5 ms·

> We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest > immediate We know exactly what this kind of talk means. Don't blow smoke up our ass, Mozilla, jus

> We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest > immediate We know exactly what this kind of talk means. Don't blow smoke up our ass, Mozilla, just give it to use straight: We'll have `blocking webRequest` for as long as Google allows it.

derefr 7y ago
Or, potentially, it's an equivocation because they want to give Google the appearance of maybe caving later (or at least the inability for Google to claim that they had the opposite appearance), while secretly hoping something changes such that they don't have to cave (and also, possibly, applying pressure below the radar to achieve that end.) Politics!
apazzolini 7y ago
I switched from Chrome to Firefox a couple of months ago when the Chrome adblocking changes were announced. I'll happily find something other than Firefox if it goes down the same route.
- Endy 7y ago
  Try out Pale Moon or Waterfox.
jerf 7y ago
I understand Google's motivation for nuking ad blockers, as well as their motivations for denying every which way that that is what they want to do under whatever security justifications they can bring up, even true ones. I don't see Mozilla's motivation to remove that at the moment. I mean, speaking for myself, I'd drop them both and follow a fork of the browser that lets uMatrix work, and that's not something I've considered very many times in the past 20 years. Control over what my browser actually connects to has become a top-3 feature concern for me. I was going to say "I suppose 'working' is technically more important to me", but then I mentally wargamed out whether I'd be willing to use a slightly nonfunctional browser to have uMatrix and noticed that I actually already put up with a slightly nonfunctional browser to use it, because uMatrix already breaks a number of sites until I do some whitelisting. Even if there's a security impact to extensions having too much access to the web request cycle, there's a security impact to them not having enough access to the web request, too.
- diablerouge 7y ago
  I think that's an important thing to remember - we can always fork it and move on if they choose to remove the blocking webrequest API. However, how long that fork can persist, remain secure and retain feature parity is an open question. Should Mozilla cave and the community fork be unpopular, Google will definitely have a monopoly on the browser space.
- dannyw 7y ago
  The majority of funding Mozilla’s comes from Google, including receiving a portion of all ad revenue through google search. A “adopt manifest v3 or we cut your funding in half” could be behind the scenes.
spinningslate 7y ago
And in case anyone from Mozilla is listening, this could well be existential for you. Right now, your pro-privacy stance is a principal factor in users choosing Firefox over Chrome. Follow Google - and all its shady practices - and you will lose a large chunk of those users. Many of them, to use current terminology, are "key influencers": technically savvy people who advise family and friends what to do. Lose them and the outlook is, I suspect, pretty grim. You're clever people. You'll know this. Google has a good few smart folk too (even if their motivation is questionable). It's easy to see this is difficult for you: Google is your primary funding source. Fail to comply with their wishes, and that funding might well disappear. As has been noted in other threads, the tension between privacy principles and funding is a huge threat. For the good of the open web, I desperately want a successful Mozilla, and a technically excellent Firefox at the forefront of a pro-privacy, anti-surveillance re-balancing of the internet. I don't doubt the difficulty in filling a $300M funding hole. I'd gladly pay $30 per year for a pro-privacy Firefox. Another 9,999,999 is a tall order. On the other hand, you have c250M users...
- feanaro 7y ago
  Since there is no visible way of leaving a +1 (or a +1000) on HN, I feel like I have to respond to this since it resonates so deeply with me. Particularly on account of funding, I know I would also gladly pay $30 per year for a privacy, freedom and power use oriented Firefox instead of this new direction they keep taking it in. And so would many of my acquintances. Perhaps there is merit to organizing a website for people to be able to pledge this.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  This tech people influencing friends and family lore has been disproven many times. No non tech user is using duck duck go.
  - Nicksil 7y ago
    Where are you getting this information? Plenty of "tech" people influence their friends and family with respect to what software/hardware to consider. My entire immediate family uses DuckDuckGo as their search. All of their (Mozilla) browsers have DDG set as the default. Not a complaint from anybody; DDG does a damn fine job.
Vinnl 7y ago
I wouldn't want to claim that strongly that they won't remove it if I were Mozilla - for all they know, Chrome might still come up with a proper alternative that satisfies the use cases of all blocking extensions, but also performs better. Obviously Firefox would then transition as well.

derefr 7y ago

Or, potentially, it's an equivocation because they want to give Google the appearance of maybe caving later (or at least the inability for Google to claim that they had the opposite appearance), while secretly hoping something changes such that they don't have to cave (and also, possibly, applying pressure below the radar to achieve that end.) Politics!

apazzolini 7y ago

I switched from Chrome to Firefox a couple of months ago when the Chrome adblocking changes were announced. I'll happily find something other than Firefox if it goes down the same route.

Endy 7y ago
Try out Pale Moon or Waterfox.

jerf 7y ago

I understand Google's motivation for nuking ad blockers, as well as their motivations for denying every which way that that is what they want to do under whatever security justifications they can bring up, even true ones. I don't see Mozilla's motivation to remove that at the moment. I mean, speaking for myself, I'd drop them both and follow a fork of the browser that lets uMatrix work, and that's not something I've considered very many times in the past 20 years. Control over what my browser actually connects to has become a top-3 feature concern for me. I was going to say "I suppose 'working' is technically more important to me", but then I mentally wargamed out whether I'd be willing to use a slightly nonfunctional browser to have uMatrix and noticed that I actually already put up with a slightly nonfunctional browser to use it, because uMatrix already breaks a number of sites until I do some whitelisting. Even if there's a security impact to extensions having too much access to the web request cycle, there's a security impact to them not having enough access to the web request, too.

diablerouge 7y ago
I think that's an important thing to remember - we can always fork it and move on if they choose to remove the blocking webrequest API. However, how long that fork can persist, remain secure and retain feature parity is an open question. Should Mozilla cave and the community fork be unpopular, Google will definitely have a monopoly on the browser space.
dannyw 7y ago
The majority of funding Mozilla’s comes from Google, including receiving a portion of all ad revenue through google search. A “adopt manifest v3 or we cut your funding in half” could be behind the scenes.

spinningslate 7y ago

And in case anyone from Mozilla is listening, this could well be existential for you. Right now, your pro-privacy stance is a principal factor in users choosing Firefox over Chrome. Follow Google - and all its shady practices - and you will lose a large chunk of those users. Many of them, to use current terminology, are "key influencers": technically savvy people who advise family and friends what to do. Lose them and the outlook is, I suspect, pretty grim. You're clever people. You'll know this. Google has a good few smart folk too (even if their motivation is questionable). It's easy to see this is difficult for you: Google is your primary funding source. Fail to comply with their wishes, and that funding might well disappear. As has been noted in other threads, the tension between privacy principles and funding is a huge threat. For the good of the open web, I desperately want a successful Mozilla, and a technically excellent Firefox at the forefront of a pro-privacy, anti-surveillance re-balancing of the internet. I don't doubt the difficulty in filling a $300M funding hole. I'd gladly pay $30 per year for a pro-privacy Firefox. Another 9,999,999 is a tall order. On the other hand, you have c250M users...

feanaro 7y ago
Since there is no visible way of leaving a +1 (or a +1000) on HN, I feel like I have to respond to this since it resonates so deeply with me. Particularly on account of funding, I know I would also gladly pay $30 per year for a privacy, freedom and power use oriented Firefox instead of this new direction they keep taking it in. And so would many of my acquintances. Perhaps there is merit to organizing a website for people to be able to pledge this.
mav3rick 7y ago
This tech people influencing friends and family lore has been disproven many times. No non tech user is using duck duck go.
- Nicksil 7y ago
  Where are you getting this information? Plenty of "tech" people influence their friends and family with respect to what software/hardware to consider. My entire immediate family uses DuckDuckGo as their search. All of their (Mozilla) browsers have DDG set as the default. Not a complaint from anybody; DDG does a damn fine job.

Vinnl 7y ago

I wouldn't want to claim that strongly that they won't remove it if I were Mozilla - for all they know, Chrome might still come up with a proper alternative that satisfies the use cases of all blocking extensions, but also performs better. Obviously Firefox would then transition as well.