[encryptluks2]

I actually really like Chrome, well Chromium, despite the negative perception about Manifest v3. I truly hope that they work out the kinks quickly enough to resolve some of the concerns. I do get that the new API in some ways is safer for the average user, but there are power users that should be able to do what they want. Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the changes possibly being in good faith, it has only harmed their public perception and they may never recover from that unless they try to address and resolve the concerns publicly.

[culi]

> Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the changes possibly being in good faith

I don't think you've kept up with the way Google has treated certain extensions if you're still considering the possibility that it's in good faith

Anybody remember AdNauseam (still available on Firefox)? It's an adblock that doesn't just block ads but in the background silently clicks ads to create noise and make you harder to track. Clearly against Google's business model

It wasn't enough for Google to find some rules in their policy to exclude it from their app store. They literally labelled it as malware (completely unfounded)

Google's been pretty ruthless about this stuff

[encryptluks2]

I agree that they've made questionable decisions, but if an extension is clicking on ads in the background wouldn't that be considered a violation of their ToS for related products that they control.. essentially, a way to game ad revenue? If someone released an extension to silently DDoS ad organizations in the background, even if the user was aware of the purpose, then I'd imagine it would still be against their ToS. Extensions like this can still be installed from a packed extension. I don't think Apple would do anything different if there was an app in their app store that did things in the backgrounds to violate their policies.

[sanxiyn]

As far as I know, AdNauseam is not against relevant Google ToS and no ToS term was ever cited.

[encryptluks2]

If it does as you say then at least in the United States it may actually be considered a form of fraud. By clicking an ad that you've hidden, you're essentially telling the advertiser to pay for something you didn't even see.

[culi]

regardless, that's not the point. The point is they didn't simply take it down. They actively spread lies about the project

[encryptluks2]

I wasn't able to find anywhere that they spread lies about the project. Are you able to share where Google stated that?

[culi]

> a violation of their ToS for related products that they control.

I don't actually think so, but that's not my point. If it was against their ToS, fine. Take it down

But they didn't just do that. They made baseless accusations of malware against this (open-source) project in order to spread misinformation and make people even more hesitant to use it. That's not just an abuse of their platform but an abuse that goes outside their platform

[encryptluks2]

Can you send me a link where they did that?

[culi]

Sure. It used to be on the Chrome Extensions page. It wouldn't let you download the extension and had a big "malware" flag on it. I don't think that's up still but there's articles written about it:

https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_fr...

[encryptluks2]

Yeah, I saw that one but other stories around the same time say something different. Were you able to find an arhive.org page that actually shows the extension listed as malware?

[drivebycomment]

I think MV3 critics are mostly based on a loss aversion bias, rather than a rational opposition.

If those people truly think it's absolutely essential for the extension system to have the pre-MV3 webrequest API, they should either stop using Safari, or ask Apple to support the same as loudly. But they don't. None of the critics I know does.

I think Google sees this as matching Apple for privacy and security - as there has been so many malicious extensions that caused significant harm. Everyone thinks they won't be affected by malware or bad extension, and they think it's personal responsibility but as is often the case, the best way to improve the security is to eliminate the attack vector whenever possible, instead of trying to control / safeguard it. Given the practical downside is virtually non-existent - I have been using uBlock Light since it came out, and there's been no noticable change in adblocking - I think MV3 made the right trade off, and I would be disappointed if Chrome team cave to the emotional and irrational critics.

[matheusmoreira]

The changes in Manifest v3 make a lot of sense. It's absolutely true that we can't trust extensions or their developers and they should be restricted as much as possible. Forcing them to declare to the browser what they want done so that only the browser touches the user's private information is a great idea.

It's just that certain extensions are so important and trusted that it doesn't make sense to restrict them like this. Extensions like uBlock Origin should be a special case in the source code. If it's uBlock Origin, then give it direct access to all APIs so that it can do anything. The rest can deal with Manifest v3.

Truth is uBlock Origin should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only argument against that is conflicts of interest. Google obviously has no interest in properly integrating uBlock Origin and Firefox is funded by Google. Ironically, Brave seems to be the only browser where such a thing could actually happen.

[namrog84]

Who decides who gets special extensions! Can I make a unlock origin compete and get special permissions? (Then sell my extension later to a shady person)? Its tough to manage exceptions like that

[matheusmoreira]

> Then sell my extension later to a shady person

The only person I'd trust not to do that is gorhill. I don't trust any other extension or their authors.

> Its tough to manage exceptions like that

Then don't manage them. Deny everyone except gorhill. There is literally one exception: uBlock Origin. No further exceptions need be made.