10 ms·

Chromium is also stripping manifest v2. Firefox isn't. Chromium is open source, but it's not an open source project. It's a Google project.

freedomben 2y ago
Exactly. Manifest v2 is the bullet case for why Chromium isn't sufficient. Also, we best not forget their efforts with web integrity
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Brave is based on Chromium and it still supports manifest v2. Brave offers everything Firefox does and more --- like privacy by default (which Firefox could but won't do for obvious reasons) --- all without millions in direct Google payola. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    Brave supports manifest V2 because the Chromium upstream hasn't removed it for enterprise use yet. As soon as that changes, Brave does not have a plan to continue maintaining V2. What you call Google payola is really the independence that allows Mozilla to develop a browser engine that isn't being actively crippled by Google's initiatives. That's the important piece. Brave is not a sustainable play because they have no way to fund a forked version of the chromium browser engine when Google inevitably cripples it to invade our privacy even further.
    - jorvi 2y ago
      Safari's extensions had a similar change-over to a ManifestV3-like system, with the same arguments: increases performance (very important for mobile) and puts more safeguards on extensions doing funky privacy-hostile stuff. Yes, ManifestV3 nerfs adblocking, and Google loves that side effect. It will hamper Brave' internal adblocking engine. I think the big interesting question is: if Brave figures out how to add improvements to ManifestV3 that aid adblocking without sacrificing performance or privacy/security, will Google accept the PRs?
      - bad_user 2y ago
        Brave's internal ad-blocker is custom-made and doesn't depend on manifest v2.
  - oaththrowaway 2y ago
    Brave doesn't support multi-account containers.
    - cship2 2y ago
      Just make a new profile like all chromium based browser
      - usr1106 2y ago
        Can you use accounts just like Firefox containers? E.g. use right click to choose opening a link in a new tab running a different account? Genuine question from a FF user.
        aucisson_masque 2y ago
        No, it's inferior in every way possible because it's not meant to be used to enforce privacy but to allow multiple users on a same computer to use a same browser without seeing each other history and setting. For each profile, you would have to install again every extension, set every setting, every bookmark,.. of course no sync between your main profile and others. Can't right click on link to open them in another profile. No automatic opening of profiles when you go on a specific url And so on. On the other hand, brave will push it's crypto crap, web3 and 'bat coins' everywhere.
  - derkster 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - radlad 2y ago
    Brave is run by a VC-funded company and will need to show returns eventually. To date, they've tried to make money in a few disappointing ways: - Replacing ads on pages without owner's intervention, under the guise that they were offering owners a cryptocurrency - Inserting their own referral codes on websites - Installing their VPN software on Windows machines without consent They also introduced a Tor mode into their browser that sent DNS requests unmasked to your ISP. I don't know why you would trust Brave at this point.
jqpabc123 2y ago
Firefox is open source, but it's not an open source project. It's a Mozilla project --- effectively totally funded by Google. *When* Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do?
- notpushkin 2y ago
  > When Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do? It’s even more pointless than removing it from Chromium though: Firefox users would just switch to a fork that still supports it, or to a fork that supports blockingWebRequest APIs on v3 extensions, or to a fork that implements some other ad blocking method. With Chromium, they at least have Chrome users, many of whow wouldn’t want to even bother. (Those who do have migrated to forks already)
charcircuit 2y ago
It's cheaper to extend v3 with additional features than to maintain another browser engine.
- notpushkin 2y ago
  It is. Browser engine diversity is important for a myriad of other reasons, though.
bad_user 2y ago
That makes no sense. Define "open source project". Do you think that in open source there's no ownership?

freedomben 2y ago

Exactly. Manifest v2 is the bullet case for why Chromium isn't sufficient. Also, we best not forget their efforts with web integrity

jqpabc123 2y ago
Brave is based on Chromium and it still supports manifest v2. Brave offers everything Firefox does and more --- like privacy by default (which Firefox could but won't do for obvious reasons) --- all without millions in direct Google payola. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Brave supports manifest V2 because the Chromium upstream hasn't removed it for enterprise use yet. As soon as that changes, Brave does not have a plan to continue maintaining V2. What you call Google payola is really the independence that allows Mozilla to develop a browser engine that isn't being actively crippled by Google's initiatives. That's the important piece. Brave is not a sustainable play because they have no way to fund a forked version of the chromium browser engine when Google inevitably cripples it to invade our privacy even further.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    Safari's extensions had a similar change-over to a ManifestV3-like system, with the same arguments: increases performance (very important for mobile) and puts more safeguards on extensions doing funky privacy-hostile stuff. Yes, ManifestV3 nerfs adblocking, and Google loves that side effect. It will hamper Brave' internal adblocking engine. I think the big interesting question is: if Brave figures out how to add improvements to ManifestV3 that aid adblocking without sacrificing performance or privacy/security, will Google accept the PRs?
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Brave's internal ad-blocker is custom-made and doesn't depend on manifest v2.
- oaththrowaway 2y ago
  Brave doesn't support multi-account containers.
  - cship2 2y ago
    Just make a new profile like all chromium based browser
    - usr1106 2y ago
      Can you use accounts just like Firefox containers? E.g. use right click to choose opening a link in a new tab running a different account? Genuine question from a FF user.
      - aucisson_masque 2y ago
        No, it's inferior in every way possible because it's not meant to be used to enforce privacy but to allow multiple users on a same computer to use a same browser without seeing each other history and setting. For each profile, you would have to install again every extension, set every setting, every bookmark,.. of course no sync between your main profile and others. Can't right click on link to open them in another profile. No automatic opening of profiles when you go on a specific url And so on. On the other hand, brave will push it's crypto crap, web3 and 'bat coins' everywhere.
- derkster 2y ago
  [flagged]
- radlad 2y ago
  Brave is run by a VC-funded company and will need to show returns eventually. To date, they've tried to make money in a few disappointing ways: - Replacing ads on pages without owner's intervention, under the guise that they were offering owners a cryptocurrency - Inserting their own referral codes on websites - Installing their VPN software on Windows machines without consent They also introduced a Tor mode into their browser that sent DNS requests unmasked to your ISP. I don't know why you would trust Brave at this point.

jqpabc123 2y ago

Firefox is open source, but it's not an open source project. It's a Mozilla project --- effectively totally funded by Google. *When* Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do?

notpushkin 2y ago
> When Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do? It’s even more pointless than removing it from Chromium though: Firefox users would just switch to a fork that still supports it, or to a fork that supports blockingWebRequest APIs on v3 extensions, or to a fork that implements some other ad blocking method. With Chromium, they at least have Chrome users, many of whow wouldn’t want to even bother. (Those who do have migrated to forks already)

charcircuit 2y ago

It's cheaper to extend v3 with additional features than to maintain another browser engine.

notpushkin 2y ago
It is. Browser engine diversity is important for a myriad of other reasons, though.

bad_user 2y ago

That makes no sense. Define "open source project". Do you think that in open source there's no ownership?