[gnicholas]

> What would be the point of toggling off MV2 extensions if users could just immediately open the Extensions window and toggle them right back on?

The point would be to get people off MV2 by default, but giving themselves more cover on the antitrust front by technically still allowing people to use these extensions.

Given the ways in which the story has changed about this rollout, my default is to assume that nothing that is projected is set in stone. This is certainly the case for things that have been left unsaid, like the possibility of sideloading.

[lapcat]

> giving themselves more cover on the antitrust front

There's no antitrust front on the MV2 to MV3 transition. You're imagining something that doesn't exist.

> Given the ways in which the story has changed about this rollout, my default is to assume that nothing that is projected is set in stone.

That's fine, and Google itself said in the announcement that they're doing a slow rollout in order to collect data and see the effects, but it has nothing to do with antitrust. The MV2 deprecation was delayed because Chrome extension developers complained that MV3 still had serious shortcomings that prevented them from migrating their extensions from MV2, so Google paused to address many of those issues.

[gnicholas]

> There's no antitrust front on the MV2 to MV3 transition. You're imagining something that doesn't exist.

My understanding is that there is a widespread perception that the transition is largely being executed to neuter adblockers since Google makes so much money on ads. Given how aggressive the federal antitrust authorities have been in pursuing novel claims, I could easily see them going after Google if they prevent users from accessing MV2 extensions at all.

[lapcat]

> I could easily see them going after Google

Like I said, you're imagining something that doesn't exist.

There are several points worth noting:

1) Mobile Chrome doesn't even have extension support. This transition affects only desktop.

2) Chrome is not the default web browser on either Windows or Mac.

3) Chrome's Declarative Net Request API is very similar to Safari's content blocker API.

4) Given what Adguard says about MV3 on their blog and indeed in HN comments on this thread, such an imagined antitrust case would seem very hard to win. https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-manifest-v3-where-we-stan...

5) I suspect that the majority of desktop Chrome users don't even have ad blocking extensions installed in the first place.

The more I think about this, the closer I come to the conclusion that an antitrust case here is wildly implausible.

[gnicholas]

> Like I said, you're imagining something that doesn't exist.

My point is that this is Lina Khan's specialty. Everyone knows it, and Google is undoubtedly calibrating many of their business decisions to make sure that they don't attract scrutiny. This would be especially true where the product involved has over 60% market share globally.

[lapcat]

> My point is that this is Lina Khan's specialty.

So what? I've already explained in detail why there's no case here. I would hope that Khan isn't dumb enough to start a futile, unwinnable fight.

Google has plenty of antitrust problems, for example, paying Apple $billions per year to be the default search engine on iOS. But the desktop Chrome extension API is not one of those problems.

> Google is undoubtedly calibrating many of their business decisions to make sure that they don't attract scrutiny.

The word "undoubtedly" is incorrect. I'm explicitly doubting you. Not to mention that if Google was actually worried, they wouldn't be doing this extension transition in the first place.

[gnicholas]

TBH, it gives me pause to be in protracted disagreement with someone whose comments I often find insightful. But I guess what it comes down to is I don't think we can accurately predict the path of the transition, especially because it has already changed several times. If you have an inside scoop on how this is unfolding inside Google, or have worked there in the past, then you'd be in a better position to know.