3 ms·

> MS has been able to get changes pushed upstream Yes, because they suit Google. I suspect you'd not get your contribution to get back Manifest v2 features whi

by jraph 4y ago

> MS has been able to get changes pushed upstream Yes, because they suit Google. I suspect you'd not get your contribution to get back Manifest v2 features which allow tampering with requests from extensions upstream. It would go against Google's decisions. They can say that it's for technical reasons, but this removal also helps their business model. Chromium is a wonderful piece of software, but it's not politically neutral. Software, in general, is not neutral. Assuming I have the resources, I can fork it and make the changes myself. At an individual level, I'm covered thanks to Chromium being free software. But at the collective level, not so much. Most people will likely continue to use Chrome (or Chromium with some luck) and play inside whatever limits Google sets. Unfortunately, some network effect is present too, which raises collective issues (some websites might not bother with compatibility with other browsers, for instance). And the collective aspect matters (to me). Because of this network effect, using Chromium and Chromium-based browsers is, in my opinion, a vote for Google's business model. Not necessarily in the intent, but in effect. The issue is that individual choices don't only have individual repercussions. Software, including free software, can harm society. Programs are not neutral. Power games are in effect. Hence why I think the free aspect is not sufficient. I could have used a caricatural open source missile launcher example to convey this idea, but also seams less interesting.

scarface74 4y ago
> They can say that it's for technical reasons, but this removal also helps their business model. Isn’t manifestv2 basically the same as Apple is doing? Apple has no business reason to prevent better ad blocking in Safari. Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern.
- jraph 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with the Apple ecosystem. But it is my understanding that Safari does this too indeed. That does not make it right. > Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern Indeed, but I trust uBlock Origin. More than Google's software. In any case, extensions are a privacy concern themselves. I still want to be able to install them. Those I trust. Google does have a review phase in their almost mandatory Play Store anyway, they could use this instead of removing useful features if that's their concern.

by jraph 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

> They can say that it's for technical reasons, but this removal also helps their business model. Isn’t manifestv2 basically the same as Apple is doing? Apple has no business reason to prevent better ad blocking in Safari. Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern.

jraph 4y ago
I'm not familiar with the Apple ecosystem. But it is my understanding that Safari does this too indeed. That does not make it right. > Having untrusted third party code intercept all of your request is a privacy concern Indeed, but I trust uBlock Origin. More than Google's software. In any case, extensions are a privacy concern themselves. I still want to be able to install them. Those I trust. Google does have a review phase in their almost mandatory Play Store anyway, they could use this instead of removing useful features if that's their concern.