Chrome Users Beware: Manifest V3 is Deceitful and Threatening

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening

#Chrome #Users #Beware #Manifest #Deceitful #Threatening

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote

24 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Can anyone ELI5 what the practical implications of mv3 are?

    The article says

    >
    Manifest V3, or Mv3 for short, is outright harmful to privacy efforts. It will restrict the capabilities of web extensions—especially those that are designed to monitor, modify, and compute alongside the conversation your browser has with the websites you visit. Under the new specifications, extensions like these– like some privacy-protective tracker blockers– will have greatly reduced capabilities. Google’s efforts to limit that access is concerning, especially considering that Google has trackers installed on 75% of the top one million websites.”

    But what are the specific capabilities reduced?

  2. Is there no way to just have an OS level adware blocker that sidesteps all of this? Something at SYSTEM level could monitor and block requests the same way a browser based blocker could. It may be a little trickier as you don’t have it neatly packaged in an API call, but I don’t see anything stopping something like that from being written

  3. If Google thinks that “performance gains” are to had by shaving a few microseconds off every request and instead forcing you to lex, parse, validate and execute megabytes huge blobs by various ad networks, plus various images and <iframe>s, which will take seconds, they clearly don’t know the first thing about performance. Paying a few extra cycles analyzing so you can avoid huge chunk of work is a typical optimization technique.

    But we all know they don’t actually believe that. This clearly wasn’t a request by the Blink team. Even **if** it **were** noticably slower,they could just have a “fast path” for if no extension that makes use of blocking webRequests are present and a “slow” path.

    Just don’t understand whom they want to fool. The normie isn’t reading this and everyone who understands enough knows what Google wants to do here.

  4. I’ve been using Chrome for 7 years since I got my first computer, but what Google has been doing lately finally pushed me to switch to Firefox. You should all do the same, it’s the only way we can fight back. Fuck Google, Firefox and UBlock/Adblock Plus rules!

  5. This is one of those situations that just has no answer. I’m just as happy as anyone not to have random content from random parties thrown at me when I go to a web site. OTOH, much to most of the web only exists because its supposedly ad supported. If we consume those services but then block the ads, that makes us no more ethically sound than Google. We should either not consume those services, and make it clear why we don’t and what changes would be required to make them acceptable, or accept the ads, or pay for the content.

    Ultimately something has to come to a head on this situation. The world isn’t going to continue to give us content for free, and if it becomes clear that ads are not providing anything like a reasonable ROI, then all of that content is either going to go away or become paid content. Given how happy people are to steal content as well, probably the former.

    Anyhoo, I just find it a little bit hypocritical that we slam Google while sort of being just as questionable ourselves. Of course we make a lot less money for our lack of ethics than they do, so it’s not exactly an even field. But still…

  6. The share of Chrome users using Adblockers might as well switch main browser?

    You would think this doesn’t matter to Google as those user types are low profit ones.

    Issue is, though, Google is modeling the ad conversions for these users. Their models would get less signals and maybe perform worse.

    Google would be less good as capturing conversions and thereby less efficient at making money off of ads.

    Frankly getting more and more disappointed in Google. They are too cocky.

  7. Not surprised. This is why I use Firefox, and why I hacked the Chrome installer years ago to block Keystone from being installed.

    Let’s hope FF doesn’t jump on the bandwagon as the article implies might happen for “compatibility reasons.”

  8. I don’t understand, wouldn’t requiring explicit opt in of browser plugin functionality be a good thing? Plugin’s “should” operate in a security context like any other thing, and Manifest V3 seems to be an attempt to narrow down on these security policies. I appreciate there may be a flow on implication for ad blocking software, but surely at most the browser would prompt the user to `Accept` permissions required by the plugin…

    I don’t fully understand, can someone explain why this is bad?

Leave a Reply