4 ms·

It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unne

by btown 2y ago

It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2377395301 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418 - and while there's no plan yet to discontinue the Chrome MV3 compatible version, there are a million ways that this could go wrong. My only long-term hope for this space is that a nonzero segment of congressional representatives have had ad blockers installed by their aides, realize that their experience online takes a nosedive when MV2 is discontinued, and calls for hearings! Blocking isn't just about not seeing ads, it's about a user's freedom to set up their "user agent" to preserve their privacy online from sites that don't respect their wishes. That's a right that Google is using its market power to erode, and it's not something we should take sitting down. More on MV3 from a few years ago: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-ma...

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
Kbelicius 2y ago
> It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?
- bad_user 2y ago
  Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.
  - chlorion 2y ago
    Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".
    - tpm 2y ago
      Reason: Removing user control from browsers is strictly bad.
    - pyre 2y ago
      Sounds like the real issue is "we are replacing X with Y" and there are use-cases for both X and Y to co-exist.
      - chii 2y ago
        and just conveniently, X has some features that the owning company doesn't like as it is antithesis to their business model. Therefore, by replacing X with Y, and touting some performance improvements (which is real, but marginal), they get to remove X with plausible deniability.
      - mrkramer 2y ago
        They should let them co-exist but probably they figured out it is just easier to kill V2 extensions all together. What a shame.
    - knowitnone 2y ago
      you get to downvote?
      - MissTake 2y ago
        When you get Karma of 501 or more…
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  Lite doesn't require any permissions.
- skrause 2y ago
  I'm doing all my banking in a separate Firefox profile where uBlock Origin Lite is the only installed extension. So there a zero extensions that have permission to access the pages or requests. Of course I'm still using the normal uBlock Origin in my main browsing profile.
  - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
    Seems safer to clone the source code and build the OG locally if banking security is that important.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  The "original" UBO is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploit happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of privacy is going to get completely pwned. UBO Lite works without being a gigantic security vuln.
  - account42 2y ago
    The "original" Chrome is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploitation happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of security is going to get completely pwned. But I suppose in your clown world security model the big US corporations who have proven again and again that they will act against your best interests are the only ones to be trusted while individuals with a proven track record must be sandboxed at all costs.
  - Rebelgecko 2y ago
    Some people may think what you're saying is outlandish, but it's worth remembering that this is pretty much what already happened to Ublock (which led to the forking of Ublock Origin and return of gorehill)
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Not saying it cannot happen, but in Firefox, it is a “Recommended“ extension which gets reviewed per release. A sophisticated attack could slip through, but a ham fisted takeover is unlikely.
      - Jach 2y ago
        It's also worth mentioning that Firefox doesn't force you to auto-update add-ons, but Chrome/Chromium do. (There was a hack workaround to keep Chromium from updating, but I forgot what it was or if it still works. It wasn't a trivial option in the browser itself like it should be.)
        isomorphic- 2y ago
sockaddr 2y ago
I think everywhere that you used “nonzero” you could have also not and it would have still made exactly the same point.
- btown 2y ago
  Normally this kind of thing isn’t said in good faith, but it’s actually a way my writing can improve and I appreciate the feedback!
  - sockaddr 2y ago
    To be honest, the reason I mentioned it at all was because I do the same thing with the same word so it was as much of a comment for your benefit as it was for my benefit haha.
ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
Looks like FF got unlucky with a subcontractor that is "manually reviewing" extensions on the cheap
justinclift 2y ago
> My only long-term hope for this space ... Some of the anti-monopoly investigations of Google might achieve this too. The removal of MV2 is extremely clearly Google abusing their dominant market position to line their pockets at the expense of their users. When this goes through, there will be another EU anti-monopoly investigation just for this.
boredhedgehog 2y ago
I imagine the focus of the developers will very quickly shift to Lite once Chrome flips the switch and 95% of uBO's user base disappears overnight. It might not be what they want, but such events have their own dynamic.
- stonogo 2y ago
  95% of the user base going away just sounds like less support work for gorhill. This isn't a VC-backed startup or ad platform that needs users to survive.

by btown 2y ago

sieabahlpark 2y ago

[dead]

Kbelicius 2y ago

> It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?

bad_user 2y ago
Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.
- chlorion 2y ago
  Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".
  - tpm 2y ago
    Reason: Removing user control from browsers is strictly bad.
  - pyre 2y ago
    Sounds like the real issue is "we are replacing X with Y" and there are use-cases for both X and Y to co-exist.
    - chii 2y ago
      and just conveniently, X has some features that the owning company doesn't like as it is antithesis to their business model. Therefore, by replacing X with Y, and touting some performance improvements (which is real, but marginal), they get to remove X with plausible deniability.
    - mrkramer 2y ago
      They should let them co-exist but probably they figured out it is just easier to kill V2 extensions all together. What a shame.
  - knowitnone 2y ago
    you get to downvote?
    - MissTake 2y ago
      When you get Karma of 501 or more…
Nullabillity 2y ago
Lite doesn't require any permissions.
skrause 2y ago
I'm doing all my banking in a separate Firefox profile where uBlock Origin Lite is the only installed extension. So there a zero extensions that have permission to access the pages or requests. Of course I'm still using the normal uBlock Origin in my main browsing profile.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  Seems safer to clone the source code and build the OG locally if banking security is that important.
jeffbee 2y ago
The "original" UBO is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploit happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of privacy is going to get completely pwned. UBO Lite works without being a gigantic security vuln.
- account42 2y ago
  The "original" Chrome is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploitation happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of security is going to get completely pwned. But I suppose in your clown world security model the big US corporations who have proven again and again that they will act against your best interests are the only ones to be trusted while individuals with a proven track record must be sandboxed at all costs.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  Some people may think what you're saying is outlandish, but it's worth remembering that this is pretty much what already happened to Ublock (which led to the forking of Ublock Origin and return of gorehill)
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Not saying it cannot happen, but in Firefox, it is a “Recommended“ extension which gets reviewed per release. A sophisticated attack could slip through, but a ham fisted takeover is unlikely.
    - Jach 2y ago
      It's also worth mentioning that Firefox doesn't force you to auto-update add-ons, but Chrome/Chromium do. (There was a hack workaround to keep Chromium from updating, but I forgot what it was or if it still works. It wasn't a trivial option in the browser itself like it should be.)
      - isomorphic- 2y ago

sockaddr 2y ago

I think everywhere that you used “nonzero” you could have also not and it would have still made exactly the same point.

btown 2y ago
Normally this kind of thing isn’t said in good faith, but it’s actually a way my writing can improve and I appreciate the feedback!
- sockaddr 2y ago
  To be honest, the reason I mentioned it at all was because I do the same thing with the same word so it was as much of a comment for your benefit as it was for my benefit haha.

ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago

Looks like FF got unlucky with a subcontractor that is "manually reviewing" extensions on the cheap

justinclift 2y ago

> My only long-term hope for this space ... Some of the anti-monopoly investigations of Google might achieve this too. The removal of MV2 is extremely clearly Google abusing their dominant market position to line their pockets at the expense of their users. When this goes through, there will be another EU anti-monopoly investigation just for this.

boredhedgehog 2y ago

I imagine the focus of the developers will very quickly shift to Lite once Chrome flips the switch and 95% of uBO's user base disappears overnight. It might not be what they want, but such events have their own dynamic.

stonogo 2y ago
95% of the user base going away just sounds like less support work for gorhill. This isn't a VC-backed startup or ad platform that needs users to survive.