The "Manifest V3" rollout is back after letting tensions cool for a year.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 98 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Google's sales pitch for Manifest V3 is that, by limiting extensions, the browser can be lighter on resources, and Google can protect your privacy from extension developers.

Emphases mine. Funny, I use extensions to protect my privacy from Google.

Chromium needs to be fully divested from Google. End of story. There's too much conflict of interest in letting the world's largest advertising company have this much control over one of the two major browsers. If you don't see the problem with that, imagine if Taco Bell was also the world's largest producer of anti-diarrhea medicine.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The second being Safari, right?

    Right?

    …right…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    As a web developer, Safari needs to either die in a fire or be transferred to a company that actually cares. It’s more than half a decade behind everybody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Tell me about it. Every time I implement some new thing in my app:

    Firefox/Chrome: You cast HTML5 video. Critical hit!

    Safari: Your spell fizzles....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    ... Safari added support for HTML5 video in 2009. Chrome did not even exist yet in 2009.

    In fact, Safari was the first to support it. At the time you had to use Flash to deliver video in every other browser.

    Firefox added a half assed implementation of the video tag shortly after Safari but it wasn't fully supported until 2013 according to caniuse.com. In fact FireFox was the last browser to fully support HTML5 video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not looking to start a flame war here, but if that's the case, then Apple's had even longer to get it right. lol. I implemented my video containers using the MDN specs which worked for both FF and Chrom(e/ium) as-is. Had to read through Apple-specific specs to figure out why Safari wouldn't render them (not autoplay but render at all).

    While it's not quite "IE all over again", it's in the ballpark where I have to make special concessions to support a specific browser that is only offered on one company's platform. History may not be repeating, but it's certainly rhyming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Ah - that's got nothing to do with supported features. Apple has always been a major backer of web based video distribution - a lot of the tech (from video formats to delivery platforms like HTTP Live Streaming to the tag were partially or even fully invented by Apple.

    Your video wasn't working because the by default Safari assumes (correctly) that most video on the web is an ad. Safari generally only tolerates text/image ads* and to get video to work, you need to make it clear to Safari that the video is a real video the user wants to see.

    Safari also silently blocks something like 99% of cookies... only cookies that behave like login/session/etc cookies are allowed. That's a lot more problematic than blocking video... since there's often just no way around it.

    (* even text/image ads are barely tolerated... as far as I know, Safari is the only major browser that includes explicit support for ad blockers - Chrome/FireFox/etc allow extensions to arbitrarily manipulate the page, but safari actually has an ad blocking API - though they call it "content blocking").

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 89 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Remember, Firefox is great and has no dependency on upstream Google code.

    Use Firefox.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Preaching to the wrong crowd there buddy, you want to be convincing the exact type of person who isn't on Lemmy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I'm pretty sure ad experience will move some masses, I liked Chrome because Ublock works fine there, it has great extensions support and the best compatibility with the websites, but if you remove the adblocker support I would have moved (if I hadn't already) in a heartbeat

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    For a while I was a bit confused, because Mozilla said they would also implement V3 Manifest ...

    by implementing Manifest V3 on its own terms, Mozilla saves developers who are switching to the new platform from having to support two different versions of their extensions (for Google Chrome and Firefox) at the same time. On the other hand, it allows content-blocking extensions that were originally built using the less restrictive Manifest V2 to continue working at full tilt.

    https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adblocking.html

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Firefox is my daily, but the fact I have to fire up a chromium browser to use web serial or midi is an endless annoyance. Mozilla won’t add that functionality as they see it as a security risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    You have a choice A. Be a Chad who Dumps Chrome and chromium based browsers . or B. remain a whiny loser who has to deal with ads.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Google can go fuck themselves for this. The moment their stupid Manifest v3 bullshit came to light, I quickly migrated to Firefox and haven’t looked back.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Firefox is just the only decent option. And while at it, use Piped or Invidious while you still can, people!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I tried using Invidious, but found that it misses quite a lot of new posts in my subscriptions. So in the end I ahem flew to Ukraine to take advantage of family Premium for around £3 a month.

    Because honestly, I have no real problem paying for Premium, but I massively object to paying £20 A MONTH to watch (mostly) amateur content that YouTube aren’t actually paying anyone to commission. How is Disney+ almost half the damn cost of a YT Premium family plan? Because Google are money-grubbing cunts, that’s how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd recommend archiving all of the channels you can from Youtube, it's clear they don't want our traffic at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean, yeah. They absolutely don't want to be spending bandwidth on those of us who use adblockers. What I don't think a lot of people realize is that Google is perfectly happy with the people who are essentially never served an ad not using the service anymore. Saves them money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    Relevant part from the blog post:

    What are we doing differently in Firefox? WebRequest

    One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.

    Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago*

    friends dont let friends use google chrome

  • source
  • [–] [S] 16 points 2 years ago*

    Ars Technica – Bias and Credibility

    Bias Rating: Least Biased

    Factual Reporting: High

    Country: USA

    MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: Mostly Free

    Media Type: Website

    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

    MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility

    About MediaBiasFactCheck.com

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    for those who haven't switched to firefox, might i recommend:

    https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher - which adds a chrome like profile switcher to your firefox toolbars

    and

    https://github.com/muckSponge/MaterialFox - which changes the look of firefox to chrome's new 2023 material design refresh

    edit: sorry! see the reply below i had the wrong repo for the updated materialfox. it's actually: https://github.com/edelvarden/material-fox-updated

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    MaterialFox hasn't been updated in a very long time, unless you're talking about a fork and just copied the wrong link?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    sorry!

    i remembered it was a fork that i saw which had the material refresh and i went back and sure enough it was further down in my starred repositories!

    the correct link is: https://github.com/edelvarden/material-fox-updated

    for reference i found it through: https://old.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/comments/17a9a6l/implemented_chrome_refresh_2023_redesign_in/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Enterprise users with the "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" policy turned on will get an extra year of Manifest V2 compatibility.

    Who are these enterprise users 🤨 🤔...

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Any way of migrating chrome passwords to other password managers? And any good free password managers? That's what's keeping me from switching

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Bitwarden has a great free tier, it’s open source, and cross platform. I highly recommend it!

    https://bitwarden.com/help/import-from-chrome/

    If you want something that’s not cloud focused, check out KeepassXC too!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] [B] 4 points 2 years ago

    🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summaryA year later, Google is restarting the phase-out schedule, and while it has changed some things, Chrome will eventually be home to inferior filtering extensions.

    Google's blog post says the plan to kill Manifest V2, the current format for Chrome extensions, is back on starting June 2024.

    The company says: "We expect it will take at least a month to observe and stabilize the changes in pre-stable before expanding the rollout to stable channel Chrome, where it will also gradually roll out over time.

    On the high end now for me, Slack is drinking 500MB, while a single Google Chat tab, created by this company that is so concerned about performance, is at 1.5GB of memory usage.

    Google is adding a completely arbitrary limit on how many "rules" content filtering add-ons can include, which are needed to keep up with the nearly infinite ad-serving sites that are out there (by the way, Ars Technica subscriptions give you an ad-free reading experience and make a great holiday gift!).

    Mozilla's blog post on the subject promises "Firefox’s implementation of Manifest V3 ensures users can access the most effective privacy tools available like uBlock Origin and other content-blocking and privacy-preserving extensions."


    Saved 72% of original text.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›