5 ms·

>Thus it is fair to state they are preventing adblockers No it's not fair to say that. The same way it's not fair to say Apple is preventing adblocking in Safa

>Thus it is fair to state they are preventing adblockers No it's not fair to say that. The same way it's not fair to say Apple is preventing adblocking in Safari even if the current state of adblocking there RIGHT NOW is exactly how manifest v3 Chrome will be(using declarativeNetRequest)

saurik 3y ago
But, they are, right? They aren't preventing ALL ad blockers, but they aren't even merely preventing theoretical ad blockers: they are blocking concrete ad blockers that people have built and would actively use. If there is a checkpoint at an event which seems to be turning away cars it doesn't matter if other cars are also getting through: the way we use the relevant phrasing allows us to say that "they are turning away cars" as that is a bit ambiguous as to why or how many.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y ago
  We're entered the backwards compatibity discussion teritory, not sure what to think about it to be honest.
  - generic92034 3y ago
    But you do not need to discuss that. Rather suppose ad-blockers are working less effectively under v3, leading to additional ads being shown. That would increase the attack surface. If ad-blockers really will be less effective under v3 remains to be seen. But do you think it is an unreasonable perspective, given the technical limitation?
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Given that the reasons behind Google breaking backward compatibility are obviously primarily because they want to weaken ad blocking, I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about this.
AlexandrB 3y ago
This is all semantics. Ad blockers on Safari are less effective than what you can get on Chrome/Firefox right now. Google is trying to make adblockers on Chrome less effective as well.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Are they? I use 1Blocker with Safari on all my devices, and don’t remember the last time I saw an ad. Not saying this to defend MV3. The ad blocking situation for Safari isn’t dire, though.

saurik 3y ago

But, they are, right? They aren't preventing ALL ad blockers, but they aren't even merely preventing theoretical ad blockers: they are blocking concrete ad blockers that people have built and would actively use. If there is a checkpoint at an event which seems to be turning away cars it doesn't matter if other cars are also getting through: the way we use the relevant phrasing allows us to say that "they are turning away cars" as that is a bit ambiguous as to why or how many.

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y ago
We're entered the backwards compatibity discussion teritory, not sure what to think about it to be honest.
- generic92034 3y ago
  But you do not need to discuss that. Rather suppose ad-blockers are working less effectively under v3, leading to additional ads being shown. That would increase the attack surface. If ad-blockers really will be less effective under v3 remains to be seen. But do you think it is an unreasonable perspective, given the technical limitation?
- kelnos 3y ago
  Given that the reasons behind Google breaking backward compatibility are obviously primarily because they want to weaken ad blocking, I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about this.

AlexandrB 3y ago

This is all semantics. Ad blockers on Safari are less effective than what you can get on Chrome/Firefox right now. Google is trying to make adblockers on Chrome less effective as well.

kstrauser 3y ago
Are they? I use 1Blocker with Safari on all my devices, and don’t remember the last time I saw an ad. Not saying this to defend MV3. The ad blocking situation for Safari isn’t dire, though.