Hacker News Reader

Comment by evilpie | Hacker News Reader

> The Firefox team is experimenting with ways to improve the built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection feature in Firefox. This is one of the libraries we're going to experiment with.

> - We are not, and have no plans to abandon MV2 extensions. This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox.

> - Firefox supports several ad-blockers as add-ons on Desktop and Android, including uBlock Origin.

> - We are not bundling Brave's ad-blocking system, we're testing one of their open source Rust components to improve how Firefox processes tracker lists.

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1sttf82/firefox_wi...

This is what the official Firefox account had to say when this came up on reddit.

View on HN

From TFA:

> The browser now ships adblock-rust, Brave's open source Rust-based ad and tracker blocking engine.

It makes sense that Mozilla would test this. The amount of Rust code in Firefox is already at 12%.

https://4e6.github.io/firefox-lang-stats/

Memory-safe code can make a huge difference in trust and software risk. Google has said that a 70% of Chrome vulnerabilities are related to memory (un)safety. This is in the browser with dominant marketshare.

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...

> This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox.

Oof, so even people that should really know better are now equating MV3 with "no more ad blocking"? I think at this point the entire thing just needs to be renamed.

(Only Chrome removed the request blocking API from their MV3 implementation; Firefox did not.)

Did Vivaldi? Or Brave? Will uBlock work properly with Mv3 and request blocking?

Of course everything based on Chromium will inherit most of Chrome's decisions, including this one. (Unless they fork their entire web extension implementation and maintain the fork forever.)

Yeah but then "only Chrome" is misleading, when it's actually "every major browser except Firefox".

Safari isn't exactly non-major. By the way, it seems like WebKit Embedded (~resource-efficient Linux port) has regained some steam due to Igalia's work over the last two years or so.

A single engine/implementation deprecated the feature. I don’t think this is particularly misleading in a hacker news context.

Every major browser except Firefox is Chrome

or Safari

Brave still supports UBo though. How long they can maintain that support is an open question.

Non-Chrome Chromium browsers should band together and support request blocking for Mv3 at this point. It would be one compelling feature that differentiates them from Chrome.

The people who know better should also know that tech social media was flooded with people not knowing what they were talking about mentioning manifest versions.

It wouldn't be the first time tech gossip rags would take something Mozilla did out of proportion to make outrage videos about that become a hit on Reddit.

When Mozilla added some weird AI thing (I think it was page summaries?) I was asked by people whose algorithm picked up this nonsense whether it'd be better for their privacy to switch back to Chrome or Edge.

> It wouldn't be the first time tech gossip rags would take something Mozilla did out of proportion to make outrage videos about that become a hit on Reddit.

Sounds like the issue here is paid social media platforms, where everybody is looking for ways to differentiate their slop from the rest. It would be weird to expect a different outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Manifest_V3_2

> However, DeclarativeWebRequest is limited in the number of rules that may be set, and the types of expressions that may be used.[336] Additionally, the prohibition of remotely-hosted code will restrict the ability for filter lists to be updated independently of the extension itself. As the Chrome Web Store review process has an invariable length, filter lists may not be updated in a timely fashion.[337][338]

Is that not true?

It is, but it’s not relevant. Firefox offers both APIs.

We shouldn't equate it with "no more ad blocking" because it didn't ship with an attempt to make ad blockers less effective or because that's not all it shipped with?

"This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox" clearly means that MV3 makes ad blocking worse, not entirely disabled. How can you get "no more ad blocking" out of that ?

Again, no. MV3 (the specification) does not do anything to ad blocking. Chrome's implementation of MV3 does.

For precision, I should have said "significantly worse ad blocking", not exaggerated as "no more ad blocking".

This is all sophistry. The spec is irrelevant, what matters is only the implementation and the fact that Chrome has a crushing dominance.

How does Chrome’s implementation matter in an article about Firefox?

In a market so crushingly dominated by one monopolist, everything is about what the monopolist does.

Am I so jaded that I read "we have no plans to" as "we likely will" ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com