3 ms·

> Manifest V3 is here only to break adblockers but it seems like it's trying to solve a real problem. Adblockers currently only work by having full access to ev

> Manifest V3 is here only to break adblockers but it seems like it's trying to solve a real problem. Adblockers currently only work by having full access to every tab, iframe, page, etc. Indeed, which is exactly why Safari said they moved to this model years ago.

rasz 6y ago
Apple moved in this direction because Apple is all about restricting you from running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place. They are in a war against general computing.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Apple moved in this direction because Apple is all about restricting you from running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place. This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. >They are in a war against general computing Well, general computing has many shortcomings that don't exist in computer as appliance. For some, the latter is better.
  - akalsz 6y ago
    > This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place".
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Yep. Like "speed limiters" in cars. We could also trust car drivers "when it comes to observing the speed limit", but in many cases we don't, do we? And that's a mechanical limit imposed on top of fines for speeding and so on... "But here they only hurt themselves" is not necessarily true. If you have family private data and they're stolen because you've installed a malicious extension, doesn't it also hurt your family? If your own data are then used to phish your friends, doesn't it also hurts them? >Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". Not really since: (a) you can run many kinds of code (JS, etc) still in your web browser, can you not? Just not extensions with extra capabilities for sniffing, etc. So "only thinks Apple sold you" is not really accurate. (b) the core reason is not profit, as the "Apple didn't sell you" part implies.
      - rasz 6y ago
        But thats the whole point. Neither Google V3 nor Safari prevents you from sniffing users traffic and exfiltrating data, all they do is hobble ability to successfully block most ads.
danShumway 6y ago
And as a result, Safari has some of the worst adblocking out of any of the major browsers. Safari gets pulled out fairly often as an example of why declarative APIs are fine for adblocking, but if you actually dig into what the adblocking ecosystem around Safari looks like, it turns out it's a pretty good example of why declarative adblocking isn't good enough. There are tons of hoops to jump through, the best adblockers on Safari are running separate desktop applications to communicate with their extension and bypass some of Apple's more arduous restrictions. Talk to the Adguard devs about whether Safari's API is sufficient on its own to make an effective adblocker. The only reason why Apple's move got less criticism than Google's is because comparatively not many people use Safari, and most of us don't really care what the extension ecosystem looks like on Safari.
- ameshkov 6y ago
  AdGuard dev here. Can confirm - it’s not sufficient. But the reason it got less criticism is a little different. Content blocking in Safari was never good, and content blocking API when it just appeared was a move forward. The problem is that it’s been five years and it hasn’t got any viable improvements. Manifest V3 in its current state is already way ahead of Safari. But how good will it be 5 or 10 years from now?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rasz 6y ago

Apple moved in this direction because Apple is all about restricting you from running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place. They are in a war against general computing.

coldtea 6y ago
>Apple moved in this direction because Apple is all about restricting you from running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place. This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. >They are in a war against general computing Well, general computing has many shortcomings that don't exist in computer as appliance. For some, the latter is better.
- akalsz 6y ago
  > This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place".
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Yep. Like "speed limiters" in cars. We could also trust car drivers "when it comes to observing the speed limit", but in many cases we don't, do we? And that's a mechanical limit imposed on top of fines for speeding and so on... "But here they only hurt themselves" is not necessarily true. If you have family private data and they're stolen because you've installed a malicious extension, doesn't it also hurt your family? If your own data are then used to phish your friends, doesn't it also hurts them? >Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". Not really since: (a) you can run many kinds of code (JS, etc) still in your web browser, can you not? Just not extensions with extra capabilities for sniffing, etc. So "only thinks Apple sold you" is not really accurate. (b) the core reason is not profit, as the "Apple didn't sell you" part implies.
    - rasz 6y ago
      But thats the whole point. Neither Google V3 nor Safari prevents you from sniffing users traffic and exfiltrating data, all they do is hobble ability to successfully block most ads.

danShumway 6y ago

And as a result, Safari has some of the worst adblocking out of any of the major browsers. Safari gets pulled out fairly often as an example of why declarative APIs are fine for adblocking, but if you actually dig into what the adblocking ecosystem around Safari looks like, it turns out it's a pretty good example of why declarative adblocking isn't good enough. There are tons of hoops to jump through, the best adblockers on Safari are running separate desktop applications to communicate with their extension and bypass some of Apple's more arduous restrictions. Talk to the Adguard devs about whether Safari's API is sufficient on its own to make an effective adblocker. The only reason why Apple's move got less criticism than Google's is because comparatively not many people use Safari, and most of us don't really care what the extension ecosystem looks like on Safari.

ameshkov 6y ago
AdGuard dev here. Can confirm - it’s not sufficient. But the reason it got less criticism is a little different. Content blocking in Safari was never good, and content blocking API when it just appeared was a move forward. The problem is that it’s been five years and it hasn’t got any viable improvements. Manifest V3 in its current state is already way ahead of Safari. But how good will it be 5 or 10 years from now?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]