Manifest V3 and the future of adblocking

In ~3 months Google will be updating Chrome and by proxy Chromium to Manifest V3 https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ Due to alterations to API the tl;dr is that privacy and ad blocking extensions such as uBlock will no longer work. Mozilla for now will support both Manifest V2 and V3, but as for how long exactly is unknown. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest-v3-faq/ Further reading: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/googles-manifest-v3-still-hurts-privacy-security-innovation https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blocker-extension-api/ So what do other Lainons think the future of adblocking and general privacy browser addons be? Do you think minor browsers like Falkon get more extensions developed for them, will some kind of workaround be found to get something like uBlock to run on Manifest V3, or will the focus of privacy and adblocking turn to applications that run separate from the web browser?

I think this manifest bullshit is just wind. Adblockers are technology-literate enough to know how to switch to an ungoogled chromium with enabled adblockers

Manifest V3 is good for privacy as it restricts what an extension can do. uBlock Origin is far too privileged and can access all of your data on every website, so by using it you're actually worsening privacy because adblocking is purely convenience and doesn't actually prevent tracking. I think adblocking will either die in the future or it'll be something included by default in all browsers except Chrome. Extensions are becoming obsolete and these days it's more sane to use a VPN with adblocking capabilities, a browser with adblocking by default, or no adblocking at all. Minor browsers won't get more extensions because nobody wants to develop for a browser that nobody uses. Falkon uses QtWebEngine which uses an extremely old version of Blink meaning it has hundreds of unpatched vulnerabilities that new versions of Blink patched months ago. Browsers that use WebKitGTK aren't recommended either since WebKit does not support site isolation. The sane thing to do would be to use Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge (or Brave if you want a browser that can block ads) and do not install any browser extensions.

>>63870 uBlock origin is open source. You can read the code, download it and deploy by yourself. Why is that less sane options than an adblocker build into the browser? Do we have to trust that big companies that build browsers to take care of it ?

>>63870 It does prevent tracking though. Just look at the filter lists that are enabled by default.

>>63865 >Do you think minor browsers like Falkon get more extensions developed for them Well, at least for Epiphany they now have the ability to install Firefox and Chrome extensions (it's in beta), but this will still be affected by the manifest v3.

>>63872 And by using uBlock Origin you're not only trusting Gorhill but also the EasyList and EasyPrivacy maintainers. Do not install additional filters or enable advanced mode. This reduces attack surface and makes all users uniform.

>>63870 >uBlock Origin is far too privileged and can access all of your data on every website Just because it can in theory doesn't mean that it is. There's no evidence to support that claim let alone that uBlock is spying on its users. >by using it you're actually worsening privacy because adblocking is purely convenience and doesn't actually prevent tracking Tracking scripts are a thing and guess what can block it? uBlock. >The sane thing to do would be to use Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge (or Brave if you want a browser that can block ads) and do not install any browser extensions Please tell me why I should trust Google and Microsoft, who have parts of their software closed source, and are corpos who's purpose is to make money. Google specifically is focused on advertising profit so why should I trust them with my data? >>63877 Why should I not trust Gorhill (uBlock's developer) and the maintainers of those lists? Everything they're doing is to make browsing the web better because I don't have to worry about tracking and blocking ads speeds up loading and improves performance.

>>63869 actually I don't think most are. A good chunk of people using adblock are totally normal users, they just install ublock because their tech-literate friend said it's good. I'm not so worried about "us", meaning those who are tech literate enough to switch to a firefox fork that respects our freedom to some extent, or come up with some other technical solution. The people we should be worried about are the normal users, who have been trained for years to never even attempt something "advanced" or take control away from google et al. Pretty soon they will live in a world where every website is unusable because of ads, and they will believe that that is simply something they have to tolerate.

the main word for manifest v3 is "privacy" if they would really care about privacy they could just include options to limit extensions apis

>>63865 have you considered an adblocking DNS over HTTPS?

>>63891 Couldn't Chrome just enforce DNS-over-HTTPS to disallow using custom DNS?

>>63897 You can always run local dns like unbound or a proxy server like privoxy to blacklist/whitelist domains you don't want your browser to contact. They can't take away dns/proxy support because they are needed by corporate users. The worst they can do is ignore the settings and go straight to 8.8.8.8 or google's ad servers when an ad fails to load, but that's what firewalls are for.

>>63878 No. uBlock Origin is privileged and not secure from malicious filters. Installing extensions is never safe. https://portsperson whose company I enjoy.net/research/ublock-i-exfiltrate-exploiting-ad-blockers-with-css https://palant.info/

>>63905 So uBlock had an exploit (that was patched) and some extensions could have exploits that allow the abuse of the privileges it has? Okay but why does that make extensions untrustworthy? Software having exploits occur daily and are (usually) patched quickly. Just because it has the potential to be malicious doesn't make it dangerous. Right now it sounds like you're trying to spread FUD over a minor issue.

>>63865 just use firefox/a firefox fork. librewolf is pretty good

>>63905 >Installing extensions is never safe. Yeah, very important to never wear a condom because the condom might give you an infection! The attack vector you posted is basically equivalent to "someone could post a malicious package to a major package manager's official repository!" Which *is possible*, but functionally we're still a *lot* better off than nonfree software users downloading and installing random executables from the web without verifying a signature. >>63920 > Right now it sounds like you're trying to spread FUD over a minor issue. all these "free software is insecure!" weenies are doing exactly this. There's clearly a lot that needs to be done and it is good that there are people pointing out the big gaping holes in free software, but I think the low-IQ ones that like to repost to be contrarian.

>>63865 Webkit, probably. Google is an ad and tracking company. Now that Chrome is comfortably the dominant browser, you'd expect it to suppress extensions that openly attack its primary source of revenue to the extent that it can retain dominance. Apple, on the other hand, makes its money selling e-waste. The Safari extensions page lists three adblockers up front (Chrome lists zero). If Google cracks down on adblockers, Apple can buff Webkit's native content blocking (which is already decent), step on Google's toes, reclaim some browser market share, and reinforce its "commitment" to """privacy""". DuckDuckGo and Orion both say they plan on opening the sources to their upcoming nominally privacy-focused Webkit-based browsers. Not putting money on anything, but could be keen. >>63921 Librewolf good, yeah. Not sure what Firefox will do in the future though. Maybe they're so cool they wanna die >>63920 >>63928 you guys are on a ruse cruise lmao also dataspii dot com

>>63921 it's still based in firefox, they will not be able to maintain a fork if they don't give compile options to get rid of it. Palemoon will still be good alternative though, they have distanced themselves more and more from the mainline firefox during the last few years. Webkit would be nice but it got unstable with all the modern web. There are a ton of work to do to have a perfectly usable web browser.

>>63865 Will Palememe become a major browser if this happens? Or will everyone start using a hosts file?

>Due to alterations to API the tl;dr is that privacy and ad blocking extensions such as uBlock will no longer work. gorhill and AdGuard have both released adblockers compatible MV3. They don't work as well, but they do work. >>63879 Can second this. Never seen someone else running an adblocker in the wild, but I have recommended uBlock and AdGuard to a lot of people, which would be a much harder sell if it meant switching browsers. >>63948 Not unless it miraculously improves. Are there any normal person-friendly, set-and-forget tools for managing hosts files?

>>63878 I only use the lastest version of google chrome with windows operating system because I care about my privacy and my security. Google and Microsoft take my privacy seriously which is why they implemented all their great features to get me back in the business and make my life easier. It's hard for me to think how would it be to operate my life without most of the simple and effective apps they provide me. Plus, because my account links everything together I am able to syncronize everything! even on my computer! you shouldn't download any open source projects, they compromise your security by letting hackers see the code. I also trust google with all my information because they are under international law to keep it safe so they wouldn't collect it in fear of getting a lawsuit. Also why would I ever want to use linux as an operation system? I don't want to be associeted with hackers and geeks, plus I don't want to type all these commands to achieve something that I can do with just a click of the button in windows. Also I can't run my adobe programs on linux and I just can't design without them... this entire argument seems a little bit pointless to me why wouldn't you trust big corporations that are literally regulated and watched over?

>>64026 I have to ask do you have autism or a learning disability, or mental health problems, or is this a bot you've wrote, or are you an especially bedbound troll? The dedication is impressive.

>>63928 >Yeah, very important to never wear a condom because the condom might give you an infection! And it makes you stand out from other people who have sex. Not good. >>63948 No. Pale Moon has no proper sandbox, lacks site isolation, uses extremely old code and legacy extensions. It's also much slower and doesn't work on a lot of websites. Most people will just live with Manifest V3 and either use V3-compatible adblockers or just live with ads. Adblocking isn't a privacy feature and is purely convenience. Trading security for convenience is not okay.

>>63869 >Adblockers are technology-literate enough to know how to switch to an ungoogled chromium with enabled adblockers A lot of adblock users did not install it themselves. Many businesses have adblockers installed on all machines they're responsible for by default. This is the standard in industry because ad networks are one of the biggest spreaders of malware. Unfortunately, they also often need to use chrome for compatibility reasons with web apps they need for work. Using older versions of Chrome is going to be out of the question as soon as a major CVE affecting pre-manifest v3 Chrome drops, or a web app they use requires some newer feature of Chrome. The issue is unfortunately not as simple as "just switch to a different browser" thanks to Google's market share and Chrome specific features. The same reason why so many businesses had to keep using IE back in the day despite it being a hot mess.

>>63934 Just checked Orion's FAQ; they specifically say it'll support Manifest V2 extensions. >>64027 lu­rk more j­fc

>>64027 >an especially bedbound troll Never underestimate the vindictiveness of people who can't leave their room.

>>64026 >the latest version of google chrome with windows operating system because I care about my privacy If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?

>>64026 Mate the bait is too obvious

>>63865 >So what do other Lainons think the future of adblocking and general privacy browser addons be If there's a will, there's a way. I imagine adblocker people will find a way to block ads regardless of the changes v3 brings. It's just gonna take a while and it will suck for early adopters. >>63870 >it's more sane to use a VPN with adblocking capabilities That makes sense. Is it possible to block ads on your own without the use of an extension or VPN? (I imagine just a firewall blocking google adsense for example would work in that sense. I never looked into how an adblocker works.) Not ready to trust a VPN provider just yet.

>>64152 pi-hole https://pi-hole.net/ blocks ads on a DNS level on your own network.

>>64152 >Is it possible to block ads on your own without the use of an extension or VPN? Use a hosts file (works on Windoze, GNU/Linux and *BSD. But on Botnet 10 and Botnet 11, the built-in Defender antivirus probably will try to block it. Perhaps you can whitelist your hosts file?). >https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ >https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/