5 ms·
>knows that if Chromium is the only option then Google will abuse it some way or another. It doesn't even need to be the only option; Manifest V3 (making adblo
by qball 4y ago
>knows that if Chromium is the only option then Google will abuse it some way or another.
It doesn't even need to be the only option; Manifest V3 (making adblockers impossible) already exists.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SquareWheel 4y agoAre you familiar with declarativeNetRequest? It's already in use by tools like AdGuard and uBlock Origin Lite. I've tested both and they work very well. I think it's very clear that adblockers are still possible in MV3, despite concerns. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker-mv3-exp/apjcbfpjihpedihablmalmbbhjpklbdf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker-... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Vinnl 4y agoDNR doesn't cover all use cases that uBO tries to address, AFAIK, so some tracking will still be possible. Regardless, the point about a Google-only web resulting in restrictions stands even without that: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
- toastal 4y agoI'm also happy that the project focuses on Fx’s performance first and foremost
- SquareWheel 4y agoI read through the page and these features seem... not great? Some of them might be considered anti-features. The Browser Launch feature says that Firefox always waits for extensions to load network requests whereas Chrome gives an option to wait via a setting. So in this case, you're trading performance (parallelizing the work) for privacy (may not catch a tracking request). It's a tradeoff I'm sure many are willing to make, but I like that Chrome offers the setting. I tend to err towards performance, myself. WebAssembly says it isn't used - not because it isn't available - but because it would add an extra permission to the manifest. That is to say, Chrome informs you of this when installing extensions and Firefox doesn't. That's a minor implementation detail at best, and I think a case can be made that providing more granular scopes is a positive thing. Then pre-fetching. Are they really disabling a major performance feature by default? I've used pre-fetching to good effect when the browser's resource scanner ran at the wrong times. The option should exist but this is a terrible default. The other features are more reasonable. HTML filtering could be useful for adversarial sites like Twitch.tv that actively fight adblockers. Storage Compression seems like a useful optimization if you have a lot of extensions installed that populate IndexedDB. I'm assuming it's caching those values rather than doing a "first time setup" every time a new private window is launched. I'll readily admit there may be more intent behind these features than is expressed in these blurbs, but on initial glance I wouldn't say anything here is critical. The pre-fetching one in particular seems like a negative.
- Vinnl 4y agoHmm, I haven't looked at all of them in detail, but CNAME uncloaking in particular I believe is a very commonly used tracking vector.
- Semaphor 4y agoMV3 doesn’t matter, though. It will only limit people who use the adtech browser. FF (and possibly the adtech downstream users, like edge or brave) will have their own version that extends the spec (thus not limiting (it’s not impossible) adblockers), while mostly keeping compatibility.
- ivolimmen 4y agoManifest V3 will be a good step forward for Mozilla and FireFox as I anticipate loads of people to abandon ship...