble what little opportunity you'd think they have. Was just thinking of the ubo lite example you mentioned:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418

And also recently, their poor engagement/comms around Privacy-Preserving Attribution:

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-adverti...

cookiengineer5• 2 years ago

There's gonna be a new browser wars.

How exciting!

Time to do your part. Switch to ladybird!

(Insert imaginary we want you for the army poster here)

zamadatix3• 2 years ago

I realize I'm about to post something that sounds like the most generic HN slop comments... but, considering it's why Mozilla initially made a whole new language in the first place, I hope most can look past what fanatics would normally say and focus on the scenario:

I was ecstatic about Ladybird from a "fun NIH project" perspective but once it became "serious" and had a cross-platform daily-driver long term focus it was quite the let down that the hot new independent kickstart was... still going to be built on C++ anyways. Even the Serenity ecosystem had started work on a NIH memory safe language - Jakt! I'm not going to say the "R" word (mostly because I'm less interested "which" and more interested in the "what") but the one place I'd really like to see memory safety is the new fresh-engined web browser written by a small team (or really, any team).

On that front https://servo.org/ is "alive" again under the Linux Foundation. It has a focus on being an easily embeddable engine and it seems to be picking up a bit of steam. Whether or not it really takes off remains to be seen. I'll be watching closely though!

cookiengineer5• 2 years ago

I agree with you there, on all parts.

My reason for learning Rust in the first place was trying to contribute to the servo engine. But then, Mozilla happened. My hope for servo continues, but it won't go anywhere if it stays in the limbo it has been in after Mozilla ditched it as a project. We need a real browser project, with a full UI/UX and everything, until people take it serious as a base to fork off.

The problem with reality is that almost all software is still built on C. Kernels, userspace APIs, libraries, everything. I just wish that we would've gotten something like C ABIs, but with memory safety and VM-to-VM communication in mind, e.g. for Rust and Go, along the way. WebASM / WASI somehow got there, at least in that direction. But it's never seen as a shared object or dll replacement, and always is just a compile target and nothing more - even when the potential is there.

Something like that would solve so many problems that all kinds of programming language are trying to solve by themselves, over and over again.

blasphemers• 2 years ago

I think Ladybird is being developed in swift, it just has a lot of c++ code that they plan on replacing because it started as a fork.

eviks5• 2 years ago

If only Mozilla hadn't wasted all that time and money and created a Chrome-comparable in stability/performance and Vivaldi-comparable in customization, we could've have an easy way out of this current mess...

(v3 drops not only ad-blockers but also user style managers, so a significant degradation of the web interfaces)

TexanFeller• 2 years ago

I daily drive Firefox. I haven't found a single website in years that's made me open Chrome. There's nothing slow about Firefox.

eviks5• 2 years ago

I don't daily drive because I have found them, plenty of other people complain about this to make this not unique

(though I'd eat that up for more ergonomic general use enabled by customizations)

arctek• 2 years ago

I think at this point I'd rather pay for a desktop browser, something with blocking baked in at compile time. It would be such a QoL improvement that it's worth paying a yearly subscription for.

beretguy• 2 years ago

I’m already paying for kagi search.

damianh5• 2 years ago

When the hell will firefox have a decent profile manager?? It's the one thing that is preventing me from switching over. No, container tabs are NOT it.

coldpie• 2 years ago

It's not a feature I use, but if you launch with "firefox --ProfileManager" it pops up a profile selection window. Maybe that's in the ballpark of what you want? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...

damianh5• 2 years ago

The switching UI/UX is atrocious.

nox101• 2 years ago

I'm curious what V3 doesn't allow that V2 does.

I read an article about Ublock Origin light. It claimed it couldn't do script injection and content blocking but I've written V3 extensions that do that though maybe what I'm thinking and what ublock origin does are different things. Does anyone know specific details or maybe a pointer to docs on what's not possible?

ladzoppelin• 2 years ago

Can you guys just all go to Firefox so it has a chance, the way Chrome changes things is not acceptable and Firefox, performance wise, is just as fast even if people say otherwise. Try it and test for yourself.

rochak• 2 years ago

To all the people I know who are hell bent on using Chrome because its "superior", I say "Game on!"

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

Related Stories