4 ms·

Manifest v2 → v3 isn't really about allowing or disallowing adblockers. https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-manifest-v3/ https://textslash

by Arnt 2y ago

Manifest v2 → v3 isn't really about allowing or disallowing adblockers. https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-manifest-v3/ https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-ma... has a 12-line ad blocker that's pretty effective against Google's own ads. Ad blockers suffer more or less by accident. v2 was too easy to use for evil extensions.

wruza 2y ago
Skeptical readers will note that this trivial approach blocks one type of Google’s ads, but not every type of Google ads. And that’s certainly true. And then proceeds to sweep it under some nostalgy. Nice try ;) To learn what something is about, learn what it does to money. Subj does good to money, so it is for that. Extension security is a lateral positive effect used for marketing. If it was important, MV2 would get upgraded soon after or even before its release. They didn’t care for all these years, only now it crossed their mind. Sure, sure. And they won’t include the most important project on the web into the standard suite. “No, it’s for everyone, we can’t make exceptions and we’ll remove the page access functionality for other browsers cause that’s uhm… un… unsustainable! Such an accident, ad blocking was so good.”. That’s a quantum law of bigcorps, there’s nothing under the money layer. Everything beyond money is just an interpretation and a side effect.
mindslight 2y ago
The fundamental problem is that centralizing Google (née Doubleclick) considers well-loved libre software and lower-tier surveillance industry malware to be equivalently worthy of trust. It's a reasonable goal to keep Grandma from installing no-name extension #837 (bundled with bottom-market surveillance malware) in spite of herself. But projects like UBO and syncthing have reputations that frankly deserve more trust than Google, itself a top-market player in the surveillance industry.
consteval 2y ago
I don't think this is the case. Rather, ad-blocking-blocking was the primary motivation, and the undoing of evilness is a byproduct that allows much better marketability. In reality, extensions are user-installed software. There is ALWAYS a risk with user-installed software on a PC. It's one thing if this is code webpages can automatically serve to you - then, the security is larger concern. But I, for example, don't see anyone trying to clean up Win32 for security's sake. The closest thing I can think of is Wayland, which is also for security. But - that's desktop wide, for absolutely all software.

by Arnt 2y ago

wruza 2y ago

Skeptical readers will note that this trivial approach blocks one type of Google’s ads, but not every type of Google ads. And that’s certainly true. And then proceeds to sweep it under some nostalgy. Nice try ;) To learn what something is about, learn what it does to money. Subj does good to money, so it is for that. Extension security is a lateral positive effect used for marketing. If it was important, MV2 would get upgraded soon after or even before its release. They didn’t care for all these years, only now it crossed their mind. Sure, sure. And they won’t include the most important project on the web into the standard suite. “No, it’s for everyone, we can’t make exceptions and we’ll remove the page access functionality for other browsers cause that’s uhm… un… unsustainable! Such an accident, ad blocking was so good.”. That’s a quantum law of bigcorps, there’s nothing under the money layer. Everything beyond money is just an interpretation and a side effect.

mindslight 2y ago

The fundamental problem is that centralizing Google (née Doubleclick) considers well-loved libre software and lower-tier surveillance industry malware to be equivalently worthy of trust. It's a reasonable goal to keep Grandma from installing no-name extension #837 (bundled with bottom-market surveillance malware) in spite of herself. But projects like UBO and syncthing have reputations that frankly deserve more trust than Google, itself a top-market player in the surveillance industry.

consteval 2y ago

I don't think this is the case. Rather, ad-blocking-blocking was the primary motivation, and the undoing of evilness is a byproduct that allows much better marketability. In reality, extensions are user-installed software. There is ALWAYS a risk with user-installed software on a PC. It's one thing if this is code webpages can automatically serve to you - then, the security is larger concern. But I, for example, don't see anyone trying to clean up Win32 for security's sake. The closest thing I can think of is Wayland, which is also for security. But - that's desktop wide, for absolutely all software.