3 ms·
Exactly as they intended. They can claim all they want that this is for security and that they're "supportive" of adblockers, but if you read the meeting minute
by krackers 2y ago
Exactly as they intended. They can claim all they want that this is for security and that they're "supportive" of adblockers, but if you read the meeting minutes it's clear that they're just phoning it in in terms of the API surface needed to properly support adblocking against a hostile web.
https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/56dc974e5d583d69899e29d2471c89da5d18122c/_minutes/2024-03-18-san-diego-meetup.md?plain=1#L331-L341 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/56dc974e5d583d6989...
https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/01ac3748984f31885c92b9424f40f6904beb7fec/_minutes/2024-02-29-wecg.md?plain=1#L157-L162 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/01ac3748984f31885c...
- Rinzler89 2y ago>they're "supportive" of adblockers Same way how foxes are supportive of chicken wire.
- Gigachad 2y agoI imagine it’s a bit of both. Google doesn’t need to kill ad blockers at the browser level. Like YouTube has shown, they can just detect ad blockers and block the page from functioning. And browser extensions being malware is more the rule than the exception. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 50% of browser extensions are sucking up your usage data if not actively stealing credentials.
- kreetx 2y agoHow do you mean? For me, uBlock Origin and Firefox have worked ad-free for a long time, that with no pages blocked.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoAny program that doesn't allow plugins of any kind is on that regard safer than any program that does. Shutting down your computer is even safer still. Of course you need to vet the source of any software and that includes plugins. Manifest V3 is not a net gain here, it is a protectionist move by Google.