4 ms·

> the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by MV3? The stated reason for the removal of the blocking webRequest API was to avoid broad permissio

> the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by MV3? The stated reason for the removal of the blocking webRequest API was to avoid broad permissions to read/modify data on all websites in the name of privacy/security. What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms beyond what the declarativeNetRequest API allows? The point is to show that if you respect the stated reasons for the declarativeNetRequest API deprecating the blocking webRequest API, that is what you get.

SquareWheel 4y ago
You seem to be confirming nightpool's comment. That this is an intentionally-limited release. I think that's fine. It's good to have an adblocker that uses minimal permissions. But it seems like people will use this to argue that MV3 is less capable than it really is. Maybe UBO Plus (MV3) will come later that enables those feature.
- gorhill 4y ago
  It can never be "plus" compared to what uBO is currently with MV2, there are features and capabilities that can't be ported to MV3.
  - SquareWheel 4y ago
    I understand that, but it seems like the most frequently-used features (eg. cosmetic filtering) are possible in MV3. So a version with those features included would still offer value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems most of the missing capabilities are power user features - even by HN standards. It's of course your discretion if that's something you wish to work on. I think a Minus and Plus version (or "Regular" if you prefer) offer a nice option for users to choose between. But I understand if the development overhead of managing two versions cannot be justified.
nightpool 4y ago
> What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms The point would be to have those features, obviously? Cosmetic filtering is extremely important, there was never any possibility that MV3 was going to remove it, and you just removed it yourself for absolutely no reason. I'm sorry, but if you're just removing features from your extension to make a "point" about "respecting stated reasons" then I don't think people should take what you say about it seriously. This might be an art project or a political protest, but people shouldn't confuse it for an actual attempt at extension development. You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago, and pretending like it should dictate every single thing you should do with your extension, out of some weird form of stubbornness and bloody-mindedness.
- gorhill 4y ago
  > removed it yourself for absolutely no reason I clearly stated the reason: to avoid having to require broad "read/modify data on all websites" permission. I purposefully decided to create a permission-less version of uBO for people who would rather not grant broad "read/modify data on all websites". > You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago The current documentation regarding the purpose of declarativeNetRequest API deprecating the blocking webRequest API[1]: > Using this declarative approach dramatically reduces the need for persistent host permissions. My goal is to create a permission-less version of uBO and this is what I did. I am sure this could appeal to some people out there, as many over time have echoed that broad permissions to "read/modify data on all websites" is scary -- it's a recurring comment for those who support Chromium's deprecation of the blocking webRequest API in favor of the declarativeNetRequest API. So this is a content blocker for those people. For those who can't live without cosmetic filtering and all the other goodies, there are other options out there. I don't understand what you perceive this negatively. * * * [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-overview/#network-request-modification https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

SquareWheel 4y ago

You seem to be confirming nightpool's comment. That this is an intentionally-limited release. I think that's fine. It's good to have an adblocker that uses minimal permissions. But it seems like people will use this to argue that MV3 is less capable than it really is. Maybe UBO Plus (MV3) will come later that enables those feature.

gorhill 4y ago
It can never be "plus" compared to what uBO is currently with MV2, there are features and capabilities that can't be ported to MV3.
- SquareWheel 4y ago
  I understand that, but it seems like the most frequently-used features (eg. cosmetic filtering) are possible in MV3. So a version with those features included would still offer value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems most of the missing capabilities are power user features - even by HN standards. It's of course your discretion if that's something you wish to work on. I think a Minus and Plus version (or "Regular" if you prefer) offer a nice option for users to choose between. But I understand if the development overhead of managing two versions cannot be justified.

nightpool 4y ago

> What would be the point of still requiring those broad permissions while losing features and the ability to innovate on extension-side matching algorithms The point would be to have those features, obviously? Cosmetic filtering is extremely important, there was never any possibility that MV3 was going to remove it, and you just removed it yourself for absolutely no reason. I'm sorry, but if you're just removing features from your extension to make a "point" about "respecting stated reasons" then I don't think people should take what you say about it seriously. This might be an art project or a political protest, but people shouldn't confuse it for an actual attempt at extension development. You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago, and pretending like it should dictate every single thing you should do with your extension, out of some weird form of stubbornness and bloody-mindedness.

gorhill 4y ago
> removed it yourself for absolutely no reason I clearly stated the reason: to avoid having to require broad "read/modify data on all websites" permission. I purposefully decided to create a permission-less version of uBO for people who would rather not grant broad "read/modify data on all websites". > You're taking a single reason that they gave, two years ago The current documentation regarding the purpose of declarativeNetRequest API deprecating the blocking webRequest API[1]: > Using this declarative approach dramatically reduces the need for persistent host permissions. My goal is to create a permission-less version of uBO and this is what I did. I am sure this could appeal to some people out there, as many over time have echoed that broad permissions to "read/modify data on all websites" is scary -- it's a recurring comment for those who support Chromium's deprecation of the blocking webRequest API in favor of the declarativeNetRequest API. So this is a content blocker for those people. For those who can't live without cosmetic filtering and all the other goodies, there are other options out there. I don't understand what you perceive this negatively. * * * [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-overview/#network-request-modification https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-o...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]