9 ms·

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 enh

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.

avhception 4y ago
I just wanted to say that you (content blocker devs) have been heard, maybe not by the majority of browser users but at least people like me are championing Firefox over webkit-based browsers precisely because to do otherwise would be to loose control of the web to FAANG, especially Google. I've been telling everyone who would listen about how Google leverages Chrom(e/ium) against user interests and have deployed Firefox to every friend & family user whose machines I support.
- Tijdreiziger 4y ago
  I also recommend people I know to use Firefox, but a lot of people either don't understand the problem or just don't care. A lot of people even conflate Google Chrome, Google Search and other Google services (understandable, as Chrome's home page is a big Google logo with a search box), so they think that they cannot use Google anymore if they install Firefox. The stats [1] speak for themselves: only 3.3% of users use Firefox. Even Edge has more users. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/ https://gs.statcounter.com/
  - novax81 4y ago
    It's harder to get people to switch browsers nowadays. When Chrome first came out as a breath of fresh air (IE was IE, Firefox was better but a bit "heavy", Opera was... Opera), normal users would just nod and agree if you recommended a switch, and even as a power user, I only had to migrate a handful of extensions and behaviors over. At this point, browsers (particularly Chrome and Safari on their respective platforms) have ingrained themselves into their users daily routine. Things like bookmarks and some habits transfer pretty quickly, but casual users won't care enough about this (until they're impacted more).
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    I think the stats are showing that we really need debundling of the browser from the OS. I'd wadger that those stats pretty closely align with the percentage of android and IOS users, or in other words the stats are completely dominated by mobile browsers, where hardly anyone changes browsers. I can't understand why we have not seen strong regulatory/antitrust action on this front considering the precedent with MS.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      I dread the debundling. The day Google can tell iOS users to "just download Chrome" is the same day all non-Chrome browsers will stop working on Google properties. Well, they'll let Chromium browsers (which also support their ad-blcoking-blocking) work too, for antitrust reasons.
    - happymellon 4y ago
      That's funny because my phone is weaker than my laptop, and has a smaller screen to show useful information Firefox and uBlock get installed faster to remove the slowdowns and popups.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    One thing to be cautious of when trying to count browser stats is that the recent releases of Firefox are pretty aggressive about blocking tracking scripts, such as those used by a site like statcounter.com uses to count up browser usage <https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology> I don't know how to solve that problem, since those two outcomes are at odds with one another, but wanted to raise awareness
- moonchrome 4y ago
  I wonder why not create a ad-free/privacy fork of Chromium. Especially on Mobile, I'd use that for sure. Existing ones have huge strings attached. Mozilla is basically FUBAR at this point.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Why is Mozilla fubar? I'd argue it's much less work to get behind Mozilla than trying to maintain a chromium fork.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    This exists, it's called Ungoogled Chromium. Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. The real danger to having a single codebase for the whole web is spec validation. Most web standards rely on two independent implementations. For newer technologies we could technically count WebKit and Blink as separate, but Gecko was providing an entirely separate codebase that isn't a fork of anything. Remember how WebSQL was basically put out to pasture because it was just SQLite, warts and all, shoved inside the web sandbox? That's the sort of problem we'd rather avoid. Single-implementation standards tend to pick up bugs and misbehaviors from their implementation, since everyone winds up depending on implementation bugs rather than getting them fixed to match spec.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. Yes. But adding back in Manifest v2 isn't. Even MSFT claims that it's too much work for them.
      - NeverFade 4y ago
        IIUC, the only problem with Mv3 is that they disabled the WebRequest API. A fork of Chromium that solves this problem will just have to re-enable the WebRequest API, which seems doable.
        4y ago
shadowgovt 4y ago
> this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. I haven't heard of this plan. Do you have more information?
- ameshkov 4y ago
  No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. The only piece of reliable information is this: I once asked Google engineer whether they plan to support declarative cosmetic rules (that's what we do ourselves in MV3 and that's why the extension still requires wide permissions) and the answer was that they definitely do plan to do that in the future.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    > No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. And then people use and rely on information like this to further ignite their cognitive biases. Seems more like promoting misinformation than anything.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Misinformation is presenting falsehoods as truth. Speculating based on past behavior is something else.
      - hombre_fatal 4y ago
        To be fair, this thread exists because OP made the claim as if it wasn't speculation and someone took them up on it which only then made OP clarify that they were speculating.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        So if you say the earth is flat and you are just speculating based on no evidence it isn't misinformation? That is what you did and you should own it.
  - 4y ago
cycomanic 4y ago
How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as technologists recommended chrome to our friends and families. Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. Maybe it is time that extension authors abandon ship, and we recommend alternative browsers? To those who argue that chrome is faster and therefore you prefer using it. You should ask yourself, what is more important to you, to see a website a few ms faster or preventing Google to to dictate how the Internet of the future works (apart from the fact that in my experience browser's are so close in performance, that I don't think anyone can consistently pick which browser their on).
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  I remember switching to Chrome because it was faster. I switched back to Firefox a few years ago. Firefox has improved a lot and the overall experience is just far better. One of the nicest small things is that I've got the full URL back in the URL bar, including http/https!
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Yes, Firefox is no longer second tier. This is a relatively recent development, and anyone who avoided it for performance reasons should try it again. It's fast, and doesn't have any rendering issues.
- tedivm 4y ago
  I've been switching my family over to Firefox with UBlock Origin. I made the switch when these original changes were announced, and it's been a great experience. I run into maybe one website a month where I have trouble.
- ameshkov 4y ago
  This sort of boycotting will only work when widely supported by both developers and users and this is not the case. Despite all the public outcry and news outlets telling that the end is near, it didn't affect the Chrome's share. > Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. I kind of disagree with this. Google Chrome's current popularity stands on two things: 1. It is a great browser and it does its job very well. 2. Google in the first years was very active with its distribution. And this is not only about the link on their homepage. I remember how 10 years ago every piece of software you were trying to install was bringing Chrome alongside. Engineers recommending Chrome to their friends and relatives shouldn't be discounted, but I tend to think that it's less important that the two other points above.
d4rti 4y ago
It's pretty hard to search bugzilla, so to save anyone else time, this is what I ended up finding (9 bugs) https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=adguard.com&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&f0=OP&f1=OP&f10=CP&f6=reporter&f9=CP&j0=OR&j1=OR&j_top=OR&o2=substring&o3=substring&o4=substring&o5=substring&o6=substring&o7=matches&o8=substring&query_format=advanced&v2=adguard.com&v3=adguard.com&v4=adguard.com&v5=adguard.com&v6=adguard.com&v7=%22adguard.com%22&v8=adguard.com https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...
- ameshkov 4y ago
  Let's be fair to Safari devs, you should probably search for all statuses and not just the bugs and feature requests that are still open: https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&email2=adguard.com&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&query_format=advanced https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...
  - d4rti 4y ago
    Unintentional omission - bugzilla is kinda hard to use well.
tech234a 4y ago
Regarding MV4: the WebExtensions working group has started to mention the term at some of their recent meetings, although details are scarce it seems MV4 will still retain JS code execution [1] [2]. [1]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022-07-07-wecg.md#meeting-notes https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022... (CTRL-F for "mv4") [2]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022-08-04-wecg.md#meeting-notes https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022... (CTRL-F for "mv4")

avhception 4y ago

I just wanted to say that you (content blocker devs) have been heard, maybe not by the majority of browser users but at least people like me are championing Firefox over webkit-based browsers precisely because to do otherwise would be to loose control of the web to FAANG, especially Google. I've been telling everyone who would listen about how Google leverages Chrom(e/ium) against user interests and have deployed Firefox to every friend & family user whose machines I support.

Tijdreiziger 4y ago
I also recommend people I know to use Firefox, but a lot of people either don't understand the problem or just don't care. A lot of people even conflate Google Chrome, Google Search and other Google services (understandable, as Chrome's home page is a big Google logo with a search box), so they think that they cannot use Google anymore if they install Firefox. The stats [1] speak for themselves: only 3.3% of users use Firefox. Even Edge has more users. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/ https://gs.statcounter.com/
- novax81 4y ago
  It's harder to get people to switch browsers nowadays. When Chrome first came out as a breath of fresh air (IE was IE, Firefox was better but a bit "heavy", Opera was... Opera), normal users would just nod and agree if you recommended a switch, and even as a power user, I only had to migrate a handful of extensions and behaviors over. At this point, browsers (particularly Chrome and Safari on their respective platforms) have ingrained themselves into their users daily routine. Things like bookmarks and some habits transfer pretty quickly, but casual users won't care enough about this (until they're impacted more).
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I think the stats are showing that we really need debundling of the browser from the OS. I'd wadger that those stats pretty closely align with the percentage of android and IOS users, or in other words the stats are completely dominated by mobile browsers, where hardly anyone changes browsers. I can't understand why we have not seen strong regulatory/antitrust action on this front considering the precedent with MS.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I dread the debundling. The day Google can tell iOS users to "just download Chrome" is the same day all non-Chrome browsers will stop working on Google properties. Well, they'll let Chromium browsers (which also support their ad-blcoking-blocking) work too, for antitrust reasons.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    That's funny because my phone is weaker than my laptop, and has a smaller screen to show useful information Firefox and uBlock get installed faster to remove the slowdowns and popups.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  One thing to be cautious of when trying to count browser stats is that the recent releases of Firefox are pretty aggressive about blocking tracking scripts, such as those used by a site like statcounter.com uses to count up browser usage <https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology> I don't know how to solve that problem, since those two outcomes are at odds with one another, but wanted to raise awareness
moonchrome 4y ago
I wonder why not create a ad-free/privacy fork of Chromium. Especially on Mobile, I'd use that for sure. Existing ones have huge strings attached. Mozilla is basically FUBAR at this point.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Why is Mozilla fubar? I'd argue it's much less work to get behind Mozilla than trying to maintain a chromium fork.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  This exists, it's called Ungoogled Chromium. Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. The real danger to having a single codebase for the whole web is spec validation. Most web standards rely on two independent implementations. For newer technologies we could technically count WebKit and Blink as separate, but Gecko was providing an entirely separate codebase that isn't a fork of anything. Remember how WebSQL was basically put out to pasture because it was just SQLite, warts and all, shoved inside the web sandbox? That's the sort of problem we'd rather avoid. Single-implementation standards tend to pick up bugs and misbehaviors from their implementation, since everyone winds up depending on implementation bugs rather than getting them fixed to match spec.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. Yes. But adding back in Manifest v2 isn't. Even MSFT claims that it's too much work for them.
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      IIUC, the only problem with Mv3 is that they disabled the WebRequest API. A fork of Chromium that solves this problem will just have to re-enable the WebRequest API, which seems doable.
      - 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

> this is for the future MV4 when extensions will be dumbed down to sets of declarative rules. I haven't heard of this plan. Do you have more information?

ameshkov 4y ago
No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. The only piece of reliable information is this: I once asked Google engineer whether they plan to support declarative cosmetic rules (that's what we do ourselves in MV3 and that's why the extension still requires wide permissions) and the answer was that they definitely do plan to do that in the future.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  > No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. And then people use and rely on information like this to further ignite their cognitive biases. Seems more like promoting misinformation than anything.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Misinformation is presenting falsehoods as truth. Speculating based on past behavior is something else.
    - hombre_fatal 4y ago
      To be fair, this thread exists because OP made the claim as if it wasn't speculation and someone took them up on it which only then made OP clarify that they were speculating.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      So if you say the earth is flat and you are just speculating based on no evidence it isn't misinformation? That is what you did and you should own it.
- 4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

How about simply not supporting chrome. I believe some responsibility for this lies with us developers. It was developers who made extensions for chrome. We as technologists recommended chrome to our friends and families. Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. Maybe it is time that extension authors abandon ship, and we recommend alternative browsers? To those who argue that chrome is faster and therefore you prefer using it. You should ask yourself, what is more important to you, to see a website a few ms faster or preventing Google to to dictate how the Internet of the future works (apart from the fact that in my experience browser's are so close in performance, that I don't think anyone can consistently pick which browser their on).

throwaway09223 4y ago
I remember switching to Chrome because it was faster. I switched back to Firefox a few years ago. Firefox has improved a lot and the overall experience is just far better. One of the nicest small things is that I've got the full URL back in the URL bar, including http/https!
- colordrops 4y ago
  Yes, Firefox is no longer second tier. This is a relatively recent development, and anyone who avoided it for performance reasons should try it again. It's fast, and doesn't have any rendering issues.
tedivm 4y ago
I've been switching my family over to Firefox with UBlock Origin. I made the switch when these original changes were announced, and it's been a great experience. I run into maybe one website a month where I have trouble.
ameshkov 4y ago
This sort of boycotting will only work when widely supported by both developers and users and this is not the case. Despite all the public outcry and news outlets telling that the end is near, it didn't affect the Chrome's share. > Without us chrome would likely not be in the position it is today and google could not dictate the terms like they do. I kind of disagree with this. Google Chrome's current popularity stands on two things: 1. It is a great browser and it does its job very well. 2. Google in the first years was very active with its distribution. And this is not only about the link on their homepage. I remember how 10 years ago every piece of software you were trying to install was bringing Chrome alongside. Engineers recommending Chrome to their friends and relatives shouldn't be discounted, but I tend to think that it's less important that the two other points above.

d4rti 4y ago

It's pretty hard to search bugzilla, so to save anyone else time, this is what I ended up finding (9 bugs) https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=adguard.com&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&f0=OP&f1=OP&f10=CP&f6=reporter&f9=CP&j0=OR&j1=OR&j_top=OR&o2=substring&o3=substring&o4=substring&o5=substring&o6=substring&o7=matches&o8=substring&query_format=advanced&v2=adguard.com&v3=adguard.com&v4=adguard.com&v5=adguard.com&v6=adguard.com&v7=%22adguard.com%22&v8=adguard.com https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...

ameshkov 4y ago
Let's be fair to Safari devs, you should probably search for all statuses and not just the bugs and feature requests that are still open: https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&email2=adguard.com&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&query_format=advanced https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&b...
- d4rti 4y ago
  Unintentional omission - bugzilla is kinda hard to use well.

tech234a 4y ago

Regarding MV4: the WebExtensions working group has started to mention the term at some of their recent meetings, although details are scarce it seems MV4 will still retain JS code execution [1] [2]. [1]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022-07-07-wecg.md#meeting-notes https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022... (CTRL-F for "mv4") [2]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022-08-04-wecg.md#meeting-notes https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022... (CTRL-F for "mv4")