In recognition of the confusion among developers trying to adapt their extensions to MV3, Li said Google has implemented new APIs and platform improvements and has created a progress page to provide more transparency with regard to the state of MV2-MV3 transition.
Since 2018, Google has been revising the code that defines what browser extensions can do in Chrome. Its outgoing architecture known as Manifest v2 proved too powerful– it could be used by rogue add-ons to steal data, for example – and Google claimed use of those capabilities hindered browser performance. Critics like the EFF have disputed that.
Coincidentally, those capabilities, particularly the ability to intercept and revise network requests based on dynamic criteria, made Manifest v2 useful for blocking content and privacy-violating tracking scripts.
Under the new Manifest v3 regime, extensions have been domesticated. As a result, they appear to use computing resources more efficiently while being less effective at content blocking.
Whether or not this results in meaningful performance improvement, the MV3 change has been championed by Google for Chrome and the open source Chromium project, and is being supported by those building atop Chromium, like Microsoft Edge, as well as Apple's WebKit-based Safari and Mozilla's Gecko-based Firefox.
However, Brave, Mozilla, and Vivadi have said they intend to continue supporting Manifest v2 extensions for an indeterminate amount of time. How long that will last is anyone's guess.
Brave, like other privacy-oriented companies and advocacy groups, has made it clear this regime change is not to its liking. "With Manifest V3, Google is harming privacy and limiting user choice," the developer said via Twitter. "The bottom line, though, is that Brave will still continue to offer leading protection against invasive ads and trackers."
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/vival ... nifest-v3/The big killer for ad block extensions comes from changes to the way network request modifications work. Google says that "rather than intercepting a request and modifying it procedurally, the extension asks Chrome to evaluate and modify requests on its behalf." Chrome's built-in solution forces ad blockers and privacy extensions to use the primitive solution of a raw list of blocked URLs rather than the dynamic filtering rules implemented by something like uBlock Origin. That list of URLs is limited to 30,000 entries, whereas a normal ad block extension can come with upward of 300,000 rules.
There's considerable concern that Google is using its position as the world's largest browser vendor to protect Google's business model by hamstringing ad blockers and privacy-protection extensions. A few months ago, the EFF called Manifest V3 "deceitful and threatening." The privacy advocacy group said Manifest V3 "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."
The EFF poked holes in most of Google's justifications for Manifest V3 changes, saying that malicious extensions are mostly interested in stealing data and that Manifest V3 only stops extensions from blocking data, not inspecting it, so Google isn't doing much to stop bad actors. The report says performance also isn't a valid excuse, citing a study showing that ad downloading and rendering degrades browser performance.
Whether it's explicitly or implicitly, Google's ad division seems to have an increasing influence on the design of Chrome. The company refuses to block tracking cookies until it can first build a tracking and advertising system directly into Chrome.
Several extension developers are working on solutions within the Manifest V3 sandbox. There's no way of knowing the end-user impact until these solutions are developed and Google kills the existing extension platform, but loudly rolling out user-hostile changes seems like one of the few things that could hurt Chrome's market share. Firefox is still out there, along with an endless number of Chromium forks.
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/09/ubloc ... extension/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09 ... h-in-2023/
https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/30/ ... xtensions/
just an update on manifest v3 by google. what it boils down to is, trying to destroy effective adblockers like gorhills ublock extension because it's too effective.
and guess what, coincidentally, youtube will also have MORE adverts when manifest v3 goes live in 2023. so less effective blockers, ontop of more ads, especially on a medium like youtube which most people use. great....
....so best prepare before then. love chrome, but if i can't use an effective adblocker then i'd have to look elsewhere
and unfortunately ungoogled chromium will also be affected by manifest v3 as well.
if these browser integrated adblockers were as good as uBlock Origin, then i wouldn't mind. but i doubt it.There is another problem that could affect Chrome extensions. At the beginning of 2022, Google stopped accepting Manifest V2 extensions on the Chrome Web Store, and announced that it will remove all Manifest V2 add-ons from the store in 2023. This will result in the removal of content blockers such as uBlock Origin, so users may not be able to install or update the extension from the Web Store.
Vivaldi's users rely on the web store for installing extensions, so this will affect them directly. If Vivaldi continues to support Manifest V2 in 2023, it will need to provide users with an alternative way to install V2 extensions. The only solution, besides sideloading the browser plugin (needs to be updated manually), would be to introduce a Vivaldi Store to host extensions, something which the developers say could not be an easy task, and would require some effort and willingness from add-on maintainers. The same will apply to Brave Browser, though one could argue that its built-in content blocker is better.
Personally, I feel that uBlock Origin cannot be replaced. Vivaldi's ad blocker is good, but there is plenty of room for improvement. It really needs an element blocker for cosmetic filtering, and a custom rule editor among other things, otherwise it risks losing on users who may want to migrate away from Chrome next year.
Would you use Vivaldi's ad blocker instead of uBlock Origin?
Browser makers like Mozilla, Brave and Vivaldi are concerned about the controversial declarativeNetRequest API, which threatens the future of content blockers on Chrome and Chromium-based browsers, and poses a risk to the privacy and security of users. Mozilla will continue to support Manifest V2 in Firefox, as will Vivaldi.
The Manifest V3 Conundrum
An article published on Vivaldi's blog points out that Manifest V2 is not being deprecated completely, only the ability to block requests from webRequest is. V2 will be available for enterprise users until June 2023. The developer says that the underlying code for webRequest will remain intact until that time, and since declarativeNetRequest is built on top of it, Vivaldi's native ad blocker written in C++, should be able to use the Chromium API and on paper, continue to function when Manifest V3 becomes the norm.
If Vivaldi continues to support Manifest V2, existing add-ons including ad blockers will remain unaffected, won't they? The developer says this largely depends on how Manifest V3 develops, and also on which the APIs that the extensions use. The browser maker plans to remove whatever restrictions Google adds, but does admit it could be a difficult ride. In the event that Vivaldi is forced to drop support for Manifest V2, users may have no choice, but to rely on the browser's built-in ad-blocker.
AdGuard recently released a Manifest V3 compatible content blocker, but the extension hasn't had an impressive start. Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, released an add-on called uBlock Lite (formerly uBO Minus), it seems promising, but it's not as good as the original version. The extensions are crippled by the changes in Manifest V3, access to the APIs, and artificial limitations. It might take a while for these extensions to evolve.
ShatnerFan-
Yeah, you're wrong here, Chromium is getting V3, which means all chromium based browsers are getting V3.
So they either have to fork chromium at V2 or keep V2 code maintained themselves going forward. That's a considerable amount of work for the small development teams of chromium based browsers. Only Microsoft has the manpower to do this long term, and they aren't. Brave has announced that are manually supporting V2 but I have no idea how long they'll be able to do that until the technical overhead gets too much.
So adblocking IS going to be severely crippled in Chrome come V3 in January 2023
From what I've read Brave and any other chromium browser that's planning on running V2 and V3 side by side can only do so for a certain amount of time before the technical overhead makes it impossible to viably continue with that approach. So it's a sticking plaster for a while longer and not a solution.
not quite sure if brave and vivaldi will be able to effectively support manifest v2 and if Ublock would work on any browser in 2023. Maybe firefox but something to keep an eye on
*update
or it may have been pushed back to 2024
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/29/googl ... s-to-2024/
A minuscule proportion of all Chrome users will switch. They're the technical people like the El Reg forum dwellers."I think people will simply switch to Chromium forks where it still works."
Think about your next door neigbours, your CEO or your parents/children. Most people are just using "a browser". Just like the blue E letter used to mean Internet access some years ago, now it's that multicoloured ball icon that is the internet for most people in the world.
Of all Chrome users (billions of them?), a minority know about, or use adblockers or other plugins that will stop working. Those in the know will move to Firefox or whatever Chromium fork will survive but masses won't.