Google's 7-year slog to improve Chrome extensions hasn't satisfied developers

https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/07/google_chrome_extensions/

by lapcat • 1 year ago

51 44 1 year ago

tetris11• 1 year ago

Prefacing every statement with "In fact,..." does nothing to assure me that you have creators interests at heart.

They don't and shouldn't. Developer relations are great, but Chrome's users are the most important consumers of extensions and their interests should be prioritized over those of developers. I understand why it might be convenient for AdGuard to use a "QuickFixes filter" which changes the functionality of their extension without having to push a formal upgrade, but it seems like Chrome is right to identify this as a vector where unaudited code might arrive in the trusted Chrome sandbox.

ghostwords5• 1 year ago

It's funny how a legitimate ad blocker suffers from zealous enforcement while malicious extensions are generally fine.

For instance: https://palant.info/2025/01/13/chrome-web-store-is-a-mess/

Justsignedup• 1 year ago

Wait, has anyone had any illusion that google wanted to continue to allow developers to make good content filtering? They are in a full-blown war against adblocking.

tmpz22• 1 year ago

Devil's advocate: the main objective was to limit full read access required by many extensions and naively installed by most users. There was no way to facilitate traditional content blocking AND achieve that objective.

lapcat11• 1 year ago

Devil's advocate

Why do people use this phrase? Do you believe what you said in your comment? If so, why not accept attribution to yourself? If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".

ghostwords5• 1 year ago

Google can keep talking about user safety all they want but their talk is hollow because:

(A) Chrome Web Store is full of malicious extensions. Google doesn't appear interested in consistently enforcing their own policies.

(B) Requiring DNR does nothing about all the other avenues for stealing user data. The fundamental problem is that a totally safe set of extension APIs is a totally limited set of extension APIs. No real innovation or differentiation is possible.

dangus• 1 year ago

Then why is Apple able to do it so easily with a content blocking API?

grayhatter2• 1 year ago

I find it very telling that the strongest argument is just parroting the PR line of

Wont somebody think of the children?!

trinsic2• 1 year ago

Sounds like the problem was manufactured to create those very conditions.

rurp• 1 year ago

We're talking about the biggest ad company in the world deliberately making it much harder for users to block ads. I think their primary goal is to show people more ads, and anything to do with safety is a nice to have and/or pretext.

jeffbee• 1 year ago

MV3 hasn't satisfied developers because it is intended to help users and, to a significant extent, thwart developers. Many things that many developers want to do are bad for users, so you can't take both sides simultaneously. I am glad Google is on the side of the users.

grayhatter2• 1 year ago

Some users. I a former user, had no problem with MV2 and have many problems with MV3.

It's remarkable how this is in support of users who don't understand the implications of this compulsory upgrade, somehow excluding the interests of users who do understand the implications of the change.

croes• 1 year ago

Many things developers wanted to help users are made impossible by MV3. That’s bad for the users.

blibble• 1 year ago

AdGuard, a privacy service that makes an ad blocking extension for Chrome and related applications, recently complained that MV3 is making it hard to deliver its desired features.
In late January the company reported that Chrome's remote code execution policy under Manifest V3 (MV3), the revamped API for writing browser extensions, has forced it to remove its Quick Fixes filter and temporarily drop its Custom filter.
The Quick Fixes filter is used to quickly resolve critical content filtering issues on popular websites without having to upgrade AdGuard’s extension.

well yes, that's the entire point, giving Google control of updates

this way they can push out a youtube release with an ad blocker detection update

then sit on extension updates until they're ready to push out another youtube release with a different way of detecting ad blockers

result: ad blockers on Google properties effectively and completely extinguished

if you haven't done it already: get your friends and family onto Firefox, now

Google's 7-year slog to improve Chrome extensions hasn't satisfied developers

Related Stories