::Laughs in Firefox::
Who knows⌠Firefox might just follow suit. If devs have to write their extensions one for Chrome and once for Firefox, the Firefox one will probably be the first to die.
Thatâs not how it works. Firefox has full support for Manifest v3 extensions, but it does also support MV2 at the same time, and aims to keep MV2 support alive in the future.
From the article:
Firefox plans to support Manifest V3 because Chrome is the worldâs most popular browser, and it wants extensions to be cross-browser compatible, but it has no plans to turn off support for Manifest V2.
I doubt theyâll ever choose to shut down V2, but Google is already forcing their hand a little by making them require supporting V3 to stay relevant
Not if more people use FireFoxâŚ
Firefox also supports mobile extensions, unlike Chrome.
Unfortunately, as much as I like and use firefox on both pc and mobile, chrome and chromium based browsers dominate the market. It doesnât help that they come pre-installed in both cases.
Then there will be thousands, millions of people continuing development of FF extensions.
Isnât that already how it works? Are there extensions trust work unchanged on both browsers? At the very least theyâd have to maintain them on both addon stores.
Thereâs a common specification called WebExtension, which is used by all modern browsers. Firefox had their own API (XUL/XPCOM) before that, but they deprecated it in 2017. Safari also used to have its own system for extensions, but itâs been deprecated since 2019. The Manifest API is a subset of WebExtension, which defines an extension.
Firefox plans to support Manifest V3 because Chrome is the worldâs most popular browser, and it wants extensions to be cross-browser compatible, but it has no plans to turn off support for Manifest V2.
If Google decided to break V2 compatibility with V3, Mozilla should announce V4 (or V3 extended), which is V3 but with the missing stuff readded.
Thatâd be a good practical and great product/tech marketing move. Just like most people wonât see how V3 is worse than V2, V4 will indicate itâs the evolved and improved V3.
It would also simplify supporting V3 and V4 at the same time for extension authors. A great practical gain for extension authors, not having to read and understand two manifest schemes and APIs.
Mozillaâs V3 implementation already extends out removing artificial limitations from it. Mozillaâs doing a reverse E3 and Iâm all here for it.
Now if only the nincompoop IT dept on my company allowed me to run FirefoxâŚ
When my company enabled Microsoft InTune this year, so that our administration could ensure software is updated on our PCs, it repeatedly downgraded my Firefox back to before a security update, on every login. lol
We went through all this shit with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. Itâs time to break up Googleâs monopoly.
Iâll develop my own browser before using an ad-infested internet. Luckily I donât have to do that, because there are alternatives and also because it would be a damn time consuming project to put it mildly đ
I wonder what would happen if ÂľBlockOrigin was just pulled from the Chrome Webstore. Would that drive people to other browsers?
Some would switch, some would install another ad blocker extension, and some wouldnât know any better and do nothing.
Unfortunately, most people donât care all that much.
but there are some people who do care.
Thereâs uBO Lite, which is an MV3 version so one step towards making adblockers less useful as Google planned.
Many people have said they have switched already and have said it works without issues (as far as they know). Iâm sure there is a huge amount of sites and configs that didnât make it into the lite version, I guess weâll find out when a huge userbase refuses to migrate from chrome and installs the uBo-lite
37 million Chrome users have downloaded Ublock Origin (if that isnât including duplicate downloads/multiple accounts on one user).
5.3 billion people use the internet. 307 million in the U.S. as of 2022⌠what is that, 10% of Americans using Chrome using adblock? Less?
So max 37M users possibly willing to switch away from Chrome should it not be available anymore. Not nothing.
8.2% isnât nothing but I also wonder if itâs worth anything to Google. That would bring Firefox from ~3.3% to 11.5% of the browser market share if everyone switched to non-chromium browsers.
I just wonder if thatâs enough for anything. Itâs better than nothing of course, and for those users that switch thereâs almost nothing but benefits, Itâs more just that I have doubts about the willingness of the general public caring enough, and if 10% of people will have an effect for Firefox or against Google
IMO ~+10%pt just provide Google with a thicker armor against antitrust lawsuits. âHey hey hey, canât sue us! We have a competitor with ~15% of the market! And we helped them get there! Look at the 500 million we give them per year!â.
If Mozilla wanted to be a threat to Google, IMO they could, but theyâd rather pay their CEO 5M, fire a few hundred engineers, and spend a fraction of their Google money on Firefox.
deleted by creator
Reminder than most other browsers are based on chromium, and Google can probably break ad blockers on them if they want to.
I went back to FireFox way back when the announcement of V3 killing adblockers in chromium first was made. I could go without everything else a browser offers, as long as it has ad blocking.
I legit want AR glasses for the same thing; to block ads IRL.
Literally just gave up brave for Firefox two weeks ago just for that reason even though brave isnât supposedly gonna be affected. I have no doubt Google might deliberately just break chromium one day once and for all.
I actually really like the AR glasses idea. That said, They need to be open source and de-spookified, and there needs to be some kind of regulation that they canât store or transmit images without first displaying a recording indicator.
Itâs probably not going to happen like that, though, so Iâm not mad existing ones have such bad battery lives.
it is so sad that e is dead
You left out the âNâ and the âtscape Navigatorâ
If someone unironically wore gloves like that I would bully them without hesitation.
Those arenât gloves, theyâre just weirdly soft knuckle dusters.
Braveâs native adblock works better than anything else Iâve tried.
Give Brave a look, folks.
Use Firefox. The crypto bros running Brave have been caught multiple times gathering and selling user data. You use Chrome as the base when you want to hoover data.
False.
They sold data from Brave search, which you donât have to use. (and I donât.)
Also, the crypto thing is also opt-in. You donât have to use it either.
It works better than Firefox, especially if your aim is blocking ads.
âI trust these guys to not sell my data because theyâve only sold me data over thereâ is a hell of a take.
Someone has their identity tied up in this for some reason
I think that, if youâre going to pretend to know what youâre talking about, you should know what youâre talking about.
I think itâs a good thing that a person as to willingly opt-in to data collection.
Itâs really that simple.
They still sold user data without being upfront about it until caught, and are still running a shady-ass business. Theyâre at the intersection of crypto, bigotry, and dishonesty.
Not using or advocating for Brave is pretty simple.
They still sold user data without being upfront about it until caught,
And then they did better, as a business should. Itâs all in their FAQ.
Iâm not sure why there has to be a circle jerk of trolls any time someone mentions Brave, but here we are.
How much of a corporate shill are you? Do you own the company or something? Be open minded and try other things. Donât be a corporate drone. Donât defend the corporate doing as right , defend your interests first.
No thank you, Iâll use Firefox instead. Brendan Eich the CEO of Brave is a POS, he donates to shitty causes and then pretends that those donations donât define him as a bigot.
âIn other words, because he silently donated to causes seeking to strip rights from minority groups instead of directly harassing them, the outrage was unjustified.â
Itâs also a chromium based browser so good chance it will loose any ad blocking ability if google decides to play hardball.
Thatâs fine. Do what you like.
Firefox or Vivaldi. I prefer Vivaldi with its built-in blocking. I also use NextDNS for DNS level blocking. Free plan is good enough for my use.
đ¤ Iâm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Other groups donât agree with Googleâs description, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which called Manifest V3 âdeceitful and threateningâ back when it was first announced in 2019, saying the new system âwill restrict the capabilities of web extensionsâespecially those that are designed to monitor, modify, and compute alongside the conversation your browser has with the websites you visit.â
Google, which makes about 77 percent of its revenue from advertising, has not published a serious explanation as to why Manifest V3 limits content filtering, and itâs not clear how that aligns with the goals of âimproving the security, privacy, performance and trustworthiness.â
Like Kewisch said, the primary goal of malicious extensions is to spy on users and slurp up data, which has nothing to do with content filtering.
Google now says itâs possible for extensions to skip the reviews process for âsafeâ rule set changes, but even this is limited to âstaticâ rulesets, not more powerful âdynamicâ ones.
In a comment to The Verge last year, the senior staff technologist at the EFF, Alexei Miagkov, summed up Googleâs public negotiations with the extension community well, saying, "These are helpful changes, but they are tweaks to a limited-by-design system.
For a short period, users will be able to turn them back on if they visit the extension page, but Google says that âover time, this toggle will go away as well.â
Saved 67% of original text.
