5 ms·

why can't ublock origin work properly with this manifest v3?

by jokoon 4y ago

Volundr 4y ago
Because the webrequest blocking API is being removed.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  The declarativeNetRequest was added which allows a similar capability without causing privacy or performance issues.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it repeatedly and that's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
DeathMetal3000 4y ago
Because an advertising company (Google) designed it just for such a purpose.
- SquareWheel 4y ago
  Considering that Google's ad providers, analytics, and general services are so easily blockable in the new API, that reasoning doesn't hold water.
- chlorion 4y ago
  This is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that this is true. Please stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories as if they were facts. I know it's cool to not like Google and whatever, but I would hope that we can at least discuss facts on this website and not just sling FUD around. Can you provide any detailed technical information that proves that Google intentionally crippled this new API for nefarious purposes? Just to be clear, I am a long term Firefox user and probably will continue to use it. I just want to see some real proof for these claims. The idea of an unprivileged content blocker sounds attractive to me, and considering how much effort Google puts into security on Chrome I don't think it's far fetched that this change is for security purposes. Chrome was the first browser (afaik) to support running extensions with limited privileges, and I'm sure people were originally upset by this, but today it's clear that this was the right choice and massively increased browser security for the majority of users.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Can you provide any detailed technical information that proves that Google intentionally crippled this new API for nefarious purposes? This is not a technical decision by google, it is business strategy. No company publically publishes strategy meeting notes, so asking for them is not a reasonable argument. Of course they are not public and anyone who was present at the meetings is under heavy NDAs.
charcircuit 4y ago
Because Google is replacing the webRequest API with declarativeNetRequest. This new API has 2 benefits. The first is that it protects the privacy of users better. Extensions no longer get access to the full contents of a request. The second is that it ensures that poorly optimized web extensions can't slow down the performance of loading sites. Chrome is making this change to improve user privacy and improve performance. uBlock Origin just needs to migrate to this new API. Despite the noise from people who just hate on big tech the only true difference as far as I know is that the browser will enforce a limit on the number of rules that can be added. This number exists to try and prevent bad performance from too many rules existing.
- yyyk2 4y ago
  I want uBlock to get access to the full contents of requests. It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking. > The second is that it ensures that poorly optimized web extensions can't slow down the performance of loading sites. This is true for any code that is running on the browser. Luckily, uBlock Origin and the webRequest API allows me to block arbitrary Javascript and assets so that poorly written websites can't slow down the performance of loading sites. There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4de09330cf3d06194ccc897 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4d... Are you paid by Google?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking. The goal is to increase increase the level of privacy of the entire ecosystem. While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors. >This is true for any code that is running on the browser. Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though. And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win. >There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3 The downsides seem to be from wanting to be permissionless and not from not being able to replicate the functionally with manifest v3. >Are you paid by Google? No, I have never been paid by Google.

why can't ublock origin work properly with this manifest v3?

by jokoon 4y ago

why can't ublock origin work properly with this manifest v3?

Volundr 4y ago

Because the webrequest blocking API is being removed.

charcircuit 4y ago
The declarativeNetRequest was added which allows a similar capability without causing privacy or performance issues.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it repeatedly and that's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - encryptluks2 4y ago

DeathMetal3000 4y ago

Because an advertising company (Google) designed it just for such a purpose.

SquareWheel 4y ago
Considering that Google's ad providers, analytics, and general services are so easily blockable in the new API, that reasoning doesn't hold water.
chlorion 4y ago
This is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that this is true. Please stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories as if they were facts. I know it's cool to not like Google and whatever, but I would hope that we can at least discuss facts on this website and not just sling FUD around. Can you provide any detailed technical information that proves that Google intentionally crippled this new API for nefarious purposes? Just to be clear, I am a long term Firefox user and probably will continue to use it. I just want to see some real proof for these claims. The idea of an unprivileged content blocker sounds attractive to me, and considering how much effort Google puts into security on Chrome I don't think it's far fetched that this change is for security purposes. Chrome was the first browser (afaik) to support running extensions with limited privileges, and I'm sure people were originally upset by this, but today it's clear that this was the right choice and massively increased browser security for the majority of users.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Can you provide any detailed technical information that proves that Google intentionally crippled this new API for nefarious purposes? This is not a technical decision by google, it is business strategy. No company publically publishes strategy meeting notes, so asking for them is not a reasonable argument. Of course they are not public and anyone who was present at the meetings is under heavy NDAs.

charcircuit 4y ago

Because Google is replacing the webRequest API with declarativeNetRequest. This new API has 2 benefits. The first is that it protects the privacy of users better. Extensions no longer get access to the full contents of a request. The second is that it ensures that poorly optimized web extensions can't slow down the performance of loading sites. Chrome is making this change to improve user privacy and improve performance. uBlock Origin just needs to migrate to this new API. Despite the noise from people who just hate on big tech the only true difference as far as I know is that the browser will enforce a limit on the number of rules that can be added. This number exists to try and prevent bad performance from too many rules existing.

yyyk2 4y ago
I want uBlock to get access to the full contents of requests. It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking. > The second is that it ensures that poorly optimized web extensions can't slow down the performance of loading sites. This is true for any code that is running on the browser. Luckily, uBlock Origin and the webRequest API allows me to block arbitrary Javascript and assets so that poorly written websites can't slow down the performance of loading sites. There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4de09330cf3d06194ccc897 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/a559f5f2715c58fea4d... Are you paid by Google?
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking. The goal is to increase increase the level of privacy of the entire ecosystem. While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors. >This is true for any code that is running on the browser. Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though. And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win. >There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3 The downsides seem to be from wanting to be permissionless and not from not being able to replicate the functionally with manifest v3. >Are you paid by Google? No, I have never been paid by Google.