3 ms·

Killing? No. Handicapping? Yes. And why are we surprised? It’s in their best interest to do so; expecting a for-profit company to go against its own monetary be

Killing? No. Handicapping? Yes. And why are we surprised? It’s in their best interest to do so; expecting a for-profit company to go against its own monetary best interests forever is naïve, at best.

SquareWheel 7y ago
If you can block Google Ads equally as well in the new system as the old, how does this affect their "monetary best interests"?
swang 7y ago
let's say they didn't up the limit from 30k. whose ads are getting blocked as a priority? doubleclick is going to be in there so is there really a difference to them either way.
dfabulich 7y ago
The rule limits Google's proposing are more generous than the limits Apple puts on content blockers. Apple allows only 50K rules. And it turns out 50K rules is actually fine! Declarative rules engines are better and preserve privacy better. This is Google following Apple's lead and doing the right thing.
- buckminster 7y ago
  It does nothing for privacy because extensions will still be able to see the requests, they just won't be able to block them.
  - dfabulich 7y ago
    No, manifest v3 extensions will only be able to observe requests for specific hosts, with permission from each host.
    - buckminster 7y ago
      This isn't mentioned in the public version of the v3 spec (perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place) or in today's blog post. Do you have a reference?
      - magicalist 7y ago
        One of the other comments has a link to this tweet about it: > Yes, but network requests won't be observable without permission on the relevant hosts. And host permissions are changing significantly in Mv3 (e.g. they can't be granted as blanket install time permissions). https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1138889508512866304 https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1138889508512866304 there's also some stuff in the design doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#heading=h.oenw1ekaaubz https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz... Which explains the specific hosts part, but only makes vague mention of how extensions that users do want to run on every site will get permission to do so.
        buckminster 7y ago
        Thank you. If Google were trying to be obfuscatory they could hardly do a better job.
- tedivm 7y ago
  There's a reason apple doesn't have as much of the browser market share, and this is part of it. The lack of good ad blocking is literally the thing that drove me off of safari.

SquareWheel 7y ago

If you can block Google Ads equally as well in the new system as the old, how does this affect their "monetary best interests"?

swang 7y ago

let's say they didn't up the limit from 30k. whose ads are getting blocked as a priority? doubleclick is going to be in there so is there really a difference to them either way.

dfabulich 7y ago

The rule limits Google's proposing are more generous than the limits Apple puts on content blockers. Apple allows only 50K rules. And it turns out 50K rules is actually fine! Declarative rules engines are better and preserve privacy better. This is Google following Apple's lead and doing the right thing.

buckminster 7y ago
It does nothing for privacy because extensions will still be able to see the requests, they just won't be able to block them.
- dfabulich 7y ago
  No, manifest v3 extensions will only be able to observe requests for specific hosts, with permission from each host.
  - buckminster 7y ago
    This isn't mentioned in the public version of the v3 spec (perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place) or in today's blog post. Do you have a reference?
    - magicalist 7y ago
      One of the other comments has a link to this tweet about it: > Yes, but network requests won't be observable without permission on the relevant hosts. And host permissions are changing significantly in Mv3 (e.g. they can't be granted as blanket install time permissions). https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1138889508512866304 https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/1138889508512866304 there's also some stuff in the design doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8/edit#heading=h.oenw1ekaaubz https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz... Which explains the specific hosts part, but only makes vague mention of how extensions that users do want to run on every site will get permission to do so.
      - buckminster 7y ago
        Thank you. If Google were trying to be obfuscatory they could hardly do a better job.
tedivm 7y ago
There's a reason apple doesn't have as much of the browser market share, and this is part of it. The lack of good ad blocking is literally the thing that drove me off of safari.