3 ms·

I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out

by IX-103 2y ago

I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised to, but then has reneged on that promise in favor of "user choice". I don't for a second think Chrome would have kept then around if they weren't tied to an advertising company.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason. > Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.
EasyMark 2y ago
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  > Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2 They didn't, but other malicious extensions did.
  - aembleton 2y ago
    In that case, it should be a permission thing that a user can switch on for certain extensions.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      It currently is, and it's easy to trick users into switching it on.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
nolist_policy 2y ago
I think the third party cookie thing is due to their other antitrust lawsuite in advertising.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  They've used the UK regulators as a very convenient excuse. But realistically the problem is that Google's DoubleClick has a monopoly on both sides of the ad marketplace. If that wasn't the case, the regulators would not have a problem with Chrome deprecating cookies. So Google has maneuvered into this position skillfully and then blamed the regulars for not continuing on a pro-privacy path, while conveniently that also makes them the most ad money...
stefan_ 2y ago
If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. Look at the things they were up to even back in 2017: https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1821558368659456399 https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1821558368659456399 And thats what they dared put into writing.

by IX-103 2y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

> The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason. > Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.

EasyMark 2y ago

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2

nolist_policy 2y ago
> Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2 They didn't, but other malicious extensions did.
- aembleton 2y ago
  In that case, it should be a permission thing that a user can switch on for certain extensions.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    It currently is, and it's easy to trick users into switching it on.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

nolist_policy 2y ago

I think the third party cookie thing is due to their other antitrust lawsuite in advertising.

t0mas88 2y ago
They've used the UK regulators as a very convenient excuse. But realistically the problem is that Google's DoubleClick has a monopoly on both sides of the ad marketplace. If that wasn't the case, the regulators would not have a problem with Chrome deprecating cookies. So Google has maneuvered into this position skillfully and then blamed the regulars for not continuing on a pro-privacy path, while conveniently that also makes them the most ad money...

stefan_ 2y ago

If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. Look at the things they were up to even back in 2017: https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1821558368659456399 https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1821558368659456399 And thats what they dared put into writing.