Manifest v2 Chrome extensions will stop working in June 2023
Google has been working on a new extension manifest, Manifest v3, for quite some time. The company introduced support for the new manifest version in Chrome 88, released earlier in 2021, and has now revealed plans to phase out support for extensions that use Manifest v2.
According to the timeline that Google posted, Chrome's Web Store will block new Manifest V2 extensions from being accepted from January 17, 2022 onward. Updates for existing Manifest V2 extensions can still be submitted and these will be updated normally. Private extensions, those with the private visibility setting, can still be submitted as Manifest V2 extensions.
In June 2022, private extensions will no longer be accepted as well. Updates for existing Manifest V2 extensions are still allowed.
In January 2023, Chrome will no longer accept Manifest V2 extension updates in the Chrome web browser. Google's web browser will stop running Manifest V2 extensions, but there is an Enterprise policy which extends support by six months.
In June 2023 finally, that Enterprise policy is removed and any version of Google Chrome won't run Manifest V2 extensions anymore.
The blocking of Manifest V2 extensions in Chrome has a significant impact on the Chrome browser's extensions ecosystem. Developers need to update their extensions to make them compatible with Manifest V3. Any extension that is not updated, e.g. because it has been abandoned by its developer, or can't be upgraded because of changes, won't be compatible with Chrome in 2023.
Many Chrome extensions will stop working, and the situation may remind Firefox users of a time when Mozilla switched the browser's extensions system. Many stopped working, because they were not updated or could not be, and Mozilla purged these from its store in the end. Google will likely do the same with Manifest V2 extensions in the Chrome Web Store, as these serve no purpose anymore for the company and could frustrate users.
Google has been criticize heavily for the initial Manifest V3 drafts, as these changed core content blocking API functionality. Several extension developers, including Raymond Hill, who developers uBlock Origin, voiced their concern over the drafts that Google published at the time. Hill stated back then that Manifest V3 could be the end of uBlock Origin for Google Chrome.
Google updated the Manifest V3 draft several times since it published the initial proposal. It is too early to tell whether these changes are sufficient, or if some types of extensions will launch with limited functionality or not at all when Manifest V3 is made mandatory in the browser.
In the meantime, we will continue to add new capabilities to Manifest V3 based on the needs and voices of our developer community. Even in the last few months, there have been a number of exciting expansions of the extension platform. We introduced additional mechanisms to the new Scripting API, and we expanded the Declarative Net Request API with support for multiple static rulesets, filtering based on tab ID, and session-scoped rules.
The change will impact other Chromium-based browsers. Developers of these browsers face a predicament: if they follow Google, they may introduce the same limitations in their browsers. If they don't, they have to find a way around it, either by continuing to support Manifest V2 extensions and making sure that these can be updated and downloaded, or through other means.
Mozilla is in a better position. The organization stated in 2019 that it won't follow Google in limiting APIs in Manifest V3.
Developers of extensions can check the official support page on Google's Developer site for updates.
just another reason why ublock origin works best in firefox
Yeah and Chromium works best on most websites, because it is not a 3% market share browser.
Btw, most of the things mentioned there are limitations of Chromium’s extension APIs, which uBlock Origin has to use as it is an extension. These weak points are mitigated by native adblockers.
No need to get so butthurt by an article written by the author of uBlock.
How was my comment „butthurt“? I just pointed out that he is talking about API limitations only pertaining to extensions, which is true.
dont worry, Mozilla will go the same way an remove ManifestV2
I don’t see any reason why they would bother. There’s only one actual fully breaking change in v3: it forces the use of service workers. But v2 already allows those. The rest can be converted, with a couple underlying options polyfilled. That’s the thing about v3: it really doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot. If some can figure out a polyfill for background pages, it would do basically nothing.
Manifest v3 seems more to be about Google purging their old addons. Even Mozilla at least had the excuse that they were changing their architecture.
Presumably, uMatrix will likewise become unusable?
It seemed that way when a vulnerability was discovered in July(If I remember correctly), but Gorhill fixed that issue – actually a reader here named Nico also fixed it.
Gorhill has already said there is a *possibility* uBO will work with Manifest V3 – MartinB has written an article covering it. Since uBO and uMatrix both are in some ways similar, there is a possibility when work will be done on uBO to make it Manifest V3 compatible, both add-ons will be merged.
uMatrix will not be supported anymore, the author said it himself
Can you share the link where author said this?
Plus I’m aware uMatrix is archived, but even then he fixed a vulnerability. Chances are both uBO and uMatrix will be merged. Read it on reddit that uMatrix’s functionality will be severely limited by Manifest V3, but then it will happen in 2023.
Mozilla though have other plans regarding Manifest V3, so it will work in Firefox after that. Though like with every software uMatrix will eventually meet its end but then in present time, nothing to worry about.
Isn’t it shocking – an ad company making it harder to block ads.
If Firefox had translation, then my use of Chrome would drop to 0%.
Firefox is funded by that same ad company. Wouldn’t be surprised if they follow suit.
And Brave gets no money for listing Google search as first engine in their list?
I think it depends on the region, in my region the default was DuckDuckGo. You are also explicitly asked which search engine you want during setup.
Beave is not reliant on search engine royalties thanks to Brave Rewards – they finance themselves via the ad campaigns primarily.
“Beave is not reliant on search engine royalties thanks to Brave Rewards – they finance themselves via the ad campaigns primarily.”
September 24, 2021 (Reuters)
China’s central bank to crack down on crypto trading
Cryptocurrencies have been a thorn in the Chinese leadership’s side for some time, and now the Chinese central bank is cracking down on Bitcoin, Ether and Co. by: All financial transactions involving virtual currencies are considered illegal, the central bank said.
9/24/2021 5:29:07 PM
Basic Attention Token is down 8,76% in the last 24 hours and continues to drop and drop (coinmarketcap.com) … and Brave Rewards will soon be history.
“Firefox is funded by that same ad company. Wouldn’t be surprised if they follow suit.”
There are whispers on the grapevine, Brave.com is knocking already on Googles backdoor begging for a search deal in exchange for implementing Manifest V3.
Will you now supplement every Brave article with news surrounding the crypto market? It’s normal that cryptocurrencies experience highs and lows, what you describe is one of the lows. There will be highs again, so what. C’est la vie.
And you seem to be misinformed about Brave. It already has Manifest V3 implemented which exists in parallel with Manifest V2 until 2023. However, Brave’s adblocker is not an extension and therefore unaffected no matter what Google does to the extension APIs. Last but not least, Brave is probably the most anti-Google browser imaginable. Google hates that Brave blocks ads by default (something their lapdog Mozilla consciously avoids), and alos hates that it pioneers a new ad model antagonistic to Google’s. Brave Software is self-sufficient without being a search engine leech (contrary to Mozilla), so Google has no leverage there either. Your browser sucks up more to Google than anything Brave does. :D
“But hey, why do facts matter when one can type stupid bullshit just as well?” – Emil Dauergewitter
“And you seem to be misinformed about Brave.”
In an email to ZDNet Brendan Eich, CEO of Brave Software, said the Brave browser plans to support the old extension technology that Google is currently deprecating.
“To respond on the declarativeWebRequest change (restricting webRequest in full behind an enterprise policy screen), we will continue to support webRequest for all extensions in Brave,” Eich told ZDNet.
“Although we appreciate the problems of unsafe extensions addressed in part by Manifest v3, we view Manifest v3 as doing serious harm to privacy,” said Brendan Eich, CEO and co-founder of Brave Software, in an email to The Register. “Manifest v3 removes or degrades capabilities needed by top tracking-prevention extensions. Whether intended or accidental, this looks likely to advance Google’s dominance in privacy-invading web advertising.”
According to Peter Snyder, senior privacy researcher at Brave, Manifest v3 still imposes limits on rules lists that are too low and provides no current syntax to easily say “block something with these six query parameters, in any order,” which he argues is necessary to target tracking tools.
Snyder also points to the way security tools and privacy tools share the same limited allotment of rules, forcing users to choose between one or the other. “Finally, Manifest v3 freezes the heuristics and capabilities extensions can use to determine how to protect privacy,” he said. “Manifest v3 says to trackers ‘if your URLs can’t be described in this format, they’ll never be blocked by Chrome users.’ This transfers power from the extensions (and so the users) to Google and websites, and we expect privacy harming software to quickly adapt.'”
“It already has Manifest V3 implemented”
Thanks for confirming that Brave has already bowed (follow suit) to Goggles Manifest V3.
p.s.: You don’t need to confirm that you are German, you accidentally revealed that some time ago.
Brave has Manifest V2 as well still. They also have Manifest V3, just like Chromium. Manifest V2 is not yet deprecated (source: this very article), the two exist in parallel. So much text of you to prove absolutely nothing.
> p.s.: You don’t need to confirm that you are German, you accidentally revealed that some time ago.
Yeah, and? So are you. You replied to me in German not too long ago. This blog is also hosted in Germany, and for the most part has European readers, so surprise surprise. Absolute genius of you to come to that conclusion. *rolls eyes*
Iron Heart has already been uniquely fingerprinted, by all the major players. the entire internet knows who he is not just his nationality. He also uses Waterfox as he clings to his beloved Firefox clone
Huh? Really? My detractors are getting VERY creative these days, I see.
“So much text of you to prove absolutely nothing.”
First: The “So much text” refutes your arrogant insinuation:
“And you seem to be misinformed about Brave.”
Second: The “So much text” reveals once again your duplicity, while smearing FF
“Firefox is funded by that same ad company. Wouldn’t be surprised if they follow suit.”
and confirmed a little later that Brave.com had already followed suit “that same ad company”:
“It already has Manifest V3 implemented”
Anyone surprised? I am not!
Last but not least, I don’t care about your nationality. The joke of the matter is, while falsely accusing FF
>” It shares your location [… rhabar rhabarum]”
just 9 minutes later in a another thread – in an effort to smear FF again, you accidentally “shared” your geolocation yourself.
Is your “Privacy out of the box” browser not waterproof? … or is your own stupidity the biggest threat to your Privacy? I bet fellow readers know the answer!
With kind regards
Of course Brave has to implement Manifest V3!?!?!? If they didn’t, they would instantly lose compatibility with any Chromium extension using the revised Manifest V3. BUT IT STILL HAS MANIFEST V2 AS WELL, SO WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
And not even Manifest V2 is that relevant to Brave because it already has a native adblocker. Maybe they follow through with their promise to fork Manifest V2, I don’t care. Currently Brave still has Manifest V2.
> just 9 minutes later in a another thread – in an effort to smear FF again, you accidentally “shared” your geolocation yourself.
Accidentally? Was I ever hiding it? Were you ever hiding yours? And I am 100% sure that me voluntarily sharing my location as I did in this thread is fully comparable to Firefox handing over location data of all of its users to Google without ever asking them. LOL.
“Back to the troll cave, you should go, young padawan.”
Another typical IH euphemism …
“instantly lose compatibility with any Chromium extension”
… as substitute for harsh reality: Losing the majority of their already meager user base.
Despite the bold public stance against a full move to Manifest v3
read the quotes in this comment:
Brave has no other chance than to swallow the pill. The simple reason is, they can not afford to develop, maintain and host their own extension store, like other browser vendors do.
Once again, it begs the question of who is the one completely at Google’s mercy?
Or as the all-surpassing Brave expert once stated:
Iron Heart said on April 18, 2021 at 11:45 am
“All myth, no substance. Privacy is a good buzzword for marketing.”
> … as substitute for harsh reality: Losing the majority of their already meager user base.
No, they would lose compatibility with Chromium extensions. That they would lose their user base over it is just speculation / your wishful thinking.
I wouldn’t call 36 million users meager considering that the browser only started in 2015 and is not preinstalled anywhere. We’ll soon meet the Firefox user base on equal footing if FF continues to decline at the current rate. :……D
> Brave has no other chance than to swallow the pill.
No idea what you are talking about. They never said that they would not implement Manifest V3. They said that they would continue maintaining Manifest V2, which is not the same thing. Manifest V2 and Manifest V3 currently do co-exist in Chromium.
> The simple reason is, they can not afford to develop, maintain and host their own extension store, like other browser vendors do.
Why should they? Look at Opera’s and Edge’s extension stores, they are irrelevant. Even their users go to the Chrome Web Store as it has the biggest selection of extensions by far.
> Once again, it begs the question of who is the one completely at Google’s mercy?
> “All myth, no substance. Privacy is a good buzzword for marketing.”
Scumbag, you purposefully omitted the fact that I said that in relation to Mozilla, and I would 100% say it again as far as they are concerned. Accomplished security researcher Daniel Micay (developer of GrapheneOS) seems to agree with me there:
“If you want to see truly meaningful privacy features, look at some of the stuff Apple is shipping in Safari. Firefox is shipping theatre and Apple is shipping privacy. Of course, people duped by marketing / branding is a regular topic on this subreddit. (…) Sure, but I don’t do privacy / security theatre. Each feature needs to have a clear threat model and a rigorous approach. Firefox is entirely focused on theatre / branding / marketing.”
Shoutout to Micay for his honesty, as always. Shame on you for your dishonesty, as always.
“The troll cave, awaiting you, it does, young padawan.”
“Why should they?”
With the exception of the numbers, the accompanying wiki text is hopelessly out of date. The only noteworthy statement is this one:
“The price was driven up due to aggressive bidding from Microsoft’s Bing and Yahoo!’s presence in the auction as well.”
And that doesn’t sound like Mozilla is solely dependent on Google.
By the way, why don’t you ever mention Apple?
“It’s long been known that Google pays Apple a hefty sum every year to ensure that it remains the default search engine on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Now, a new report from analysts at Bernstein suggests that the payment from Google to Apple may reach $15 billion in 2021, up from $10 billion in 2020. In the investor note, seen by Ped30, Bernstein analysts are estimating that Google’s payment to Apple will increase to $15 billion in 2021, and to between $18 billion and $20 billion in 2022. The data is based on “disclosures in Apple’s public filings as well as a bottom-up analysis of Google’s TAC (traffic acquisition costs) payments.”
“Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi says that Google is likely “paying to ensure Microsoft doesn’t outbid it.”
It is obvious that you have no idea how these contracts come about, but instead you spread absolutely stupid lies about Mozilla’s search engine deal and imply a dependence on Google.
Last diffuse sensations and mimosic insults of Mr. Iron Heart:
“The troll cave, awaiting you, it does, young padawan.”
Out of valid arguments, the last line of defense is recourse to magical incantations from his comic-book fantasy world.
* [Editor: removed, please stay polite]. brave might retain manifest v2, but extensions eventually won’t
@IronHeart: This thread contains what must be a dozen or more ill-disguised advertisements for Brave by you, which you work into any comment section for every article that even vaguely touches on the subject of web browsers (and some that don’t) and you’re complaining about the guy who makes one post per thread on some threads updating the low value of the crypto-currency Brave is pushing and how it is hurting their market valuation?
This is like a black pot calling a blue kettle black.
Does Brave pay you for this astroturfing or do you just enjoy trolling?
Fuck Brave. Right-wing homophobic pro-virus anti-public health assholes who lie and scheme and do things like take URLs people type and redirect them to affiliate versions of sites that make money for them (And, no, doing this to a hand typed URL without warning is not the same as the industry standard of a search engine in a search box making a company a little money). They get caught scheming, move on, and start with the next thing. They get traction because they literally pay their users in cryptocurrency, in theory, but the pay is worth pennies at best, well below minimum wage or anything substantial to anyone. So, people shill for them all over the place, but the joke’s on them, because they aren’t really getting rewarded for the shilling unless they are being paid directly to astroturf (Which I would rule out being the case, Brave seems like that kind of company).
If my choices were Internet Explorer 5 and Brave, I’d use IE5.
@FuckBrave (the name only radiates with impartiality and fairness already)
> This thread contains what must be a dozen or more ill-disguised advertisements for Brave by you, which you work into any comment section for every article that even vaguely touches on the subject of web browsers (and some that don’t)
It seems to have escaped you that I am 100% on topic. Manifest V3 will cripple the adblocking capabilities of Chromium, Brave is a valid alternative here if one wants to continue using Chromium. How often I mention something I use everyday myself is none of your business, by the way.
> the guy who makes one post per thread on some threads updating the low value of the crypto-currency Brave is pushing and how it is hurting their market valuation?
The “guy” you talk about is known to troll my posts under every article as well. Of course, since you hate me, he automatically becomes the good guy. No surprise there.
> Does Brave pay you for this astroturfing or do you just enjoy trolling?
…he said before proceeding with his own troll post, written under hate-filled nickname.
> Fuck Brave. Right-wing homophobic pro-virus anti-public health assholes who lie and scheme
You forgot accusing them of being the literal reincarnation of Hitler.
> and do things like take URLs people type and redirect them to affiliate versions of sites that make money for them (And, no, doing this to a hand typed URL without warning is not the same as the industry standard of a search engine in a search box making a company a little money)
Even if you wish to desperately establish a difference here, there is none, on a technical level. Accepting it for google.com but not for binance.com is just you being hypocritical. And it also never impacted user privacy, I have no real reason to care. In fact, if anything, I am glad that they do this instead of selling user data.
> They get caught scheming, move on, and start with the next thing. They get traction because they literally pay their users in cryptocurrency, in theory, but the pay is worth pennies at best, well below minimum wage or anything substantial to anyone.
Brave Rewards is not meant to replace your main income hahahahaha. In theory, the idea is that you get a few dollars per month extra passive income just for browsing like you normally do, and give some of that to content creators you like. The sum of these donations is meant, in the future, to replace the income they generate from privacy-hostile advertising today. Horrible vision, I know.
> If my choices were Internet Explorer 5 and Brave, I’d use IE5.
Challenge accepted, hihi.
Brendan Eich is entirely entitled to his personal opinions. Rather him than censorious cancellers who see some phobia or other under every lamppost.
You can’t whispers on the grapevine for factual accuracy but ya gotta be wary not to spread rumors via the rumor mill.
brave __is__ an advert company, funded by venture capitalists
@john from utah
Even if that were true, I wouldn’t leave. Firefox is funded by literal Google. Chrome is Google, Edge is Microsoft, Safari is Apple, Opera is chinese running predatory loans in Africa etc.
That is why I use Vivaldi. But it is often buggy.
I have yet to find a Chromium fork whose built in adblocking does not let ads through or get detected on my favourite sites.
Because of that i am starting to research Firefox and its own forks of the browser unless indeed Gorhill can find a way to continue uBO with manifest 3 in place.
Manifest -V3 is essential because of security. I welcome this with open arms, and so will 99% of people. People complaining because of what? People love to complain about small insignificant things in life.
Other browsers (Chrome rip-offs ie not real browsers) will have to accept Google’s gift. They WILL NOT maintain manifest-v2 because it be hard work for these hobbyist developers, who won’t be able to piggy bank of Google, and actually have to do some real work. You people are real screwed, and that is your fault.
With only two browsers in existence (Chrome and Firefox), you will have to go to the other browser (lol). Enjoy.
There is no need to maintain Manifest V2 when native adblockers are a thing. Cheers.
Google Chrome won’t have great adblocking once Manifest V2 is done away with.
> “There is no need to maintain Manifest V2 when native adblockers are a thing”
Brave is maintaining Manifest V2 and it has native adblockers. Also going by your logic, why does Brave support adblockers when it has a native adblocker?
> “Google Chrome won’t have great adblocking once Manifest V2 is done away with.”
They will, adblock creators will find a way, although it does not matter because Chrome has native adblocking. Besides 2023 is a long way away.
> Brave is maintaining Manifest V2 and it has native adblockers. Also going by your logic, why does Brave support adblockers when it has a native adblocker?
I doubt they’ll maintain Mnaifest V2 for long (if at all) because there is little point to that. Brave ships a native adblocker that is not restricted by whatever Google does to extension APIs.
And why Brave supports Chrome’s adblockers despite having a native one? Answer: Because they support any and all(!) Chrome extensions, which just happens to also include other adblockers.
> They will, adblock creators will find a way, although it does not matter because Chrome has native adblocking. Besides 2023 is a long way away.
Sorry bro there is no way to circumvent the hard limit Google set for rules at the extension level. “They will find a way” sounds optimistic but is limited by whatever Google decrees. Only native adblockers will survive this intact.
And nope, Chromium and Chrome don’t have native adblocking. They don’t load select elements based on performance stats / if they slow down the browser too much. This can include ads (and also other elements), but it’s like 0.00001% of all ads.
99%+++ of all ads don’t fall into this category. I mean yeah, you can call this adblocking as a most flimsy pretense, but it’s only laughable. I have not yet seen one ad successfully blocked by Chrome without an adblocking extension installed. Wake me up when you find one.
> “Only native adblockers will survive this intact.”
Respectfully, I have to disagree on this. Non native adblockers may be limited but I don’t think they will magically go away. You really think UBlock Origin will disappear?
> “Chrome don’t have native adblocking”
You write ‘This can include ads (and also other elements), but it’s like 0.00001% of all ads’ however, you say Chrome doesn’t have native adblocking. This sounds like a contradiction. Even if it is a low amount of ads, it is still blocking ads. Whether you agree, or don’t agree with how they go about it.
> Non native adblockers may be limited but I don’t think they will magically go away.
Go away? Nah they won’t go away, and I never claimed that. If gorhill quits other extensions will remain still. They won’t be as good as before (they’ll be like what Wipr is for Safari if you are familiar with it), but they will unquestionably exist.
> You really think UBlock Origin will disappear?
No idea. I am not gorhill. uBlock Origin is a strong brand currently (yes I realize that he doesn’t develop the extension to make money, I am using “brand” very broadly here), a brand that might get hurt by only existing on a browser with 3% overall market share. Whether gorhill likes it or not, most of his users are on Chromium-based browsers. If he loses them, his extension will lose relevance as well. Never ever do I believe that Manifest V3 will lead to a resurgence of Firefox, mainly because…
a) Whatever adblockers remain on Chrome will be “good enough” for most people, not “great”, but “good enough” for sure.
b) There are Chromium forks with native adblockers like Brave whose blocking capacities remain unaffected by extension API changes.
c) Stuff like AdGuard (system-wide filtering), Blokada, Pi-Hole etc. exist.
So if gorhill thinks that people will flock to Firefox over this, I think he will soon find out that he has only hurt his extension if he withdraws. But what he will decide in the end? As I said, no idea.
> This sounds like a contradiction.
If it only affects 0.0001% of ads, it is not good enough to be called an adblocker IMHO. It really is a stability-enhancing feature that goes after ads which are so badly made that they affect the browser’s performance, which is just a minuscule amount of ads.
That being said, I believe Bromite (on Android only) modified the feature in such a way that it allows custom adblocking lists and consequently also goes after normal ads, but this is a modified version, not Chrome itself. Check it out if you like to, it’s pretty good.
> “I believe Bromite”
I will check it out. Thanks.
The problem is, Manifest v3 doesn’t really do anything about security. That’s what’s so annoying about forcing the change. It’s primarily aimed at performance. Any bad actor has as much power to screw you over as they ever could. That’s the whole reason Chrome has a closed extension ecosystem.
You can even still set up your addon to use remotely hosted code, despite claims that such would not be allowed.
What’s worse, I can’t do what I did back on Firefox. I would go through and convert addons I needed that would be unlikely to be updated. But the problem is, you are limited to 20 extensions on the Chrome store–after they make you pay for the privilege. This makes it hard for one person to go through and convert as many useful extensions as they can, unless they leave them unpacked.
Which, BTW, Chrome does nothing to stop you from loading, which is the main way malware can add extensions. And, without store oversight, those extensions can do anything.
Google works for Google. They’ll do whatever’s best for Google. Take what they tell you you want or go outside the browser to block their ads and trackers.
(Nothing special about Google operating this way; play the game or be gamed.)
I doubt Google will do anything but make ads more prevalent given their Chrome global desktop market share has dropped 3% over the last year. Three percent of sixty percent is a huge number.
FF, edge and Safari are stable at 8%, 8% and 10% on desktop.
Mobile’s irrelevant, hasn’t changed since forever with Chrome #1, Safari #2 and far behind, Samsung Browser at #3. Indicates phone sales and little else. If shares start changing, mobile will become meaningful and possibly browsers buried in the noise below Samsung will consider mobile worth more effort. Manufacturers continue to leave the phone space, why bother competing with three entrenched monoliths when mobile’s stuck.
I wonder two things:
– will uBlock Origin be adapted to Manifest v3 or dropped for Chrome altogether?
– will other Chromium-based browsers (especially Edge and Opera which have their own extension stores) also stop supporting Manifest v2 extensions?
Here’s a pretty interesting read…
If you’re just really against using Firefox, Brave browser has the cname uncloaking ability now, as well as custom blocklists. It may be your go-to browser if you insist on chromium, and perhaps later when/if Mozilla adopts it. Hopefully Vivaldi will follow suit as well and implement cname uncloaking adblocking with custom lists. Not sure about Opera.
Brave, Vivaldi, and Opera seem to be against Manifest 3, so it seems Google is playing alone here.
– Vivaldi already has custom filter lists built in (Brave does not currently). In contrast, Brave supports custom user *filters* which Vivaldi doesn’t.
– Google is not playing alone here; Microsoft is on their side too. So the two biggest players support Mv3 which leaves only the little forks to oppose it.
My problem with these is that they won’t just give me the basic Chrome UI. They all have to do something special with their looks, without a good way to disable it.
Seems like all people are talking about is how V3 will break ad blockers. Easy solution (which I’ve been using for years) is AdGuard for Windows. Ads are blocked even before getting to the browser, so no browser extension for ad blocking is needed. Plus AdGuard for Windows does a lot more to protect you than just block ads. If you didn’t know about it, now you do, so there is no need to worry about V3 breaking ad blocking.
Nah I don’t want to install sketchy software in my pc just to block ads in browser. Many browsers nowadays already have native adblocking
“The organization stated in 2019 that it won’t follow Google in limiting APIs in Manifest V3.”
Ghacks repeating that lie once again, benefiting Mozilla. The quote was:
“We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest and are working with add-on developers to gain a better understanding of how they use the APIs in question to help determine how to best support them.”
“No immediate plan” doesn’t mean “we won’t do it later”. In fact, it turns out that they *will* remove it, as they said later.
A newer statement from Mozilla is
“We will support blocking webRequest until there’s a better solution which covers all use cases we consider important, since DNR as currently implemented by Chrome does not yet meet the needs of extension developers.”
Meaning that they said that they *will* stop supporting blocking webRequest in the future, in fact, just like their Google main funding source. Replacing it with something less powerful. The only question is how close the replacement will be to the Chrome equivalent. But whatever happens we will be screwed by Mozilla because that change is unnecessary and will hurt blockers, which is exactly the intent, under exactly the false excuses of security and performance as Google and Apple before.
I guess that Raymond Hill’s blindness will not be cured by then and anything Google initiates that is approved by Mozilla will be fine for him, so he will probably no longer complain about Mozilla’s “compromise” and accept the new restrictions as legitimate. That’s one important reason why Mozilla exists after all, still being able to screw those who have understood that Google is evil but can’t see further than that. After seeing him let goons moderate abusively his github and subreddit to safeguard Mozilla Corporation’s interests I don’t really have hope for a cure.
Tampermonkey dev in December: “I’m in contact with the Chrome developers. Extensions like Tampermonkey will work in MV3, but some additional user action is required for it to work. I don’t have any further details on this at the moment.”
Brave is the future!
Google Manifest V3 is a better mouse. What we ad-adverse users need now is a better mouse trap.
I believe all browsers are doing underhanded things to monetize their browser, they may not be as obvious as they used to be but they are there and probably far more invasive.
I don’t really care to use a browser from Google or it’s engine. I get it! Everyone uses it because it websites love to code for it but that doesn’t automatically make the browser your best choice. I cannot in good conscious overlook all the other factors. Google does not exist for your benefit, they aren’t in it to not make money and you are kidding yourself if you think they aren’t.
Firefox is not only fundamentally behind but also lacks any of the integrity it was once built upon. It’s different if this browser started off as some low ball scumbag that you couldn’t trust… no! it started off as the browser that was built for the people by the people.
I prefer to depend on a third party adblocker extension or software such as Adguard than depend on the above browsers as its a conflict of interest for them to block the stream of money. Just being shoehorned without choice does not sit right with me. At least with third party options you can choose to abandon it and move on or choose what works best for you but here we have no options. It’s not just adblockers either which is why I also dislike Firefox these days too.
I don’t rank Chrome much because it has always been the same garbage from day one but you can at least appreciate the fact that you should be well aware of what you are signing up for when you install their browser by now.
I am not begrudging people or companies from making money but they have all crossed a line these days and are almost totalitarian.