Raake

Part-time human, full-time critter

  • she/they/it

A shapeshifter of sorts
_
🏳️‍⚧️ Mtf

🩶 Gray ace (🔞)

💊 ADHD

😴 Perpetually eepy
_
profile pic by Lilly


eramdam
@eramdam

You probably have up to 2025 until Google starts disabling/deleting Manifest V2 extensions and forcing Manifest V3, making adblockers worse for most end-users. If you use Chrome Dev, Canary or Beta, they're starting that phase out process now (as described in the article above).

For comparison, Mozilla's plans are to adopt Manifest V3 (which has a lot of good things) BUT not to deprecate the webRequest API (which is what adblockers like uBlock Origin use to block ads and (more importantly) change blocking rules at runtime)) and NOT to deprecate Manifest V2 which at least means that-one-extension-you-might-rely-on-that-has-been-abandoned-by-the-dev(s) won't vanish anytime soon. EDIT: I'm also remembering that userscripts (through extensions like Tampermonkey) will be made harder to use as aprt of Manifest V3 on Chrome as well source 🫠

Oh and Vertical tabs, Tab Groups and better Profiles management are coming to Firefox:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/heres-what-were-working-on-in-firefox/

That whole thing is really a shame because, like, Manifest V3 has really good things as far as web extension authoring goes and the deprecation of webRequest makes sense on a technical level1 but also, you know, it's Google so of course they'd have a vested interest in making sure the more flexible adblockers aren't as useful anymore 🙃

If I'm being honest I don't know if this phase out will make a visible dent in Chrome's marketshare given how easy it has been for companies like Opera and Brave to repackage Chromium with bullshit on top of it but that won't stop me from simping for Firefox.


  1. the new system uses a list of "hardcoded" blocking rules so it's much MUCH easier for a given browser to make optimizations since it can know ahead of time what URLs the extension will act on.


ticky
@ticky

as a web developer by trade I know all too well that ad and tracker blocking is core to having a decent experience on the modern web. google’s actions here, while couched in reasonable-sounding justifications, do not adequately address anything but their own business interests.

google are terrible stewards of the open web, and have far too much control for one dodgy adtech firm to wield over perhaps the most important communication medium of our time

I would urge you to consider your alternatives.

Use Firefox. Use Safari. Use Vivaldi if you must use a Chromium derivative. Restore the web’s health and wrest it back from Google.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @eramdam's post:

Oooooh I haven't been keeping up w new features in Firefox but vertical tabs is very exciting. Rn I've got an extension for it and it works really well, but I don't think there's a super simple way to hide tabs at the top (I haven't tried recently so I could be wrong) so it feels a bit more cluttered than I'd like...

so, I use Firefox, I avoid Chrome, I have a personal vendetta against Google and I don't trust anything they say. I would be happy if the Manifest v3 ordeal is what convinces more people to switch to Firefox.

For the sake of better advocacy: what are the problems that remain with Manifest v3?

The blog post comes across as saying "OKAY FINE we gave uBlock Origin everything they asked for in Manifest v3" as clearly as they can without mentioning their adversary by name. And I know it's a PR piece and that Google can lie. But what are the specific things they haven't given up?

What are the levers of control over ads that they're holding on to, that we can point to to show why Google still shouldn't be trusted to define what a browser extension can and can't be?

I'll be honest, I haven't checked the situation re: uBlock Origin (since it's the one that most ppl will be familiar with and is pretty affected by the changes) in a while but my guess is that a lot of limitations of the Manifest V3 stuff will still affect uBlock Origin. There's a "uBlock Orgin Lite" (MV3-compliant version that is way more limited) project which a FAQ that describes a lot of the difference.

From my understanding most of them revolve around at-runtime filtering so, afaict, uBlock on MV3 wouldn't be able to let the user define their own blocking rule or cosmetic filters. The static/dynamic rule being lifted is probably legit and might be enough for most extensions, it Depends™️.

What are the levers of control over ads that they're holding on to, that we can point to to show why Google still shouldn't be trusted to define what a browser extension can and can't be?

  • I guess the Chrome Web Store is one lever in itself. Even if Manifest V3 as an API let uBlock Origin/advanced adblockers exist as they did with Manifest V2... as an extension author you're beholden to Google's review process which is fine when it works and completely opaque/inscrutable when it doesn't.
  • Userscripts-type extensions will also be affected, Tampermonkey has already announced that enabling "developer mode" in Chrome will be required 🙃 https://www.tampermonkey.net/faq.php#Q209 I do not know if this will apply to extensions like Stylus but I wouldn't really be surprised if it did.

Kind of a messy answer but that's all I have off the top of my head 😅

I've been aware of uBO Lite and its suboptimality, but the FAQ written in 2023 clearly can't respond to concessions Google made in 2024.

but "Tampermonkey won't work" is the thing that really hits home for me, thank you, that's extremely relevant.

in reply to @ticky's post:

I mean, it depends what you want. There are lightweight browsers out there but they sacrifice some of the web's fancier capabilities for speed. You might try Falkon, Dillo or NetSurf.

it looks like they do have a linux version and it has pretty lean minimum system requirements listed on their download page (2gb ram, 500mb storage, and version glibc 2.17) but i don't know enough about linux to say anything else or even what that version means. it does work as far back as windows 7 for comparison though so it would probably run fine on anything that's been made in the last 10 years?

the issue is the CPU architecture; most desktop PCs are x86-derived, Raspberry Pis are ARM-based, so they'd need to provide builds which work on that architecture, and it's not clear from their site that they do

jumped ship to firefox earlier this month (been procrastinating on doing that for the longest time) and so far it's been great... experience is almost the same if not better
really the only minor hitches I'm having is that a few shortcuts are different and the custom search engine support is weird