3 ms·

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ > In the meantime, we will continue to add new capabilities

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ > In the meantime, we will continue to add new capabilities to Manifest V3 based on the needs and voices of our developer community. Even in the last few months, there have been a number of exciting expansions of the extension platform. I have yet to see where Chrome is explicitly telling anyone they plan to phase out support for adblockers, nor where they are making it clear that is their intention. V3 is not yet completed, and is actively being worked on. If they actually do disable adblockers then that is a different story.

Arnavion 5y ago
>I have yet to see where Chrome is explicitly telling anyone they plan to phase out support for adblockers, nor where they are making it clear that is their intention. That was never their intention, not what the uproar was about, so it's to be expected that you're not seeing any evidence of it. The problem with Manifest V3 is not that it disables adblockers; not sure where you got that idea from. The problem is that it severely restricts how effective they can be. Many of the things uBO does cannot be done in v3. That's what the uproar is about. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-456171375 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss... https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-873602429 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Again, these changes aren't taking place until 2023. They are still accepting new features. Yes, everyone is aware that the developer of uBlock threw a fit. It was all over the news, and it was portrayed by the media as Chrome is disabling adblock, because that is essentially the message from Raymond Hill at the time. I think it is good to be aware of these changes, and contribute feedback and try to get compatible or comparable APIs implemented. At no point has Google or Chromium said they are unwilling. If anything, it looked like a prime opportunity for them to scream fire when there was no fire.
rndgermandude 5y ago
>I have yet to see where Chrome is explicitly telling anyone they plan to phase out support for adblockers Why would they ever want to do that? It would be a PR nightmare if they came out and explicitly said "fuck you". Instead they opted to take away capabilities from their APIs with the result of severely limiting adblocker capabilities, under the guise that this improves security and performance, which is not entirely wrong, but at the same time hides the fact that there would have been easy enough alternatives that preserve the capabilities of adblockers and some other API users while making sure the security threats they stated they are concerned about can be prevented[0]. Yet they didn't even really look at what was proposed and insisted on crippling their API in a way it cripples adblockers. I can only conclude that improving security and performance is just one of the engineering goals of their solution, while the other (unstated) goal is to fuck with adblockers. [0] They were particularly worried about extensions being able to intercept requests, examine requests and exfiltrate sensitive data. One way this can be easily solved is by adding a special sandbox for request blocking that has no accessible output to the extension or anywhere else (no backchannel, no access to the network or file system). You can load scripts (and data) into it, but it may only ever talk to the browser itself during request handling. This breaks the "exfiltrate" part.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  They are still accepting proposals and the changes aren't being forced until 2023. I know everyone likes to think Google is always evil lately, but there is still a lot of time for the new API to be revised and improve on the features you mention. You can even make the suggestions yourself or work on the code to fix it.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >They are still accepting proposals V3 is finalized. And while they say they accept proposals for future changes, they already did not accept or even consider proposals in the timeline leading to V3. >changes aren't being forced until 2023 They pushed the timeline back, because of all the push back they got. And also, the deadline for new extensions using V2 is Jan 2022, so a few months from now. So >but there is still a lot of time for the new API to be revised and improve on the features you mention. Not true either, you have until Jan 2022, a few months from now, to spec and implement and roll out such a revised or new API. This is not going to happen. They had enough time to do all that when the issues were first raised, but didn't. They had enough time to do all this when the first serious proposals for better solutions were made, but they didn't. Why at this point I am wondering: will they ever? Sure, the already established extensions will get a little bit of a longer grace period where things would theoretically happen. That doesn't help you if you want to create something new, tho. >You can even make the suggestions yourself or work on the code to fix it. Have you ever tried to get code into chrome(ium)? That's hard enough by itself. Now try to get code in that affects something google considers important... and they consider this important at least now, for the mere fact it was "news". Trying to work with them is what gorhill did, and a lot of other people too, before he figured out they were set on going the cripple-adblockers route and sounded the alarms.

Arnavion 5y ago

>I have yet to see where Chrome is explicitly telling anyone they plan to phase out support for adblockers, nor where they are making it clear that is their intention. That was never their intention, not what the uproar was about, so it's to be expected that you're not seeing any evidence of it. The problem with Manifest V3 is not that it disables adblockers; not sure where you got that idea from. The problem is that it severely restricts how effective they can be. Many of the things uBO does cannot be done in v3. That's what the uproar is about. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-456171375 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss... https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-873602429 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...

encryptluks2 5y ago
Again, these changes aren't taking place until 2023. They are still accepting new features. Yes, everyone is aware that the developer of uBlock threw a fit. It was all over the news, and it was portrayed by the media as Chrome is disabling adblock, because that is essentially the message from Raymond Hill at the time. I think it is good to be aware of these changes, and contribute feedback and try to get compatible or comparable APIs implemented. At no point has Google or Chromium said they are unwilling. If anything, it looked like a prime opportunity for them to scream fire when there was no fire.

rndgermandude 5y ago

>I have yet to see where Chrome is explicitly telling anyone they plan to phase out support for adblockers Why would they ever want to do that? It would be a PR nightmare if they came out and explicitly said "fuck you". Instead they opted to take away capabilities from their APIs with the result of severely limiting adblocker capabilities, under the guise that this improves security and performance, which is not entirely wrong, but at the same time hides the fact that there would have been easy enough alternatives that preserve the capabilities of adblockers and some other API users while making sure the security threats they stated they are concerned about can be prevented[0]. Yet they didn't even really look at what was proposed and insisted on crippling their API in a way it cripples adblockers. I can only conclude that improving security and performance is just one of the engineering goals of their solution, while the other (unstated) goal is to fuck with adblockers. [0] They were particularly worried about extensions being able to intercept requests, examine requests and exfiltrate sensitive data. One way this can be easily solved is by adding a special sandbox for request blocking that has no accessible output to the extension or anywhere else (no backchannel, no access to the network or file system). You can load scripts (and data) into it, but it may only ever talk to the browser itself during request handling. This breaks the "exfiltrate" part.

encryptluks2 5y ago
They are still accepting proposals and the changes aren't being forced until 2023. I know everyone likes to think Google is always evil lately, but there is still a lot of time for the new API to be revised and improve on the features you mention. You can even make the suggestions yourself or work on the code to fix it.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >They are still accepting proposals V3 is finalized. And while they say they accept proposals for future changes, they already did not accept or even consider proposals in the timeline leading to V3. >changes aren't being forced until 2023 They pushed the timeline back, because of all the push back they got. And also, the deadline for new extensions using V2 is Jan 2022, so a few months from now. So >but there is still a lot of time for the new API to be revised and improve on the features you mention. Not true either, you have until Jan 2022, a few months from now, to spec and implement and roll out such a revised or new API. This is not going to happen. They had enough time to do all that when the issues were first raised, but didn't. They had enough time to do all this when the first serious proposals for better solutions were made, but they didn't. Why at this point I am wondering: will they ever? Sure, the already established extensions will get a little bit of a longer grace period where things would theoretically happen. That doesn't help you if you want to create something new, tho. >You can even make the suggestions yourself or work on the code to fix it. Have you ever tried to get code into chrome(ium)? That's hard enough by itself. Now try to get code in that affects something google considers important... and they consider this important at least now, for the mere fact it was "news". Trying to work with them is what gorhill did, and a lot of other people too, before he figured out they were set on going the cripple-adblockers route and sounded the alarms.