Mozilla reaffirms that Firefox will continue to support current content blockers

Martin Brinkmann
Sep 24, 2022
Updated • Sep 24, 2022
Firefox
|
83

From next year onward, extensions for Google Chrome and most other Chromium-based browsers, will have to rely on a new extension manifest. Manifest V3 defines the boundaries in which extensions may operate.

firefox 105.0.1 browser

Current Chromium extensions use Manifest V2 for the most part, even though the January 2023 deadline is looming over the heads of every extension developer.

Google is using its might to push Manifest v3, and most Chromium-based browsers, including Microsoft Edge, will follow. From January 2023 on, extensions need to support Manifest v3 exclusively to be listed in the Chrome Web Store. There is an Enterprise policy to extend the blocking of Manifest v2 support in Chrome by six months, but Google announced already that it won't extend that, despite delays in getting all APIs out in the open for developers.

ADVERTISEMENT

By June 2023, Chrome and most Chromium-based browsers won't support Manifest v2 extensions anymore. Those installed will be disabled automatically, because they are no longer compatible. Those offered on the Chrome Web Store will vanish, unless their developers published an update to make them compatible with the new Manifest v3.

Mozilla announced early on that it will support Manifest v3 as well, but that it would continue to support important APIs that Google limited in Manifest v3. Probably the most important of them all is the WebRequest API. Used by content blockers extensively to filter certain items, it has been replaced by a less powerful option in Manifest v3.

While Manifest v3 does not mean the end for content blocking on Chrome, Edge and other Chromium-based browsers, it may limit abilities under certain circumstances. Users who install a single content blocker and no other extension that relies on the same relevant API may not notice much of a change, but those who like to add custom filter lists or use multiple extensions that rely on the API, may run into artificial limits set by Google.

AdGuard launched a Manifest v3 compatible ad-blocker recently, and it will display warning prompts if its operation is limited in the browser.

Mozilla reaffirmed this week that its plan has not changed. In "These weeks in Firefox: issue 124", the organization confirms that it will support the WebRequst API of Manifest v2 alongside Manifest v3.

Again, a reminder that Mozilla plans to continue support for the Manifest v2 blocking WebRequest API (this API powers, for example, uBlock Origin) while simultaneously supporting Manifest v3.

That is good news for users of the web browser who use content blockers such as uBlock Origin. The extension, which its developer claims operates best under Firefox, is the most popular extension for Firefox based on the number of installations and ratings.

Now You:

Summary
Mozilla reaffirms that Firefox will continue to support current content blockers
Article Name
Mozilla reaffirms that Firefox will continue to support current content blockers
Description
Mozilla reaffirmed this week that the Firefox web browser will continue to support an essential Manifest v2 API that content blockers use currently.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «

Comments

  1. Cor Invictus said on September 24, 2022 at 11:27 am
    Reply

    This, again, should remind everyone how important a (real) in-browser blocker is.
    And what Mozilla says has no more credibility as that of an alcoholic’s promise to quit drinking, come next year. People’s temp… I mean browser.

    1. Cor Shillingctus said on September 24, 2022 at 11:37 am
      Reply

      Do you know Brave adblock is just a glorified ManifestV2 extension? lol

      1. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 7:31 pm
        Reply

        @Cor Shillingctus

        You have no clue, pal. Brave’s adblocker natively interacts with the network stack of the browser, it doesn’t call any extension APIs unlike e.g. uBlock Origin. So whatever happens to those extension APIs will not affect Brave’s internal adblocker. Those are just the facts.

      2. Iron Heart said on September 29, 2022 at 8:11 am
        Reply

        It’s you who doesn’t have any clue. Brave “forked” uBO source code and integrated it into Brave, so users don’t have to install uBO separately, fool.

    2. anon-e-mouse said on September 24, 2022 at 12:47 pm
      Reply

      Yeah, firefox has completely crippled its extensibility and customizability in favor of being compatible with chrome extensions once before already, so this move really doesn’t mean much to me except PR. I doubt they’ll remove manifest v2 support anytime soon, but the entire hubbub around it feels very manufactured.

    3. xqcL said on September 24, 2022 at 1:36 pm
      Reply

      I think ad blocking should be delegated to as many 3rd party providers (Add-ons) as possible, to ensure fair competition and continued innovation.

      Having in-browser centralized ad blocking is bonus, but shouldn’t be the norm. As they will likely (sooner or later) be prone to favor their own interests and accept big (under the table) checks to bypass certain ads (DDG was a recent good example).

    4. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 3:52 pm
      Reply

      @Cor Invictus

      Google certainly has leverage against Mozilla, too. More than 80% of Mozilla’s annual income comes from Google. A single threat of taking that away and Mozilla would immediately throw uBO overboard, lol. I don’t believe they have other comparable offers on the table either, because any Google competitor essentially buying their search field would be aware that most users would switch back to Google anyway.

      It’s also possible that Google doesn’t care though, because of the mere 3% of all Internet users that use Firefox (200 million people), only a mere 3% uses uBlock Origin (6 million people), this is 0.09% of all Internet users. Brave has 60 million users or roughly below 1% of all netizens under its belt, it has been doing more damage to Google’s profit than uBO for a long time, and Google does not seem to care much about Brave. Why should they care about uBO on Firefox? It’s literally nothing to them.

    5. Frankel said on September 24, 2022 at 4:06 pm
      Reply

      Checkmate, Chromekeks.

      1. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 4:21 pm
        Reply

        @Frankel

        Would like to see your face when Brave is the main winner emerging from this fiasco. It’s fairly’s likely considering that Firefox’s mobile app is godawful (see all the funny one star reviews in the Play Store) and smartphones being the primary device of most people today. But even on the desktop, why should anyone use Firefox as a result of this, when Brave feels very familiar to Chrome users and will provide powerful adblocking no matter what, without reliance on extension APIs? The meltdown of the FF fanboys like you when Brave grows as a result of this, it will be epic to say the least. I will be here for it.

      2. jeffbezos said on September 24, 2022 at 5:07 pm
        Reply

        Haha, “godawful” is what Brave and every other Chrom* clone really is.

      3. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 7:34 pm
        Reply

        @jeffbezos

        Maybe you should explain that to the 97% of people not using Firefox despite the possibility of downloading Firefox for free. Explain to them how “trash” their choice is. DELUSIONAL, is all I can say.

        You probably also think all those dissatisfied one star reviews are paid trolls, I definitely wouldn’t put it past you.

      4. zeronormalitys said on September 25, 2022 at 5:01 pm
        Reply

        What makes you so giddy about any single browser having an effective monopoly? Google has the market share to just up and “decide” what’s going to happen. Brave doesn’t fix that, it runs on Chromium. Supporting Firefox is the only valid option if you value a competitive future for browsing the internet. If/when Firefox dies, it’s then just Google, and whatever they decide, will be your internet experience, like it or not. IDK about you, but I’m not a fan of monopolies, they are always bad for the customer.

      5. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 6:06 pm
        Reply

        @zeronormalitys

        > What makes you so giddy about any single browser having an effective monopoly?

        Please clarify what you mean by “monopoly”. Chromium is open source, that means it can be modified by you as you see fit. What is the worst possible scenario? Google could no longer contribute to Chromium and develop Chrome as a closed source hard fork, directing all patches to Chrome while it’s still dominant. What happens then? Other companies pick up the last open source state of the Chromium code and go from there.

        And web standard support? When Google starts using a web standard you don’t like on their vastly popular services (search, Maps, YouTube, GMail), all competitors will have to support it anyway no matter what, no one can afford to lose compatibility here. Then it also does not matter whether you use Gecko or Blink, it will get implemented by all of them. You know, Chromium-based web browsers can easily disable support for bad web standards as well, what difference does it make though? It’s either support it or die as a product.

        > Supporting Firefox is the only valid option if you value a competitive future for browsing the internet.

        Mozilla is funded by Google and exists at their pleasure. I’ll take them seriously when this is no longer the case, meaning never. Cheers.

      6. Anon said on September 24, 2022 at 6:57 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        There is something deliciously ironic about you calling people “FF fanboys” while simultaneously posting a Brave fanboy take.
        I use multiple browsers personally and Brave will never be one because they are deceptive liars and it doesn’t do anything special except that shady crypto nonsense. But hey you do you and when you melt down over getting taken for a ride by Brave, I’ll be here to laugh.

      7. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 7:43 pm
        Reply

        @Anon

        > There is something deliciously ironic about you calling people “FF fanboys” while simultaneously posting a Brave fanboy take.

        If you like Chrome (interface, speed etc.) but dislike bad adblocking your next step is more likely Brave than Firefox. It feels familiar and supports all Chrome extensions. That’s not a fanboy take, that’s just realism. Brave grows for a reason and I am sure the people using it also know about Firefox.

        > because they are deceptive liars

        You mean like covertly hijacking the browser with an add-on that exfiltrates the browsing history (Cliqz incident in Firefox) or covertly changing the user’s chosen DNS provider to Cloudflare like FF? You mean shady like that?

        The criticism I have read about Brave so far was complete bullshit and easily debunked. It’s also not half as “shady” as some stuff Firefox pulled, i.e. user privacy never got violated by Brave.

        > But hey you do you and when you melt down over getting taken for a ride by Brave, I’ll be here to laugh.

        I doubt you will be here for it, because you will have switched to Brave too by then or just gave up and use Chrome / Edge, in which case I’ll laugh right back at you.

      8. Anon said on September 24, 2022 at 10:42 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        All browsers have their issues, not denying that. The difference between Firefox’s shady stuff and Brave’s is you can go into Firefox’s About:Config to remove it, you can’t in Brave. Either way my preference for a browser is based on research tools, which is why I mostly use Vivaldi or Edge.

        >user privacy never got violated by Brave.

        If that’s the case how come people got mail from them?

        >I doubt you will be here for it, because you will have switched to Brave too by then or just gave up and use Chrome / Edge, in which case I’ll laugh right back at you.

        If Brave implements useful tools that help me do my research and goes with my workflow, then yeah I might actually switch to using it full time.

      9. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 12:08 am
        Reply

        @Anon

        > The difference between Firefox’s shady stuff and Brave’s is you can go into Firefox’s About:Config to remove it, you can’t in Brave.

        You can only “fix” it via about:config when you’ve noticed the issue in the first place. I repeat, FF Experiments can be and were in fact introduced covertly, the DNS provider was changed covertly. There was no notification or something.

        As I said, I did not have to “fix” that type of shit so far because Brave never did stuff even approaching that level.

        > If that’s the case how come people got mail from them?

        You seem to think that Brave collected the E-Mail via in-browser telemetry, that is not the case, as even their critics admit. They don’t even require your E-Mail address for sync, contrary to Firefox might I add.

        What did happen though is that they paid a marketing firm who holds an E-Mail database (collected from other sources, not the Brave browser) to send an E-Mail advertising Brave. I see nothing wrong with that btw. – you have to make the browser known somehow.

      10. Anon said on September 25, 2022 at 6:31 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        >You can only “fix” it via about:config when you’ve noticed the issue in the first place. I repeat, FF Experiments can be and were in fact introduced covertly, the DNS provider was changed covertly. There was no notification or something.

        You can’t fix what Brave sneaks in and you act like Brave never has been sneaky. If anything Brave’s scandals makes Firefox’s pale in comparison. Firefox just collects some telemetry by default and yeah the DNS thing, but neither one compares to Brave’s insertion of affiliate codes and collecting donations on behalf of content creators. Then there is that video of Brendan Eich talking to investors telling them a different thing than he does users when it comes to their business and privacy.

        >You seem to think that Brave collected the E-Mail via in-browser telemetry, that is not the case, as even their critics admit. They don’t even require your E-Mail address for sync, contrary to Firefox might I add.

        I am not talking about Email. Brave browser sent out post card ads in the postal mail to people with their names on it. So much for being “privacy focused” which is what they are not.

        Seriously EVERY browser right now sucks. You being a cheerleading fanboy does not change the fact Brave sucks too. There is a reason that the Gnome Foundation and KDE have been investing a lot of time into developing their browsers lately, Gnome Web and Falkon. Because every browser does suck, people want something that doesn’t and those organizations see this.

      11. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 8:06 pm
        Reply

        @Anon

        > You can’t fix what Brave sneaks in and you act like Brave never has been sneaky.

        Source? The affiliate link “issue” (more on that below) already proves you wrong, there is a clear setting for this in Brave’s preferences for example.

        > If anything Brave’s scandals makes Firefox’s pale in comparison.

        No, because none of Brave’s so called “scandals” affected user data in any way. Can’t say the same about Firefox.

        > Firefox just collects some telemetry by default

        Some telemetry? Boy, there is more than 30 telemetry settings in about:config, and that does not include yet the Pocket crap, Sponsored sites crap (with shady proxy too) and the FF Experiments / Normandy backdoor.

        > yeah the DNS thing

        What you pseudo-harmlessly call the “DNS thing” is basically selling out users’ DNS requests and thus their browsing history to an external entity, Cloudflare.

        > Brave’s insertion of affiliate codes

        A generic (same for all users) referral does not affect user privacy, no user can be uniquely identified based on that referral. It is a non-invasive way for the browser to make money and Firefox does it too for every single Google search you perform, they too add their referral to the URL there. You can’t turn off that referral in Firefox either, contrary to Brave. You are either uninformed or a total hypocrite, please choose one.

        > collecting donations on behalf of content creators

        ???

        This one was a obviously bug when the Brave Rewards system was new and was also immediately fixed upon being reported. This is no longer possible today and all monetary questions that resulted from this bug were settled to the satisfaction of all parties, even according to Tom Scott (who originally complained about it) – also look up Tom Scott, who is a walking joke.

        > Brave browser sent out post card ads in the postal mail to people with their names on it.

        ???

        This was done by the marketing firm operating said E-Mail hub, and do you know where they got the E-Mails or real life addresses associated with them from? People gave them away voluntarily(!) and digitally to that service, so why are they surprised about receiving ads from various companies all of a sudden? Any company may ask them for this service. No idea how that is related to the privacy of Brave, the browser / base product though, my guess is not at all.

        > Gnome Web and Falkon

        WebKit? LOL. If the “limitations” of current browsers are the issue here, perhaps these idiots shouldn’t pursue that same route then.

        > So much for being “privacy focused” which is what they are not.

        Still more so than Mozilla, buddy. You claim they are privacy-respecting when the browser ships with a backdoor that covertly switched your DNS settings and thus your entire DNS history to Cloudflare? LOL, I mean, this is many things, but certainly not privacy-respecting. Worse than all of the things Brave “did” combined.

        I do know my stuff, I know exactly what Mozilla did historically and I know exactly what Brave Software did historically, and I have drawn my conclusions from this, solely for myself. None of the shit you post here is in any way new to me, in fact I have heard these stories a hundred times already and it is getting boring, always brought up by the same type of uninformed user too. Exhausting is what this is. I think we are done here.

      12. Denis said on November 17, 2022 at 9:09 pm
        Reply

        if Alphabet do that it would get a massive lawsuit for monopoly both in US and EU.
        It way cheaper to support Mozilla/Firefox by donation and keep the browser business going on.

    6. Anonymous said on September 24, 2022 at 4:32 pm
      Reply

      @Cor Invictus

      It makes no sense to bloat a browser with an inferior half-baked “blocker” for Joe Sixpack.
      The educated user should be able to choose what fits best his needs.

      BTW, speaking of “blockers” there is a huge difference between a simple ad-blocker add-on and a versatile content filtering add-on.

      As for the credibility Mozilla lost, it surely won’t ever apply to Google since you can’t lose something you never had.

  2. Andrew Taylor said on September 24, 2022 at 11:30 am
    Reply

    It seems to me that google are trying their best to force ads and all that crap on us. If it is true that Chrome browsers wont work with ad blockers like Ublock origin then i’ll move to firefox.

  3. Anonymous said on September 24, 2022 at 11:53 am
    Reply

    “By June 2022, Chrome and most Chromium-based browsers won’t support Manifest v2 extensions anymore.” should be June 2023, shouldn’t it?

  4. sLaK said on September 24, 2022 at 1:00 pm
    Reply

    I don’t trust either Mozilla or Chromium!
    How long does Mozilla confirm support for manifest v.2?! For a year, for two years, while Mozilla hopes for an influx of users to abandon other Chromium-based browsers?! And then, as it is in commercial and partner relations with google, it will voluntarily switch to manifest v.3.

    1. Anonymous said on September 24, 2022 at 7:14 pm
      Reply

      I am of the same opinion since it all started

  5. Bob B. said on September 24, 2022 at 1:52 pm
    Reply

    Your date in the article says June, 2022. I think you meant 2023?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on September 24, 2022 at 5:35 pm
      Reply

      Yes that is correct. Thank you, I fixed it!

  6. motang said on September 24, 2022 at 2:38 pm
    Reply

    How will Manifest V3 effect browsers that have content blocking built-in like Vivaldi and Brave?

    1. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 3:09 pm
      Reply

      @motang

      Manifest V3 has no effect whatsoever on built-in adblockers like the ones in Brave and Vivaldi. Contrary to extensions, which have to take the “roundabout way” via extension APIs, built-in adblockers directly interact with the network stack of the browser. This information is conveniently missing from the article.

      1. Frankel said on September 24, 2022 at 4:08 pm
        Reply

        Brave will drop v2 if maintaining it becomes too much of a hassle. They have no interest in long term support.

      2. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 4:16 pm
        Reply

        > Brave will drop v2 if maintaining it becomes too much of a hassle. They have no interest in long term support.

        Brave’s internal adblocker doesn’t use Manifest V2 or Manifest V3, as it’s not an extension. :D
        Fanboy Frankel only knows about extensions because that’s what he must use since Firefox does fuck all against ads by default.

        Maintaining Manifest V2 would only be a courtesy towards uBlock Origin and I’m fairly confident they can do it.

      3. Anon said on September 24, 2022 at 7:02 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        Brave’s ad blocker is just Adblock Plus that they put directly into the browser. It will be affected just like Vivaldi’s will be.

      4. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 7:25 pm
        Reply

        @Anon

        > Brave’s ad blocker is just Adblock Plus that they put directly into the browser. It will be affected just like Vivaldi’s will be.

        I think you are confusing a few things here. Brave’s internal adblocker uses the AdBlock Plus rule syntax, however the rule syntax is not the same as the extension code. uBlock Origin supports the AdBlock Plus rule syntax as well.

        Brave uses an entirely different codebase written in Rust (not the same as ABP) and its internal adblocker does not use any extension APIs, more info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/rdab12/how_will_manifest_v3_affect_adblocking_on_brave/

        Vivaldi’s adblocker is not an extension either, and it is not based on AdBlock Plus either.

      5. Anonymous said on September 24, 2022 at 4:18 pm
        Reply

        @ Iron Heart

        But Chrome doesn’t have a built-in blocker, which is the main driver behind V3.

      6. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 7:28 pm
        Reply

        @Anonymous

        > But Chrome doesn’t have a built-in blocker, which is the main driver behind V3.

        Yes, this is true. However, Chrome and Chromium are two different things, look it up. Although the most important by market share, Chrome is just one fork of Chromium (out of many). Others include e.g. Brave, Vivaldi, and Bromite, and those do include a built-in adblocker.

        If you stay with Chrome, your adblocking will be gimped come January. Switch to something else, other Chromium-based browsers like the ones mentioned above could be an option. There is also Firefox.

      7. city_zen said on September 24, 2022 at 7:56 pm
        Reply

        Hi there!

        Excuse my ignorance, but is Manifest V2 being dropped from Chrome or from Chromium? (yes, I do know the difference between them)
        I’m currently using a Chromium based browser, which doesn’t have the means by itself to maintain Manifest V2 compatibility, and I’d like to know if this move from Manifest V2 to V3 will affect all Chromium based browsers that don’t already have a built-in ad blocker (like Brave and others)

        Thanks in advance for any clarification on this issue

      8. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 7:59 am
        Reply

        @city_zen

        > Excuse my ignorance, but is Manifest V2 being dropped from Chrome or from Chromium? (yes, I do know the difference between them)

        It’s being dropped from Chromium, of which Chrome is technically a fork.

        > I’d like to know if this move from Manifest V2 to V3 will affect all Chromium based browsers that don’t already have a built-in ad blocker (like Brave and others)

        It will affect all Chromium-based browsers. There are two ways to counter it for browsers other than Chrome:

        1) A built-in adblocker.
        2) Trying to maintain the webRequest API.

      9. J.Tripper said on September 24, 2022 at 11:29 pm
        Reply

        @ Iron Heart

        End result Google controls Chromium so really its a distinction with out a difference.

      10. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 8:04 am
        Reply

        @J.Tripper

        Nope, the distinction still makes sense. The Chromium repository serves as “upstream” for any browser based on it, their repos are downstream forks of the code, which merge new upstream releases into their fork on a regular basis.
        Downstream, you can do whatever you want with the code, including patching in a built-an adblocker like Brave does. Do you think Google “wants” Brave to have an adblocker? No, of course not, yet they just can’t do anything about it – their control is limited to the upstream code. Whereas Chrome, is essentially their internal fork of upstream, and you will dance to their tune there no matter what. Cheers.

    2. Cor Invictus said on September 24, 2022 at 3:15 pm
      Reply

      “How will Manifest V3 effect browsers that have content blocking built-in like Vivaldi and Brave?”

      It won’t affect brave in any way whatsoever. It’s blocker provides the same functionality as UBO: list importing, AdBlock syntax for manual input, element picker etc. Don’t know about Vivaldi’s though.

  7. VioletMoon said on September 24, 2022 at 4:28 pm
    Reply

    The claim needs to be placed in context [please don’t delete my comment as was done on an earlier article].

    “uBlock Origin . . . is the most popular extension for Firefox based on the number of installations and ratings.”

    The latest number of users for uBlock Origin = give or take 6 million users; however, the number of Firefox browser users = give or take 220 million. That’s around 3% of Firefox users.

    The Firefox Extensions page reports 5 million users for Adblock Plus.

    What to infer from the statistics? Few, not greater than 6% of Firefox users __________ someone fill in the blank, please.

    https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/firefox-statistics/

    1. user811 said on September 24, 2022 at 9:01 pm
      Reply

      The addon data is for daily or weekly users, not monthly users. data.firefox.com says that 4.8% of firefox users use uBO, but surprisingly they calculate their own data incorrectly, because they compare daily addon users to monthly browser users.

      Around 10% of firefox users use ad-blockers according to their incorrect data. But the number is practically greater, because firefox invests lots of money into google search to gain new monthly users at the cost of daily users. Every month, they lose a couple million casual users and cain a couple million new. So there’s a big turnover of very casual users who don’t use the browser much.

      A couple years ago, Mozilla still published the data for active daily users, instead of monthly users. But they didn’t like that you could directly see their lack of success with this data, so they hid that info and focused on keeping the monthly daily users high.

      The most recent data is available on andreasgal.com, and shows that in 2017, Firefox had around 65 million users. Currently, this is probably down to around 45 million or less.

      So from around 45 million daily users, around 8 million use uBlock Origin (2 million have telemetry disabled). If I understand it correctly, then mozilla counts their addon statistics with weekly usage, also it’s not clear whether they add up all days, or just use the number on a given day.

      No matter whether its daily or weekly, it means that a large percentage of actual firefox users use Ad-blockers – probably around 20-30%.

      According to Brendan Eich, a good user retention ratio is 1:3 – e.g. 20 million daily users and 60 million monthly users. With 200 million monthly users, and probably <45 million daily, they have 50 million too many casual users that come an go every month, likely all bought back with millions of dollars from google.

      A monthly user can be as little as convincing someone to click on a goodle ad, download the browser, and try it once. It's very easy to bring up numbers this way, but it's not sustainable (except maybe in this case, because its basically just a game of routing money forth and back between google and mozilla).

  8. Tom Hawack said on September 24, 2022 at 4:57 pm
    Reply

    Supporting Manifest V2 alongside Manifest V3 is something I don’t quite understand : I perceive it as being allowed to block 100% content together with the restriction of being allowed to block, say, only 80%.

    Anyway Google has indeed decided to “use its might to push Manifest v3”. What less to expect from an ad company? As long as alternatives to Google’s Chrome will exist, free of Manifest V3, the toughest will be for users abandoning the former for any of the latter. As for those who have understood already what Google is, what it represents, how it behaves and have opted for a clean(er) browser, time will tell …

    Not to be forgotten that system-wide blockers or a dedicated software such as Adguard will remain more than ever a worthy guard.

    But system-wide blocking doesn’t allow to tailor content blocking as thinly as uBO does. Right now I haven’t totally banned Google and Google services only because uBO allows this thin blocking. But should I have to face one day an unavoidable submission to trackers and ads, those of Google to start with that I’d likely trend to a radical approach accordingly, which would mean loosing babies with the bath water. Only say 20% of the web offering clean sites, or at least sites which run even when cleaned with blockers that i’d limit myself to those 20%. After all the Web is not life, only of its components. We could manage a far less wide hence wild Web. And we would.

    1. Tachy said on September 24, 2022 at 5:06 pm
      Reply

      @Tom

      Correction, “We will”. ;)

      1. Tom Hawack said on September 24, 2022 at 5:30 pm
        Reply

        @Tachy, hi there! — I’m not fundamentally pessimistic, even less cynical, so I guess the “if” (20% only of the web offering clean sites) managed its presence until the conclusion :).

  9. Anonymous said on September 24, 2022 at 8:37 pm
    Reply

    We’ll find out if this is accurate. Right now, I have no faith in any IT companies.

  10. Sol Shine said on September 24, 2022 at 10:42 pm
    Reply

    I hope Ungoogled Chromium can keep support for Manifest v2.
    But even if it did, how many developers will be willing to invest the extra time to support Manifest V2 next to the then standard Manifest V3.
    Developers use much of the same code when creating extensions for Chrome and Firefox. That was one of the reasons why Firefox moved to the extension standard that Chrome uses.
    So Firefox extensions can be affected. Some developers may not want to make teh extra effort to develope Manifest v2 extensions for Firefox.

    I do expect the uBLock Origin developer to keep on supporting Manifest V2 in Firefox, but others may not.

    1. Iron Heart said on September 25, 2022 at 8:11 am
      Reply

      @Sol Shine

      Here is their current discussion on Manifest V3:

      https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/662

      I doubt they have the developer capacity to maintain the webRequest API, Ungoogled Chromium is developed by just a few people – they might perhaps enable the enterprise flag in Chromium that will restore support for uBO until June 2023, but that’s it then most likely.
      They are discussing other solutions like adopting Brave’s internal adblocker or Bromite’s internal adblocker. Chime in there to voice your opinion if you want.

      1. Sol Shine said on September 25, 2022 at 12:07 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        Thanks for the link.

  11. Jaap van der Velde said on September 24, 2022 at 11:57 pm
    Reply

    Without getting into the whole testosterone-driven yelling “what type browser is superior and why you’ll never use that other one”, which this comment section is sadly rife with – actually reading the manifest v3 proposal doesn’t sound like bad news for most browsers, and even extension developers at all. Of course, any sweeping changes will cause them a lot of work and may shake up business for small developers in a bad way. But on the whole, the changes make a lot of sense and it certainly sounds like an improvement for user security and privacy. Especially disallowing remote code execution seems like a much needed step forward.

    1. Minkin said on September 29, 2022 at 8:18 pm
      Reply

      I do not see it as a step forward at all. By limiting the extension API they take freedom away from end users and developers alike. If anything they should be better at blocking permissions from the start and give the user the option to unblock and re-block them. Something that is possible today, but is not used enough.

      Things like remote code execution could for example be an option that never is enabled by default. I.e. user has to enable it manually after install. Its should also be an option for it to be “enable for session only” etc. which goes for extensions in general.

      One have to face that Chrome is not a “Browser Company” but a sliver of a huge conglomerate with conflicting interests. That is the reason they want to limit the API.

  12. Lukas said on September 25, 2022 at 12:03 am
    Reply

    Who cares? Desktop app to filter traffic is still much better than any browser extension

    Manifest V3 is not a real problem

  13. Anonymous said on September 25, 2022 at 3:51 am
    Reply

    Why is it every single post about Firefox here turns into a fight over Brave?

    Also, even though Manifest v2 will be supported in some browsers in the near-future doesn’t mean it always will be, whether it’s Firefox or Brave or Vivaldi or whatever. The future for ad-blocking will probably be at a system level like what AdGuard’s paid app already does, and not beholden to Google’s whims.

    1. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 8:40 am
      Reply

      One yeller does it every time.

    2. Iron Heart said on September 26, 2022 at 8:55 am
      Reply

      @Anonymous

      > Why is it every single post about Firefox here turns into a fight over Brave?

      The reverse is also true, look up the last article about Brave or any article about Chromium security updates – it’s always rife with misinformation and blatant shilling attempts that should be challenged.

      Still, some people would prefer this over the echo chamber that is r/firefox, and @m3city is a perfect example of the latter.

      1. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 10:11 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        Funny that you felt “yeller” was refenced to you. I’ve never been to r/firefox, I don’t even know what’s that. But I know that you post Brave related stuff under every any browser related article here. However I do notice some change recently – you actually did write good about firefox few times ;). Waiting for a hude coming out like “Post written using vanilla FF+ublock, loving it!”.

      2. Iron Heart said on September 26, 2022 at 11:17 am
        Reply

        @m3city

        > Funny that you felt “yeller” was refenced to you.

        No, I didn’t “feel” it. I was just responding to @Anonymous with how I see the current situation of gHacks. Perhaps you should tell us whom you mean instead of cowardly throwing some criticism into the room without mentioning names, for a change.

        > But I know that you post Brave related stuff under every any browser related article here.

        So what? It’s what I use. I read lots of Firefox-related stuff under each and every article as well, including under articles unrelated to Firefox.

        > However I do notice some change recently – you actually did write good about firefox few times ;).

        Yes, because I can differentiate between a fellow commenter needing support and a product / company that I would not generally recommend or support.

        > Waiting for a hude coming out like “Post written using vanilla FF+ublock, loving it!”.

        See, the stuff every true r/firefox commenter is made of.

      3. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 11:26 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        It was about you, but you guessed it right.
        It’s braving (as in trolling) to write about it every time.
        It’s hypocrisy in light of all your posts. Noted that these comments are valuable, also for myself.
        It’s a joke.

        It’s easy to match “it’s… (…)” to your sentences.

      4. Iron Heart said on September 26, 2022 at 12:05 pm
        Reply

        @m3city

        > It was about you, but you guessed it right.

        That rhetorical trick is so cheap you find it in the flea market. And that’s already rating it highly.

        > It’s braving (as in trolling) to write about it every time.

        How does it differ from the commenters constantly writing about Firefox?

        > It’s hypocrisy

        …to call me out for something everyone else does as well, just because you disagree with my point of view. Fixed that for you.

      5. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 1:22 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        But still, you fell to that trick, if that’s what you want to call it.

        It differs by the notoriety, being deaf for arguments, constant goalpost shifting. I guess it’s normal that any other browser will come up in the discussion below FF-related news, but in your case it’s like you come up with the only purpose to write sth bad about FF and good about Brave. I mean – you like it, good for you, unless you get to Linus Torvalds or Bill G rank of celebrity or authority – no one cares you like Brave.

        Hypocrisy – no no, you just don’t get the application of that term in this case. And saying that everyone else does that is: 1) not true, 2) even if true, then if everyone else sticks a finger in their eyes on wednesdays, would you do that too? Dont back up your actions by actions of others.

      6. Iron Heart said on September 26, 2022 at 1:41 pm
        Reply

        @m3city

        > But still, you fell to that trick, if that’s what you want to call it.

        I don’t give much of a shit about your cheap and cowardly BS, mate.

        You can call me whatever, even Santa Claus, directly or indirectly. As soon as I see the nick “m3city” above it, I know that it can be safely discarded.

        > no one cares you like Brave.

        You think anyone cares whether you like Firefox? LOL, same applies to you buddy. Just face it, Brave is a good browser and is currently expanding its user base. I get the impression, the worse Firefox does, the more intolerant and radical its minority user base gets.

        > It differs by the notoriety, being deaf for arguments, constant goalpost shifting.

        In case you haven’t noticed, I am one of the few people here who actually addresses the points raised by others. That I constantly have to deal with bullshit and fake news, is not my fault. You see, I don’t even want to talk with you right now. Perhaps it would be best for you to finally apply the principle “Don’t like it, don’t read it.” instead of annoying me or talking crap about me.

      7. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 2:38 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        Let’s recap, shall we? Original question was:
        “Why is it every single post about Firefox here turns into a fight over Brave?”
        My response was:
        “One yeller does it every time.”
        And there you came up. End of subject for me.

        But I don’t advertise it under every post about Chrome, Vivaldi, Brave, do I? No one cares which browser some dude called m3city likes or not. And I don’t care about Brave – checked it, didn’t like it, uninstalled it. I don’t really know if its good or bad, but I don’t advertise FF as superior or Brave as shit.

        Regarding you last paragraph: Oh, I noticed, but my observations are far from yours.

      8. Iron Heart said on September 26, 2022 at 9:47 pm
        Reply

        @m3city

        > And there you came up. End of subject for me.

        In case it has not been clear, I don’t agree with any insult you post about me (you admitted it was about me, for the record), I think this goes without saying. Me posting here is not tantamount of agreeing with any of the shit you come up with as you go along.

        What you say is just plain nonsense from a known Firefox fanboy, intolerant of other opinions, and with a massive axe to grind. It’s outright pathetic, including the way you choose to go about it.

        > Oh, I noticed, but my observations are far from yours.

        In all honesty: I don’t give a shit.

      9. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 10:42 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        You don’t have to agree, but still you stepped up from the crowd when I mentioned a yeller, who turns every FF comments section to brave-related fight.

        What exatly is nonsense? I challenge you to select phrases from my post above that is fanboism, nonsense, intolerance. You are creative, so I guess you can do it.

        And don’t say you don’t give a shit. There is this old meme with a very concerned boy who says that he can’t go to sleep yet, because someone over internet is WRONG;).

      10. m3city said on September 26, 2022 at 11:23 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        Challenge no 2 – where do I insist or imply that you agree with anything I write?
        I did not critize, I answered a legit question without calling names explicitely.
        This is about braveization of ff-related articles, not chromium related ones. But please indulge me, find my embarrassing involment there. Shilling for FF would be perfect, but simple bashing of chrome/brave/vivaldi will do as well. Thats challenge no 3. BTW you failed to even compete to the first one.

  14. Robert said on September 25, 2022 at 8:56 am
    Reply

    It might be time to revisit and revive Ad Muncher as it is free to use now. I have no idea if it is still getting updates anymore though.

    https://www.admuncher.com/

    1. Mystique said on September 25, 2022 at 12:48 pm
      Reply

      That would be cool but I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeff even left after all these years of dedication to the project. He did maintain the updates long after Murray abandoned it.
      I even bought a lifetime license for the software back in the day. The fabled version 5 never saw the light of day.

  15. maxamx said on September 25, 2022 at 11:07 am
    Reply

    Well, duh.
    After killing all the good and powerful extensions, people wanting a proper content-blocker are among the last to stick with Firefox for a reason. The increasingly slipping compatibility with the “Optimized for Chrome”-web isn’t one of those reasons.

    Looking forward to how this decision will affect the next round of negotiations for those sweet $500M/a from the Benevolent Overlords.

  16. JonSnow said on September 25, 2022 at 11:50 am
    Reply

    what’s the big deal of Adblockers? just use 0.0.0.0 hosts file to block them on the server’s side. Much better method than adblocker extensions who only hide the ads instead of blocking them.

    1. Mothy said on September 25, 2022 at 6:43 pm
      Reply

      Agree, been using a blocking hosts file for years (ex. Steven Black’s). It not only blocks ads but known malicious Internet sites. Thus it’s also a very good layer of security and defense against malware. And even better it works system wide for any application not just the web browser.

      Another similar option although more complex is Pi-hole.

    2. Tom Hawack said on September 25, 2022 at 6:59 pm
      Reply

      A hosts file is radical : it’ll block access to its urls. A dedicated blocker will allow to block specifically, far more than just accessing a site. For instance you may wish to use Google services but block some of its scripts, you may wish to access a site on your own but not allow this site to be accessed as a 3rd-party one : you like Google, don’t want to block it with the hosts file, but you dislike a site you’re visiting call Google for this of for that. Hosts files won’t allow fine tuning. The Hosts file was great and enough 20, maybe even 10 years ago, but nowadays it’s far from being enough.

      1. Sol Shine said on September 25, 2022 at 11:35 pm
        Reply

        @Tom Hawack

        Exactly.
        I use the hosts file to block some sites. But it can be overkill.
        We still need extensions to block the tracking unleased on us, while allowing use of some big tech company services when we do want to use them or need them.

      2. Anonymous said on September 26, 2022 at 8:29 am
        Reply

        Doesn’t dns add blocking do a similar thing as a hosts file or Pi-hole.

    3. timuzhti said on September 27, 2022 at 2:31 am
      Reply

      The whole point of the webRequest is that it allows blocking requests before they’re sent. DNS based blocking doesn’t work well for ad and fingerprinting content served via a first-party host either, you’d need a TLS interception proxy to get at the full URLs and I’m not sure even that would work for some ads.

  17. Beastard said on September 25, 2022 at 6:27 pm
    Reply

    This would be fantastic news, if Firefox was a fast and sleek browser. It’s not. It’s a sloooooow, clunky behemoth. Very painful to use. A bad browser.

    1. Anonymous said on September 26, 2022 at 12:25 pm
      Reply

      Firefox is better than Brave.

  18. Benjamin said on September 25, 2022 at 7:39 pm
    Reply

    I already stopped Windows 10 from updating.
    I did the same with Firefox on Android and i will do that to Firefox on Windows as well if it is neccessary…

  19. Anonymous said on September 25, 2022 at 11:29 pm
    Reply

    For me, this will mean the end of Chrome and Edge usage. I’ll do a full swap to Brave and Firefox
    I was already doing a transition, but the syncs with gmail/outlook were a good tool for me so I kept using those two as a daily basis.
    This situation with advertisements over the internet has gone out of hand. They’re repearing the same steps as PPV/cable tv. Filling normal tv with ads, offer you a subscription for ad-free tv, and after getting a market share, port the ads also.
    So yeah. I’m done with this.

  20. R said on September 25, 2022 at 11:29 pm
    Reply

    For me, this will mean the end of Chrome and Edge usage. I’ll do a full swap to Brave and Firefox
    I was already doing a transition, but the syncs with gmail/outlook were a good tool for me so I kept using those two as a daily basis.
    This situation with advertisements over the internet has gone out of hand. They’re repearing the same steps as PPV/cable tv. Filling normal tv with ads, offer you a subscription for ad-free tv, and after getting a market share, port the ads also.
    So yeah. I’m done with this.

  21. George said on September 26, 2022 at 12:28 am
    Reply

    Glad I can still use Pale Moon with its restriction-free, fully capable extensions, and avoid this corporate bullshit in my web browsing. Let’s hope Google doesn’t take over everything, forcing us into using OS ad-blockers like Adguard for Windows as the only remaining option.

    This is getting dangerously close to WAR (Web Authoritarian Regime).

    Seems unlikely, but there’s still some hope. Mozilla is too late to differentiate, unfortunately. Chrome-clones are not worth anyone’s time or support – if you care about your privacy, that is.

  22. MozillaZombie said on September 26, 2022 at 11:38 am
    Reply

    Poor Mozilla, just following the footsteps of Google rather than divert or create their own web standards as another Internet Browser.

    I won’t be suprised if they fully integrate Googles Manifest V3.

  23. Zardoz said on September 26, 2022 at 2:51 pm
    Reply

    Gorhill of uBlock Origin fame is working on a version that adheres to the new rules. This will be a far less useful/flexible offering than the current one of course, but let’ s see what he comes up with when it’s time to “change browser”. What if the new version is good enough for the average user, meaning it blocks ads on youtube etc etc with no interaction/tinkering required by the user? WHAT IF. Then all these arguments here are kinda useless. I could still be using using Ungoogled Chromium and see no ads and internet would be a happy place. That’s what I want and I have a feeling that’s what Gorhill will provide for us. I recently tried Vivaldi and Librewolf on Windows.. Vivaldi has too many options, scattered all over the place and their bookmark bar is too thin. The menu button on the left looks out of place and the extensions on the right looked lik s**t. Felt very unpolished. Librewolf was ABYSMALLY slow on windows, it’s my understandig the developer put all his efforts on privacy and completely neglected performance. Totally useless browser for me since I am not Edward Snowden nor an international spy. I’m just a guy who needs to use the internet, and I have no patience to wait for webpages to load. Nothing beats my beloved Ungoogled Chromium. NOTHING. And that’s that.

  24. Mark said on October 7, 2022 at 5:01 pm
    Reply

    When Firefox abandoned what are now called ‘legacy extensions’, I saw what was coming – and kept an older version of Firefox (52ESR) to be able to do things that the new “improved” Firefox could not.
    For example, try finding an extension that can donload a HLS-streaming format video to the hard drive right off the bat in the current webextensions.

    I find that I have to switch over to 52ESR every day to do stuff that I can’t with current Firefox.

    Even current Firefox is still the best among the main browsers, but, less good than it was.

    As far as ad/content blocking goes, Mozilla have made the correct decision this time.

    I, for one, do not want *ANY* capitalist brainwashing in MY browser.

    Anything, I repeat anything that depreciates blocking even 1% is a no-no for me.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.