27 ms·

AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

340 points by kapsteur 4y ago

vbezhenar 4y ago
Are we going to lose ublock origin on chrome when v2 will be disabled?
- akaike 4y ago
  Unless they port it to v3, yes, it won’t work anymore.
  - slimypi 4y ago
    Jeeezuuuss! that will hurt, a lot.
    - jnsaff2 4y ago
      Firefox is not that bad. Honestly the multi-account containers alone merits the switch.
      - MaKey 4y ago
        I agree, this is a really useful feature.
      - EbNar 4y ago
      - XorNot 4y ago
        I don't get where "not that bad" is coming from with Firefox these days. Firefox is just plain good, and has been for a while.
        koenvdb 4y ago
        From my experience, almost every website doesn't feel as nice in Firefox as it does in Chrome. Ofcourse some of those sites are maintained by Google (YouTube).
        wccrawford 4y ago
        And some things don't even work. For instance, my dentist had a sign "rate us here on google" with a QR code. That code didn't work on my phone. I eventually figured out that it works fine in Chrome, but doesn't work in Firefox. In fact, there's no way to rate businesses on Google.com from Firefox on my phone. The links just aren't there, and going directly gives a 404. Everything works fine on Chrome. That's obviously done maliciously by Google, of course.
        tomxor 4y ago
        Chrome/chromium based, is worse than IE in this regard - because of Google specifically, we've moved from "viewed best in" to "only works in".
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
        taspeotis 4y ago
        I think Firefox is an important alternative to WebKit/Blink-based browsers. But as a web developer I semi-regularly butt up against bugs in it that have languished in Bugzilla since like, 2014, with absolutely no progress on them. I have dealt with two (maybe three?) bugs in Chrome ever and one of them was a pretty clear fuckup they rolled back within days.
        emn13 4y ago
        I've dealt with many nasty rendering bugs in chromium that were never addressed, from weirdness that just made rendering a bit ugly, to spec-incompliant layout (that also differed from other engines), to iframe-related stuff that left half of the frame completely white, to animation/transition related gotchas, to outright renderer crashes, including some that brought down the chromium wrapper process (which may have been security risks, but figuring that out isn't easy). And ditto for firefox. This is years ago by now, but my impression isn't that chromium doesn't have bugs nor that it fixes bugs promptly, but rather that all websites and web-toolkits necessarily are designed with chromium limitations in mind. That's certainly what I did - no point in releasing anything that doesn't work on chromium; that'll just get you laughed at and ignored. The chromium bugtracker too is full of ancient unresolved bugs, just like gecko's bugzilla: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=id https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=id, and I'm sure that if you wanted to you could find a ton of decade old bugs that leave you wondering how those weren't fixed by now. This just seems to be a fact of life with various browser engines. There are surely all kinds of more or less reasonable motivations to ignore those old bugs, but whatever the cause it's certainly the status quo.
      - bambax 4y ago
        It's excellent! I've been using it for three years now with zero problem.
    - lapinot 4y ago
      I use firefox so i don't know much about chrome vs chromium politics, but if the chromium people have one thing to do now, it would be to maintain manifest v2 in their fork..
      - foxhill 4y ago
        chromium people are chrome people. google provide chromium either as a literal requirement for compliance with some other open source licence, or as a vestige from the “don’t be evil” days.
      - tomxor 4y ago
        Unless something recently changed, Chromium is considered upstream for Google Chrome, not a fork... so you will see most engine level changes originate in Chromium, by google engineers. Maybe you are confusing it with de-googled-chromium et al?
        lapinot 4y ago
        Ah right, now i remember. Yes that would be de-googled-chromium then.
    - vegai_ 4y ago
      Meh, just use Firefox for general browsing and Chrome/ium for the one or two things that only work on that.
      - cube00 4y ago
        It's shocking that in 2022 there are still sites that (or have been forced) to only work in Chrome. Looking at you Google search results [1] (but I understand their motivation), however I do have one local company site that refuses to move beyond their loading splash in Firefox. I guess I should be thankful it's no where near as bad as the IE6 days where HTML standards were completely disrespected in the quest for more market share. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
        KronisLV 4y ago
        User agent spoofing seems like what should be done on the user's end in those cases, if it's not possible to avoid using such sites for whatever reason. Problems would begin once we'll eventually get Chrome-specific functionality or something that Mozilla won't implement due to a variety of concerns, thus simply breaking sites: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ Then we'll basically be back in the days of IE, except that this time Google will be the ones with the browser monopoly, if we're not already there somewhat - the majority of folks haven't even heard of Firefox.
        wccrawford 4y ago
        Didn't Google say it was going to make Chrome have the same generic user agent forever in the future? Seems like using that one will be the way to go once that happens.
        kurupt213 4y ago
        My experience is it’s more often proprietary web fronts for corporate microservices than WWW pages If Firefox won’t work, edge almost always will. I’m really trying not to download chrome again. I forgot chromium is an option. Is that not maintained by Google?
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Embrace, extend, extinguish.
  - cube00 4y ago
    It's not looking hopeful https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338
  - bambax 4y ago
    One can always block Chrome updates. It would be funny if this so-called "security" move resulted in a much worse security situation.
    - sbarre 4y ago
      Until Google's services refuse to work until you upgrade.. So this might work for some (and in that case why not just change browsers?) but I wouldn't assume that Google will allow this to be a valid and widespread tactic.
- drexlspivey 4y ago
  World's biggest ad company getting rid of ad-blockers, who could see that coming? > Chromium got its webRequest API at a time it was trying to gain market share against Firefox (Sep 2011), where Adblock Plus, Ghostery, Disconnect, NoScript, and other such extensions were the most or among the most popular extensions on Firefox. So the only reason they even implemented this browser standard was to gain market share and now that they are in the dominant position they yank it, getting rid of ad blockers. Straight out of the Microsoft playbook.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    Ah, the extinguish phase, of EEE.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Firefox did them a favor by trashing the extension ecosystem that had put the pressure on Google in the first place.
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns. Being able to customize UI doesn't lend itself to easy refactoring. In order to compete with Chrome most of XUL extensions had to go. Hyrum's law in practice.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        > Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns Isn't that the same concerns used in pushing Mv3?
        Ygg2 4y ago
        XUL was a legacy system and it was blocking many optimization/refactors. Does Mv2 really hold Chrome back?
      - 4y ago
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Probably, or it'll be nerfed to fuck. I'm sure someone will make a fork off Chromium and leave it enabled. Browser builders, this is your cue: if advertising is not your business, offer an ad blocker. Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default. Yeah. Firefox should ship with uBlock Origin by default too. They're almost doing that on mobile since uBlock Origin is one of few allowed extensions.
  - antonok 4y ago
    That's exactly what Brave is doing. Chromium fork with a built-in native adblocker that doesn't depend on MV2 at all, and plans to continue supporting MV2 even when it is removed from Chromium entirely.
- mekster 4y ago
  Haven't used adblocker extension for a while. I just have AdGuard Home on a VPS to be used with every device on the network and do DNS level blocking and all is clean including stopping trackers from non browser apps.
  - ameshkov 4y ago
    DNS-based solutions can't block everything since they're limited to blocking domains. But wait until we bring a content filtering proxy to AdGuard Home, this will be the day when you'll finally get clean pages and you won't need any extension at all for that.
    - TheSeeker11 4y ago
      As a Linux user, thoroughly looking forward to this. Not having an AG desktop application like Windows is a drag.
  - vbezhenar 4y ago
    I’m very curious about method to block YouTube ads with dns. I didn’t find a way when I tried.
bambax 4y ago
> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will frantically begin to search for an alternative; there are many: Firefox and Brave to mention just two. Giving a boost to alternative browsers can only be a good thing; and it may also, eventually, make Google rethink this policy.
- brightball 4y ago
  It’s got me thinking about selling my Google stock. A move like this feels a little bit desperate.
- Longhanks 4y ago
  I think you overestimate the role adblockers play for regular users. Most people not affiliated with IT in any way I've met actually don't use an adblocker or have forgotten that they in fact do and would not notice the change to Manifest v3. Also, most people care much more about "it simply works", and that is Chrome. Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's already a lot of popups like "this site works best in Chrome".
  - Multicomp 4y ago
    > nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's already a lot of popups like "this site works best in Chrome". User-agent sniffing[1] and it is a webdev smell. I acknowledge that this is true, but I admit being bummed that we didn't win the war to use web standards. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_sniffing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_sniffing
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    Firefox is faster than chrome and only doesn’t work on badly built pages and webapps (like intelex)
Multicomp 4y ago
It is such a bummer to me that Firefox is implementing MV3 and deprecating MV2[1]. Internet Explorer 6 never left, it just became Google Chrome*. Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. Edge? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Firefox? Technically a separate engine and in theory among the last hopes, but so sclerotic it follows Chrome in almost all of its decisions. (Can MV2 be kept as a stable basic-security-maintenance-only API? Probably not) Safari? Can be gone around on desktop (my grandparents use Chrome because of Google prompts), has a stranglehold on mobile, but that has its own problems, and likely once users can ~sideload~ install software (potentially from other app stores), there will be a Chrome surge on mobile, forcing manifest V3 over there too, and the ad trackers will win the war. Or maybe they already have? More likely, I personally am tiring of the cat and mouse game between the spyware makers and devs that fight for the users. [1] UPDATE: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi... PREVIOUSLY: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/06/08/manifest-v3-firefox-developer-preview-how-to-get-involved/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/06/08/manifest-v3-firef... * In the sense that one browser implementation, and not W3C or WHATWG web standards, drives the web browser market. Chrome is much more evergreen than IE.
- bambax 4y ago
  What you call "Chrome clones" are in fact based on Chromium, but aren't Chrome. The difference is not huge as they all use the same rendering engine, but appart from that they're free to do other things. Brave for instance comes with full-on adblock built-in.
- catach 4y ago
  Isn't this a better link for Firefox, since it covers their reasoning and where they're not following Chrome? https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...
  - Multicomp 4y ago
    Yes, this is. duck.com search didn't surface that one on my first SERP so will update my post to reflect. Thanks!
t6jvcereio 4y ago
So wait. What's wrong with ublock origin?
- zwaps 4y ago
  Nothing, but it won't work anymore on Chrome in a short while.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Nothing, except for that it may stop working in Chrom[e|ium] next year when Google kills the current standard for web extensions. There's been some work done on fixing this issue (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338) but the architecture of content blocking extensions will need to change to facilitate Google's new requirements.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    They don't have to. I think gorhill recognises it's simply unfeasible to produce an effective content blocker on MV3, and I hope he puts his foot down and doesn't take on the maintenance burden of an additional nerfed browser extension. If web devs want to make web experiences worse in Firefox by issuing warnings everywhere, then Firefox can even the score by having a useable ad-free experience.
dmos62 4y ago
Using an ad-company's browser has always been so fishy.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  It seems like Google has been at least as anticompetitive as MS and IE
- 93po 4y ago
  It's interesting they haven't cracked down on ad blockers more - I am positive it has cost them billions at minimum.
webmobdev 4y ago
I don't know if it is cartelisation (both Apple and Google have an ad division and it is in their interest to work together on some aspects of this business) or Google bribed Apple (through its ios search engine deal), but Safari webkit also has limitations in ad blocking through the content blocking API which Apple created for Safari. (See Explanation of the state of uBlock Origin (and other blockers) for Safari #158 - https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158?ysclid=l7g37dn0l024511076 https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158?ysclid=l7g3... ).
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Is it possible that Apple’s implementation uses less power and hence conserve battery life? Also, is it possible Apple’s implementation requires less trust in extension and is more private because no browsing information can exit? It is also possible for the above, and collusion to all simultaneously happen, and or Apple advancing their own ad business.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    It won't be lower battery if ads slip through (they do). It won't be more private if ads slip through, or if the whole web experience is degraded and users prefer native apps.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Think about it from a mathematical perspective: How much CPU time is actually spent evaluating ad blocker rules? It's going to be proportional to the number of HTTP requests you issue. On a good website the number of requests is in the dozens or a hundred tops per page load, on a bad website maybe it's in the low thousands. But that's it. Let's say you have 300000 rules (I think the actual number tends to be much lower than this), worst case even if you brute forced that, you're evaluating 300000 regexes maybe a thousand times. That'll take some time, but not that much time, because modern CPUs are really fast. It's simply implausible that an ad blocker could have a significant negative impact on battery life unless you wrote it in some sort of forth interpreter that was checking strings one byte at a time - compared to the rule evaluations happening once per request, you're rasterizing frames ~60 times a second and handling input events and timers and all of that stuff constantly. If you optimize the rules engine - which you can definitely do - you can skip evaluating most of those regexes, you can evaluate them in parallel, etc. You could start preparing the request and only gate the actual tcp packets on approval from the ad blocker. You could cache the approve/deny state for each URL so that the ad blocker overhead is only paid on first visit to a site. There are lots of ways to make this stuff super fast without breaking it, but Google and Apple don't want to do the work. People like the uBlock Origin author have already demonstrated in the past that their ad blockers are fast despite the severe limitations of current browser extension APIs. If browser vendors actually supported extension developers ad blockers could probably become faster. Instead they're attacking them and forcing people to move over to intentionally sabotaged APIs with limited feature sets and arguing that now things will be "faster" even though you're going to be wasting resources downloading a bunch of ads.
gorhill 4y ago
One of the stated goal of MV3 by Google[1] was to avoid extensions with broad permissions: > our new declarativeNetRequest API is designed to be a privacy-preserving method for extensions to block network requests without needing access to sensitive data This MV3-based AdGuard extension still requires a broad permission to "read or modify host data" on all sites[2]: "host_permissions": [ "<all_urls>" ], So what you have now is the same required permission to "read or modify host data" as with MV2, but with a network filtering engine capabilities gated by Google (an advertising company). We can't innovate anymore the filtering capabilities of our content blocker engines as we have been constantly doing over the years. For a recent example, there has been discussions lately with filter list maintainers of whether uBO should support AdGuard's proposed capability of being able to support pattern-matching for `domain=` filtering option[3] (uBO supports AdGuard lists). That sort of proposition is not possible to entertain with MV3 since only Google get to decide how the filtering engine will evolve, if at all. All content blocking issues will have to be resolved with the Google-controlled filtering engine, and left unaddressed if the solution can't be shoehorned in the declarativeNetRequest API. * * * [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2020/12/manifest-v3-now-available-on-m88-beta.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/12/manifest-v3-now-available-... [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/host_permissions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... [3] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/CoreLibs/issues/1550 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/CoreLibs/issues/1550 * * * Edit: removed stray `[` character.
- ameshkov 4y ago
  All true, and we (content blockers devs) were saying this all for years, since MV3 was first announced. MV3 brings very little (if any) privacy and security enhancements, this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. We'll now need to rely on Chrome team for implementing what we need. But they do it painfully slow or not do at all. Also, where will we get the new ideas if every browser follows that path? Take Safari for example, every little improvement that we requested [1] was inspired by what we already did in other browsers long ago. Anyways, a working content blocker on MV3 is possible. I even think a casual user won't feel much difference. But there is a big difference under the hood and to feel the consequences we have to wait a few years. [1]: https://bugs.webkit.org/ https://bugs.webkit.org/ (search for those reported by @adguard.com). Just a very small part of what we requested was implemented, content blocking is not a priority I guess, and it won't be a priority for Chrome.
wooque 4y ago
Just install Brave, its adblocker is natively implemented and not affected by Manifest V3 fiasco.
- mastazi 4y ago
  that's what Brave staff keep repeating but in the meantime all other extensions that need v2 are a pain to install, for example this one https://libredirect.github.io/ https://libredirect.github.io/ requires you to enable dev mode, load the extension and then apply any updates manually. They announced a Brave Extensions Store years ago and there are no news as of today. I'm actually thinking to go back to Firefox because of this.
  - aaaddaaaaa1112 4y ago
  - BrendanEich 4y ago
    We never announced an extension store. I said we'd support uBO and uMatrix at least, and we're discussing that with their maintainers now.
    - mastazi 4y ago
      > We never announced an extension store. OK, but IMHO that makes the situation worse, not better (and by the way, some of your employees did say publicly that work was being done towards it)
lapcat 4y ago
Manifest v3 is going to be a slaughter. Extension developers have known the slaughter was coming, but Chrome users are going to be taken by surprise. Many free Chrome extensions aren't going to get updated at all for v3, because it's too much work. Many aren't going to work right anymore because of the new restrictions. And ad blocking aside, v3 seems like a nightmare in general, and still quite buggy. The service workers vs. background script issue discussed by AdGuard will affect many or most extensions. I've been postponing the migration of my extensions to v3 for as long as possible. One extension should be fine, but the other one... I'm afraid of what that's going to be like.
- dspillett 4y ago
  > but Chrome users are going to be taken by surprise. Many free Chrome extensions aren't going to get updated at all for v3, because it's too much work On one of the occasions I flipped from mostly Firefox to mostly Chrome/Chromium¹ was due to significant changes to add-ons – and an add-on that was one of my significant points for friction stopping me move over more was one that didn't get updated immediately². But I think many people will blame the add-ons, and just stick around & complain instead of moving away from the source of the problem. The many dozens of us who will move, not matter how loudly we do so, simply won't be important enough in the grand scheme of things for Google to care. ---- [1] this happens every few years² as one or the other irritates me in various ways [2] I'm currently long overdue a move towards Firefox, maybe V3 will be the final push this time around [3] in fact, for some time IIRC, by the time a new version appeared I no longer needed it
- ameshkov 4y ago
  > The service workers vs. background script issue discussed by AdGuard will affect many or most extensions. This is so true. It is often overlooked, but the root problem of Manifest V3 is not declarativeNetRequest, but this service worker move. Firefox and Safari implemented an alternative to them so there's a chance. Google proposed a different solution (called "Offscreen documents") which is also not too bad, but I doubt they'll implement it by the January deadline.
  - 4y ago
titaniczero 4y ago
Does anyone know what is Edge's take on MV3? Will they just leave it untouched and obey or do they have alternative paths planned for adblockling like Brave (In addition to the native blocker, Brendan Eich also said that they will "put back the lost functionality for uBO, uMatrix and other legit extensions" [1]). I have a feeling that Edge will become mainstream in the near future because it is the default browser on Windows (getting IE monopolistic vibes again!) and people is using and even loving it. I think both Edge and Chrome will decide the future for the web. Firefox and Brave, unfortunately, are not mainstream enough to make their decisions count. [1] https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1134141335881912320 https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1134141335881912320
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  Funny how the only browsers that matter are the ones shipped by default by OS vendors... almost like the whole Windows/IE antitrust action was for show. Or I guess the OS vendors realized being an oligopoly is a good workaround for dated antitrust policy.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > antitrust action was for show. People often forget the US underwent an administrative change between the judgement and enforcement. Microsoft spent a lot of "think tank" money on influencing the new regimes enforcement mentality, not only on their own issue, but on monopolies in general. It was, from my recollection, definitely not for show.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      One reason people forget is that the Department of Justice announced the settlement (wrist slap) with Microsoft literally a few days before the 9/11 attacks, and so the case was wiped from the news along with everything else except 9/11. (I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just that the public never had a chance to be angry about the settlement.)
- ameshkov 4y ago
skizm 4y ago
These extension changes aren't coming to Firefox, right? So uBO on Firefox is still the best desktop browser adblocker at the moment, right?
- daveidol 4y ago
  Correct. Firefox is going to support Manifest V3 but with the old content blocking APIs from V2 still intact.
markstos 4y ago
I’m curious how the performance of the new AdGuard extension has changed.
- ameshkov 4y ago
  It's worse than it was and the reason for that is not the declarativeNetRequest, but replacing background page with a service worker. You see, now extensions are supposed to do background work in an ephemeral service worker. This service worker lifetime is very short (up to 5 minutes, then it's getting killed forcibly). So it's constantly getting killed and waked back up. Waking up includes doing some initialization which consumes additional cpu cycles. The situation will improve when Google implements the alternative to service worker (so-called "Offscreen documents"), but no one knows when exactly this will happen.
Havoc 4y ago
Firefox seems pretty much on par with chrome these days and FF seems to win out on detection rates anyway so not sure why I'd want this combo? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... Does anyone has stats of adguard vs ublock by chance?
- jacooper 4y ago
  Firefox on android is horrible. Full of bugs and slow downs.
  - webstrand 4y ago
    I use it exclusively, I'm quite happy with it personally. I do wish they allowed more than just a few specific extensions to work, though.
  - LarryDarrell 4y ago
    I use it with uBlock on a $250 "budget" Android phone and it's as fast as Chrome. The last time I remember Firefox being slow on Android was when I was running it on a ZTE phone running FirefoxOS. The only bugs I find belong to websites, which I don't count against Firefox. I used to have to support IE8... if the site broke it was my responsibility, not the browser.
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    How recently have you used it? It works great for me
  - cypress66 4y ago
    Also it has a non native scroll behavior that is awful and a deal breaker to me.
  - yibers 4y ago
    I use Firefox on Android with uBlock origin for blocking ads and kagi for search. This Google (albeit Android is Google) free browsing works extremely well for me.
ghoward 4y ago
I think @cycomaniac [1] is right. We, as developers, did this. We gave Google too much power. I've just switched to Firefox. I hope they don't go off the rails here, but I fear they will with bribes from Google. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32650136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32650136
nfriedly 4y ago
Wow, that whole article and not a single mention of Firefox! Firefox still supports Manifest V2, which allows for more efficient and accurate blocking of advertising. (Among other things.)
- ehsankia 4y ago
  Because that's off topic? I'm tired of seeing every single thread about MV3 turn into "Switch to Firefox". Yes, we know about that obvious solution, it's been shouted ad nauseum, I'm interested to see and hear about how ad blockers will work on MV3, not the existing alternative we've already heard about a billion times. Just look at this very thread, every other comment is just about Firefox and not the content of the post itself.
  - nfriedly 4y ago
    Sure, I'm "preaching to the quior" here, but given Firefox's current market share, I'm not sure we've gotten the word out much beyond our circle. The article mentioned Safari a couple of times, I don't see why the fact that Firefox will support both V2 and V3 indefinitely doesn't deserve a single mention. Moreover, manifest V3 was essentially a massive middle finger from Google to everyone else (except advertisers), and it feels almost dishonest to discuss it wothout mentioning that there are better options out there.
    - ehsankia 4y ago
      > I'm not sure we've gotten the word out much beyond our circle I can guarantee you that the people that need to be converter won't be reading this article, any more than they will be visiting HN. > The article mentioned Safari a couple of times Hmm, I only see it mentioned once, and it makes sense in context, because Safari suffers from the same Declarative API issue (they actually did it long before chrome did). > it feels almost dishonest to discuss it wothout mentioning that there are better options out there Again, that discussion has been had ad nauseum, nothings being contributed by mentioning it again.
    - willlma 4y ago
conschy 4y ago
Correction: Analytics & Ad Blocker by Globemallow.io https://globemallow.io/ https://globemallow.io/ was the first Manifest v3 Ad Block extension. I first published on 06/22/2022. Last night actually I asked if AdGuard would want to license the software, and sent them a link to my extension. They are aware they weren't the first, and made this post after knowing it.
- phunehehe0 4y ago
  This is interesting if true. How can people verify that your extension is compatible with Manifest V3? I can see on the Chrome Web Store that the latest version of your extension was published before the latest version of AdGuard (August 23, 2022 vs August 30, 2022) so there's that.
  - conschy 4y ago
    You can add a Chrome Source Code Viewer. I like this one. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension-source-v/jifpbeccnghkjeaalbbjmodiffmgedin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension-s... Then look in the Manifest.json for manifest_version. Here's the Twitter showing the timeline: https://twitter.com/GlobeMallow_io https://twitter.com/GlobeMallow_io The best part is AdGuard is still running manifest v2.
- 93po 4y ago
  Maybe their "technically" perspective is that they built theirs before you built yours. Or they're assuming they did. Even though you published first. It didn't say theirs was the first to be published, just the first to be built
unethical_ban 4y ago
I have no clue what Manifest V3 is, and more importantly, why Mozilla or anyone except Chrome and Chrome extension developers need to care. It sounds like it is the extension API and process manager for Chrome. In what ways would an end user or website owner notice or care about this change, other than their extensions not working? How does it change default behavior?
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  It gives extension developers less control and flexibility, making some features more difficult or simply impossible. Notably, it nerfs functionality that ad blockers rely on, so the suspicion is that's pretty much the only reason the change is being made. This will impact you because your ad blocker will suddenly not do as good a job blocking ads, or be more cumbersome to use. The upside is some poorly behaved extensions will have less impact on browser performance.

340 points by kapsteur 4y ago

vbezhenar 4y ago

Are we going to lose ublock origin on chrome when v2 will be disabled?

akaike 4y ago
Unless they port it to v3, yes, it won’t work anymore.
- slimypi 4y ago
  Jeeezuuuss! that will hurt, a lot.
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    Firefox is not that bad. Honestly the multi-account containers alone merits the switch.
    - MaKey 4y ago
      I agree, this is a really useful feature.
    - EbNar 4y ago
    - XorNot 4y ago
      I don't get where "not that bad" is coming from with Firefox these days. Firefox is just plain good, and has been for a while.
      - koenvdb 4y ago
        From my experience, almost every website doesn't feel as nice in Firefox as it does in Chrome. Ofcourse some of those sites are maintained by Google (YouTube).
        wccrawford 4y ago
        And some things don't even work. For instance, my dentist had a sign "rate us here on google" with a QR code. That code didn't work on my phone. I eventually figured out that it works fine in Chrome, but doesn't work in Firefox. In fact, there's no way to rate businesses on Google.com from Firefox on my phone. The links just aren't there, and going directly gives a 404. Everything works fine on Chrome. That's obviously done maliciously by Google, of course.
        tomxor 4y ago
        Chrome/chromium based, is worse than IE in this regard - because of Google specifically, we've moved from "viewed best in" to "only works in".
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
      - taspeotis 4y ago
        I think Firefox is an important alternative to WebKit/Blink-based browsers. But as a web developer I semi-regularly butt up against bugs in it that have languished in Bugzilla since like, 2014, with absolutely no progress on them. I have dealt with two (maybe three?) bugs in Chrome ever and one of them was a pretty clear fuckup they rolled back within days.
        emn13 4y ago
        I've dealt with many nasty rendering bugs in chromium that were never addressed, from weirdness that just made rendering a bit ugly, to spec-incompliant layout (that also differed from other engines), to iframe-related stuff that left half of the frame completely white, to animation/transition related gotchas, to outright renderer crashes, including some that brought down the chromium wrapper process (which may have been security risks, but figuring that out isn't easy). And ditto for firefox. This is years ago by now, but my impression isn't that chromium doesn't have bugs nor that it fixes bugs promptly, but rather that all websites and web-toolkits necessarily are designed with chromium limitations in mind. That's certainly what I did - no point in releasing anything that doesn't work on chromium; that'll just get you laughed at and ignored. The chromium bugtracker too is full of ancient unresolved bugs, just like gecko's bugzilla: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=id https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=id, and I'm sure that if you wanted to you could find a ton of decade old bugs that leave you wondering how those weren't fixed by now. This just seems to be a fact of life with various browser engines. There are surely all kinds of more or less reasonable motivations to ignore those old bugs, but whatever the cause it's certainly the status quo.
    - bambax 4y ago
      It's excellent! I've been using it for three years now with zero problem.
  - lapinot 4y ago
    I use firefox so i don't know much about chrome vs chromium politics, but if the chromium people have one thing to do now, it would be to maintain manifest v2 in their fork..
    - foxhill 4y ago
      chromium people are chrome people. google provide chromium either as a literal requirement for compliance with some other open source licence, or as a vestige from the “don’t be evil” days.
    - tomxor 4y ago
      Unless something recently changed, Chromium is considered upstream for Google Chrome, not a fork... so you will see most engine level changes originate in Chromium, by google engineers. Maybe you are confusing it with de-googled-chromium et al?
      - lapinot 4y ago
        Ah right, now i remember. Yes that would be de-googled-chromium then.
  - vegai_ 4y ago
    Meh, just use Firefox for general browsing and Chrome/ium for the one or two things that only work on that.
    - cube00 4y ago
      It's shocking that in 2022 there are still sites that (or have been forced) to only work in Chrome. Looking at you Google search results [1] (but I understand their motivation), however I do have one local company site that refuses to move beyond their loading splash in Firefox. I guess I should be thankful it's no where near as bad as the IE6 days where HTML standards were completely disrespected in the quest for more market share. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
      - KronisLV 4y ago
        User agent spoofing seems like what should be done on the user's end in those cases, if it's not possible to avoid using such sites for whatever reason. Problems would begin once we'll eventually get Chrome-specific functionality or something that Mozilla won't implement due to a variety of concerns, thus simply breaking sites: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ Then we'll basically be back in the days of IE, except that this time Google will be the ones with the browser monopoly, if we're not already there somewhat - the majority of folks haven't even heard of Firefox.
        wccrawford 4y ago
        Didn't Google say it was going to make Chrome have the same generic user agent forever in the future? Seems like using that one will be the way to go once that happens.
      - kurupt213 4y ago
        My experience is it’s more often proprietary web fronts for corporate microservices than WWW pages If Firefox won’t work, edge almost always will. I’m really trying not to download chrome again. I forgot chromium is an option. Is that not maintained by Google?
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Embrace, extend, extinguish.
- cube00 4y ago
  It's not looking hopeful https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338
- bambax 4y ago
  One can always block Chrome updates. It would be funny if this so-called "security" move resulted in a much worse security situation.
  - sbarre 4y ago
    Until Google's services refuse to work until you upgrade.. So this might work for some (and in that case why not just change browsers?) but I wouldn't assume that Google will allow this to be a valid and widespread tactic.
drexlspivey 4y ago
World's biggest ad company getting rid of ad-blockers, who could see that coming? > Chromium got its webRequest API at a time it was trying to gain market share against Firefox (Sep 2011), where Adblock Plus, Ghostery, Disconnect, NoScript, and other such extensions were the most or among the most popular extensions on Firefox. So the only reason they even implemented this browser standard was to gain market share and now that they are in the dominant position they yank it, getting rid of ad blockers. Straight out of the Microsoft playbook.
- Ygg2 4y ago
  Ah, the extinguish phase, of EEE.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Firefox did them a favor by trashing the extension ecosystem that had put the pressure on Google in the first place.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns. Being able to customize UI doesn't lend itself to easy refactoring. In order to compete with Chrome most of XUL extensions had to go. Hyrum's law in practice.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        > Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns Isn't that the same concerns used in pushing Mv3?
        Ygg2 4y ago
        XUL was a legacy system and it was blocking many optimization/refactors. Does Mv2 really hold Chrome back?
    - 4y ago
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Probably, or it'll be nerfed to fuck. I'm sure someone will make a fork off Chromium and leave it enabled. Browser builders, this is your cue: if advertising is not your business, offer an ad blocker. Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default. Yeah. Firefox should ship with uBlock Origin by default too. They're almost doing that on mobile since uBlock Origin is one of few allowed extensions.
- antonok 4y ago
  That's exactly what Brave is doing. Chromium fork with a built-in native adblocker that doesn't depend on MV2 at all, and plans to continue supporting MV2 even when it is removed from Chromium entirely.
mekster 4y ago
Haven't used adblocker extension for a while. I just have AdGuard Home on a VPS to be used with every device on the network and do DNS level blocking and all is clean including stopping trackers from non browser apps.
- ameshkov 4y ago
  DNS-based solutions can't block everything since they're limited to blocking domains. But wait until we bring a content filtering proxy to AdGuard Home, this will be the day when you'll finally get clean pages and you won't need any extension at all for that.
  - TheSeeker11 4y ago
    As a Linux user, thoroughly looking forward to this. Not having an AG desktop application like Windows is a drag.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  I’m very curious about method to block YouTube ads with dns. I didn’t find a way when I tried.

bambax 4y ago

> By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. They shouldn't do this IMHO. Manifest V3 is a horrible attempt to kill adblocking (under the banner of "security", as always). But, the web is completely unusable without adblocking. If there are no more (effective) adblockers for Chrome, users will frantically begin to search for an alternative; there are many: Firefox and Brave to mention just two. Giving a boost to alternative browsers can only be a good thing; and it may also, eventually, make Google rethink this policy.

brightball 4y ago
It’s got me thinking about selling my Google stock. A move like this feels a little bit desperate.
Longhanks 4y ago
I think you overestimate the role adblockers play for regular users. Most people not affiliated with IT in any way I've met actually don't use an adblocker or have forgotten that they in fact do and would not notice the change to Manifest v3. Also, most people care much more about "it simply works", and that is Chrome. Firefox is neither preinstalled nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's already a lot of popups like "this site works best in Chrome".
- Multicomp 4y ago
  > nor as compatible as Chrome (nor as fast or user friendly). There's already a lot of popups like "this site works best in Chrome". User-agent sniffing[1] and it is a webdev smell. I acknowledge that this is true, but I admit being bummed that we didn't win the war to use web standards. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_sniffing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_sniffing
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Firefox is faster than chrome and only doesn’t work on badly built pages and webapps (like intelex)

Multicomp 4y ago

It is such a bummer to me that Firefox is implementing MV3 and deprecating MV2[1]. Internet Explorer 6 never left, it just became Google Chrome*. Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. Edge? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Firefox? Technically a separate engine and in theory among the last hopes, but so sclerotic it follows Chrome in almost all of its decisions. (Can MV2 be kept as a stable basic-security-maintenance-only API? Probably not) Safari? Can be gone around on desktop (my grandparents use Chrome because of Google prompts), has a stranglehold on mobile, but that has its own problems, and likely once users can ~sideload~ install software (potentially from other app stores), there will be a Chrome surge on mobile, forcing manifest V3 over there too, and the ad trackers will win the war. Or maybe they already have? More likely, I personally am tiring of the cat and mouse game between the spyware makers and devs that fight for the users. [1] UPDATE: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi... PREVIOUSLY: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/06/08/manifest-v3-firefox-developer-preview-how-to-get-involved/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/06/08/manifest-v3-firef... * In the sense that one browser implementation, and not W3C or WHATWG web standards, drives the web browser market. Chrome is much more evergreen than IE.

bambax 4y ago
What you call "Chrome clones" are in fact based on Chromium, but aren't Chrome. The difference is not huge as they all use the same rendering engine, but appart from that they're free to do other things. Brave for instance comes with full-on adblock built-in.
catach 4y ago
Isn't this a better link for Firefox, since it covers their reasoning and where they're not following Chrome? https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...
- Multicomp 4y ago
  Yes, this is. duck.com search didn't surface that one on my first SERP so will update my post to reflect. Thanks!

t6jvcereio 4y ago

So wait. What's wrong with ublock origin?

zwaps 4y ago
Nothing, but it won't work anymore on Chrome in a short while.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Nothing, except for that it may stop working in Chrom[e|ium] next year when Google kills the current standard for web extensions. There's been some work done on fixing this issue (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338) but the architecture of content blocking extensions will need to change to facilitate Google's new requirements.
- ajvs 4y ago
  They don't have to. I think gorhill recognises it's simply unfeasible to produce an effective content blocker on MV3, and I hope he puts his foot down and doesn't take on the maintenance burden of an additional nerfed browser extension. If web devs want to make web experiences worse in Firefox by issuing warnings everywhere, then Firefox can even the score by having a useable ad-free experience.

dmos62 4y ago

Using an ad-company's browser has always been so fishy.

kurupt213 4y ago
It seems like Google has been at least as anticompetitive as MS and IE
93po 4y ago
It's interesting they haven't cracked down on ad blockers more - I am positive it has cost them billions at minimum.

webmobdev 4y ago

I don't know if it is cartelisation (both Apple and Google have an ad division and it is in their interest to work together on some aspects of this business) or Google bribed Apple (through its ios search engine deal), but Safari webkit also has limitations in ad blocking through the content blocking API which Apple created for Safari. (See Explanation of the state of uBlock Origin (and other blockers) for Safari #158 - https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158?ysclid=l7g37dn0l024511076 https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158?ysclid=l7g3... ).

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Is it possible that Apple’s implementation uses less power and hence conserve battery life? Also, is it possible Apple’s implementation requires less trust in extension and is more private because no browsing information can exit? It is also possible for the above, and collusion to all simultaneously happen, and or Apple advancing their own ad business.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  It won't be lower battery if ads slip through (they do). It won't be more private if ads slip through, or if the whole web experience is degraded and users prefer native apps.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Think about it from a mathematical perspective: How much CPU time is actually spent evaluating ad blocker rules? It's going to be proportional to the number of HTTP requests you issue. On a good website the number of requests is in the dozens or a hundred tops per page load, on a bad website maybe it's in the low thousands. But that's it. Let's say you have 300000 rules (I think the actual number tends to be much lower than this), worst case even if you brute forced that, you're evaluating 300000 regexes maybe a thousand times. That'll take some time, but not that much time, because modern CPUs are really fast. It's simply implausible that an ad blocker could have a significant negative impact on battery life unless you wrote it in some sort of forth interpreter that was checking strings one byte at a time - compared to the rule evaluations happening once per request, you're rasterizing frames ~60 times a second and handling input events and timers and all of that stuff constantly. If you optimize the rules engine - which you can definitely do - you can skip evaluating most of those regexes, you can evaluate them in parallel, etc. You could start preparing the request and only gate the actual tcp packets on approval from the ad blocker. You could cache the approve/deny state for each URL so that the ad blocker overhead is only paid on first visit to a site. There are lots of ways to make this stuff super fast without breaking it, but Google and Apple don't want to do the work. People like the uBlock Origin author have already demonstrated in the past that their ad blockers are fast despite the severe limitations of current browser extension APIs. If browser vendors actually supported extension developers ad blockers could probably become faster. Instead they're attacking them and forcing people to move over to intentionally sabotaged APIs with limited feature sets and arguing that now things will be "faster" even though you're going to be wasting resources downloading a bunch of ads.

gorhill 4y ago

One of the stated goal of MV3 by Google[1] was to avoid extensions with broad permissions: > our new declarativeNetRequest API is designed to be a privacy-preserving method for extensions to block network requests without needing access to sensitive data This MV3-based AdGuard extension still requires a broad permission to "read or modify host data" on all sites[2]: "host_permissions": [ "<all_urls>" ], So what you have now is the same required permission to "read or modify host data" as with MV2, but with a network filtering engine capabilities gated by Google (an advertising company). We can't innovate anymore the filtering capabilities of our content blocker engines as we have been constantly doing over the years. For a recent example, there has been discussions lately with filter list maintainers of whether uBO should support AdGuard's proposed capability of being able to support pattern-matching for `domain=` filtering option[3] (uBO supports AdGuard lists). That sort of proposition is not possible to entertain with MV3 since only Google get to decide how the filtering engine will evolve, if at all. All content blocking issues will have to be resolved with the Google-controlled filtering engine, and left unaddressed if the solution can't be shoehorned in the declarativeNetRequest API. * * * [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2020/12/manifest-v3-now-available-on-m88-beta.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/12/manifest-v3-now-available-... [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/host_permissions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... [3] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/CoreLibs/issues/1550 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/CoreLibs/issues/1550 * * * Edit: removed stray `[` character.

ameshkov 4y ago
All true, and we (content blockers devs) were saying this all for years, since MV3 was first announced. MV3 brings very little (if any) privacy and security enhancements, this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. We'll now need to rely on Chrome team for implementing what we need. But they do it painfully slow or not do at all. Also, where will we get the new ideas if every browser follows that path? Take Safari for example, every little improvement that we requested [1] was inspired by what we already did in other browsers long ago. Anyways, a working content blocker on MV3 is possible. I even think a casual user won't feel much difference. But there is a big difference under the hood and to feel the consequences we have to wait a few years. [1]: https://bugs.webkit.org/ https://bugs.webkit.org/ (search for those reported by @adguard.com). Just a very small part of what we requested was implemented, content blocking is not a priority I guess, and it won't be a priority for Chrome.

wooque 4y ago

Just install Brave, its adblocker is natively implemented and not affected by Manifest V3 fiasco.

mastazi 4y ago
that's what Brave staff keep repeating but in the meantime all other extensions that need v2 are a pain to install, for example this one https://libredirect.github.io/ https://libredirect.github.io/ requires you to enable dev mode, load the extension and then apply any updates manually. They announced a Brave Extensions Store years ago and there are no news as of today. I'm actually thinking to go back to Firefox because of this.
- aaaddaaaaa1112 4y ago
- BrendanEich 4y ago
  We never announced an extension store. I said we'd support uBO and uMatrix at least, and we're discussing that with their maintainers now.
  - mastazi 4y ago
    > We never announced an extension store. OK, but IMHO that makes the situation worse, not better (and by the way, some of your employees did say publicly that work was being done towards it)

lapcat 4y ago

Manifest v3 is going to be a slaughter. Extension developers have known the slaughter was coming, but Chrome users are going to be taken by surprise. Many free Chrome extensions aren't going to get updated at all for v3, because it's too much work. Many aren't going to work right anymore because of the new restrictions. And ad blocking aside, v3 seems like a nightmare in general, and still quite buggy. The service workers vs. background script issue discussed by AdGuard will affect many or most extensions. I've been postponing the migration of my extensions to v3 for as long as possible. One extension should be fine, but the other one... I'm afraid of what that's going to be like.

dspillett 4y ago
> but Chrome users are going to be taken by surprise. Many free Chrome extensions aren't going to get updated at all for v3, because it's too much work On one of the occasions I flipped from mostly Firefox to mostly Chrome/Chromium¹ was due to significant changes to add-ons – and an add-on that was one of my significant points for friction stopping me move over more was one that didn't get updated immediately². But I think many people will blame the add-ons, and just stick around & complain instead of moving away from the source of the problem. The many dozens of us who will move, not matter how loudly we do so, simply won't be important enough in the grand scheme of things for Google to care. ---- [1] this happens every few years² as one or the other irritates me in various ways [2] I'm currently long overdue a move towards Firefox, maybe V3 will be the final push this time around [3] in fact, for some time IIRC, by the time a new version appeared I no longer needed it
ameshkov 4y ago
> The service workers vs. background script issue discussed by AdGuard will affect many or most extensions. This is so true. It is often overlooked, but the root problem of Manifest V3 is not declarativeNetRequest, but this service worker move. Firefox and Safari implemented an alternative to them so there's a chance. Google proposed a different solution (called "Offscreen documents") which is also not too bad, but I doubt they'll implement it by the January deadline.
- 4y ago

titaniczero 4y ago

Does anyone know what is Edge's take on MV3? Will they just leave it untouched and obey or do they have alternative paths planned for adblockling like Brave (In addition to the native blocker, Brendan Eich also said that they will "put back the lost functionality for uBO, uMatrix and other legit extensions" [1]). I have a feeling that Edge will become mainstream in the near future because it is the default browser on Windows (getting IE monopolistic vibes again!) and people is using and even loving it. I think both Edge and Chrome will decide the future for the web. Firefox and Brave, unfortunately, are not mainstream enough to make their decisions count. [1] https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1134141335881912320 https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1134141335881912320

CameronNemo 4y ago
Funny how the only browsers that matter are the ones shipped by default by OS vendors... almost like the whole Windows/IE antitrust action was for show. Or I guess the OS vendors realized being an oligopoly is a good workaround for dated antitrust policy.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > antitrust action was for show. People often forget the US underwent an administrative change between the judgement and enforcement. Microsoft spent a lot of "think tank" money on influencing the new regimes enforcement mentality, not only on their own issue, but on monopolies in general. It was, from my recollection, definitely not for show.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    One reason people forget is that the Department of Justice announced the settlement (wrist slap) with Microsoft literally a few days before the 9/11 attacks, and so the case was wiped from the news along with everything else except 9/11. (I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just that the public never had a chance to be angry about the settlement.)
ameshkov 4y ago

skizm 4y ago

These extension changes aren't coming to Firefox, right? So uBO on Firefox is still the best desktop browser adblocker at the moment, right?

daveidol 4y ago
Correct. Firefox is going to support Manifest V3 but with the old content blocking APIs from V2 still intact.

markstos 4y ago

I’m curious how the performance of the new AdGuard extension has changed.

ameshkov 4y ago
It's worse than it was and the reason for that is not the declarativeNetRequest, but replacing background page with a service worker. You see, now extensions are supposed to do background work in an ephemeral service worker. This service worker lifetime is very short (up to 5 minutes, then it's getting killed forcibly). So it's constantly getting killed and waked back up. Waking up includes doing some initialization which consumes additional cpu cycles. The situation will improve when Google implements the alternative to service worker (so-called "Offscreen documents"), but no one knows when exactly this will happen.

Havoc 4y ago

Firefox seems pretty much on par with chrome these days and FF seems to win out on detection rates anyway so not sure why I'd want this combo? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... Does anyone has stats of adguard vs ublock by chance?

jacooper 4y ago
Firefox on android is horrible. Full of bugs and slow downs.
- webstrand 4y ago
  I use it exclusively, I'm quite happy with it personally. I do wish they allowed more than just a few specific extensions to work, though.
- LarryDarrell 4y ago
  I use it with uBlock on a $250 "budget" Android phone and it's as fast as Chrome. The last time I remember Firefox being slow on Android was when I was running it on a ZTE phone running FirefoxOS. The only bugs I find belong to websites, which I don't count against Firefox. I used to have to support IE8... if the site broke it was my responsibility, not the browser.
- Melatonic 4y ago
  How recently have you used it? It works great for me
- cypress66 4y ago
  Also it has a non native scroll behavior that is awful and a deal breaker to me.
- yibers 4y ago
  I use Firefox on Android with uBlock origin for blocking ads and kagi for search. This Google (albeit Android is Google) free browsing works extremely well for me.

ghoward 4y ago

I think @cycomaniac [1] is right. We, as developers, did this. We gave Google too much power. I've just switched to Firefox. I hope they don't go off the rails here, but I fear they will with bribes from Google. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32650136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32650136

nfriedly 4y ago

Wow, that whole article and not a single mention of Firefox! Firefox still supports Manifest V2, which allows for more efficient and accurate blocking of advertising. (Among other things.)

ehsankia 4y ago
Because that's off topic? I'm tired of seeing every single thread about MV3 turn into "Switch to Firefox". Yes, we know about that obvious solution, it's been shouted ad nauseum, I'm interested to see and hear about how ad blockers will work on MV3, not the existing alternative we've already heard about a billion times. Just look at this very thread, every other comment is just about Firefox and not the content of the post itself.
- nfriedly 4y ago
  Sure, I'm "preaching to the quior" here, but given Firefox's current market share, I'm not sure we've gotten the word out much beyond our circle. The article mentioned Safari a couple of times, I don't see why the fact that Firefox will support both V2 and V3 indefinitely doesn't deserve a single mention. Moreover, manifest V3 was essentially a massive middle finger from Google to everyone else (except advertisers), and it feels almost dishonest to discuss it wothout mentioning that there are better options out there.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    > I'm not sure we've gotten the word out much beyond our circle I can guarantee you that the people that need to be converter won't be reading this article, any more than they will be visiting HN. > The article mentioned Safari a couple of times Hmm, I only see it mentioned once, and it makes sense in context, because Safari suffers from the same Declarative API issue (they actually did it long before chrome did). > it feels almost dishonest to discuss it wothout mentioning that there are better options out there Again, that discussion has been had ad nauseum, nothings being contributed by mentioning it again.
  - willlma 4y ago

conschy 4y ago

Correction: Analytics & Ad Blocker by Globemallow.io https://globemallow.io/ https://globemallow.io/ was the first Manifest v3 Ad Block extension. I first published on 06/22/2022. Last night actually I asked if AdGuard would want to license the software, and sent them a link to my extension. They are aware they weren't the first, and made this post after knowing it.

phunehehe0 4y ago
This is interesting if true. How can people verify that your extension is compatible with Manifest V3? I can see on the Chrome Web Store that the latest version of your extension was published before the latest version of AdGuard (August 23, 2022 vs August 30, 2022) so there's that.
- conschy 4y ago
  You can add a Chrome Source Code Viewer. I like this one. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension-source-v/jifpbeccnghkjeaalbbjmodiffmgedin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension-s... Then look in the Manifest.json for manifest_version. Here's the Twitter showing the timeline: https://twitter.com/GlobeMallow_io https://twitter.com/GlobeMallow_io The best part is AdGuard is still running manifest v2.
93po 4y ago
Maybe their "technically" perspective is that they built theirs before you built yours. Or they're assuming they did. Even though you published first. It didn't say theirs was the first to be published, just the first to be built

unethical_ban 4y ago

I have no clue what Manifest V3 is, and more importantly, why Mozilla or anyone except Chrome and Chrome extension developers need to care. It sounds like it is the extension API and process manager for Chrome. In what ways would an end user or website owner notice or care about this change, other than their extensions not working? How does it change default behavior?

DangitBobby 4y ago
It gives extension developers less control and flexibility, making some features more difficult or simply impossible. Notably, it nerfs functionality that ad blockers rely on, so the suspicion is that's pretty much the only reason the change is being made. This will impact you because your ad blocker will suddenly not do as good a job blocking ads, or be more cumbersome to use. The upside is some poorly behaved extensions will have less impact on browser performance.