deleted by creator
Hardly surprising considering that Brave, Vivaldi and Edge are all based on Chromium. The Brave and Vivaldi team won’t have the resources to maintain Manifest v2 support for each new Chromium version, and Microsoft doesn’t have any reason to support v2 with Edge outside of goodwill.
They are just giving some time for the waters to calm a bit, and then say that it is taking too much effort.
Yup. And perhaps even hoping they can pick up a few users from Chrome when it drops support.
Vivaldi does a lot of adblocking natively, and they are maintaining V2 as long as they can, which based on info from Google is summer 2025 but might change.
deleted by creator
Could we keep using our ad-blocking extensions in Vivaldi?
But, “Wait”, I hear you say, “Doesn’t that mean that basically, Vivaldi might be able to keep webRequest intact just by bypassing the checks for enterprise environments? Could we keep using our adblocking extensions in Vivaldi?”
This certainly sounds plausible, but it is not something that we can promise without seeing what ends up happening in the code itself. If there is an easy way to keep webRequest functioning as it did for a while longer, we’ll consider doing it.
However, it is important to note that extension ad blockers often depend on other APIs that are removed in Manifest V3 (and probably much harder to bring back), so there is no guarantee that simply keeping the blocking version of webRequest alive is going to be enough, without some work from extension maintainers.
The answer is more than one, because Firefox has several forks of its own, and as far as I know all of them (even Pale Moon, which is highly divergent and never supported Manifest V2) support uBlock.
I agree that all Chromium-based browsers are going to drop support sooner or later.
deleted by creator
Does Firefox use “manifest v2”? When reading all the frothing news about this stuff, I assumed the “manifest” thing was a Chromium thing.
Firefox will support Manifest v3. However Mozilla will be implementing Manifest 3 differently so the routes Ublock and other extensions use to maintain privacy and block ads will still be available. Firefox will support both the original route and the new limited option Google is forcing on Chromium.
Googles implementation deliberately locks out extensions by removing something called WebRequest, supposedly for security reasons but almost certainly actually for commercial reasons as they are not a neutral party. Google is a major ad and data broker.
Apple will apparently also be adopting the same approach for Safari as Mozilla is for Firefox.
If I remember correctly, yes. There was a pain in the ass a few years ago when Firefox switched from their own add-on system to one that matched Chrome’s, despite Firefox’s being more powerful and mature. The goal was to make it easier to port Chromes (arguably) greater variety of add-ons to Firefox.
It was an unpopular decision and it was the start of a downward decline for Firefox. People that had their browser “just the way I like it” found themselves starting fresh essentially, and without some of their favourite add-ons.
Damn. That means they are once again on a divergent path.
How so? They can support Manifest v2 and v3 simultaneously. It’s a bit harder for their old add-on system since that add-on system had more hooks into the browser, but v3 is largely just a restriction, so there won’t be much conflict there.
Brave has “partial support” which means it may as well not
They don’t need v2 because their ad-blocking has always been built into the browser itself.
Personally don’t really care about the browser because the ad-blocking is built into my router and VPN and the apps I use and so many other things.
Brave is based on Chromium, so where Chrome goes, Brave is likely to follow.
Routers and VPNs are only able to filter URLs. They have no way of manipulating the browser session, which is the other half of uBlock’s functionality and why it will always be superior to PiHoles or ad-blocking DNS.
Google, for example, smuggles ads through their “good” domains on YouTube that deliver video content; at that point, it’s an endless game of whack-a-mole in the dark to have a list that filters the correct URL without obliterating the ability to watch videos.
URL filtering is better than nothing, but it’s not really a comparable solution.
Brave is based on Chromium, so where Chrome goes, Brave is likely to follow.
To follow what? Brave’s adblocker is not an extension and it is not affected by MV3. And it has most of uBO’s features. More than I have ever used on uBO anyway.
True, uBO doesn’t have a shitty cryptobro component unfortunately. Also I hate that it’s not bankrolled by a conservative sociopath
Yawn… Any technical point?
Right the only thing that matters is technology. That’s why I think Facebook has the right to facilitate genocides any time they want! /s
where Chrome goes, Brave is likely to follow.
What is that supposed to mean? You realize Chromium-based browsers and Chrome are not the same thing? Brave is made by a completely different company making independent development decisions.
Google, for example, smuggles ads through their “good” domains on YouTube that deliver video content; at that point, it’s an endless game of
I don’t know anything about that. I just know that I don’t use the browser to watch YT videos because it’s an absolute nightmare. I use FreeTube, GrayJay, LibreTube, etc.
I also know I don’t have any problems with ads.
Brave is not completely independent of chrome. It’s completely and entirely dependent on it. Brave developers don’t and probably can’t develope a modern web browser. All they do is adapt chromium to have a few extra features.
There is only three major web browsers. Firefox, safari and chrome. Everything else is just a few addons, preconfigured settings and UI changes. Even chrome was largely safari until Google forked their web engine.
Brave is not completely independent of chrome
That’s not what I said. I said it’s completely independent of Google.
All they do is adapt chromium to have a few extra features.
If you used it for 5 minutes you’d know that’s not true. Quit making shit up.
None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand (ad blocking) which Brave has built into the browser and functions the same as uBo. If it didn’t work, you might as well use Chrome so they have every incentive to ensure that it does and no incentive to stop it. Even if they did, you could switch later just like you could today.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to use Brave, it has plenty of drawbacks and concerns without pulling random ones out of your ass.
Are you not really in the tech industry? Because he’s right. And he’s sticking to facts.
There are no facts here.
Both Brave and Chrome are built on the open-source Chromium browser engine
That’s from the Brave website: https://brave.com/compare/chrome-vs-brave/
Yes there are plenty of changes, but it’s built on it, and shaped by it, and Chromium is heavily influenced by Google. If chromium doesn’t support v2 manifests it is unlikely that Brave will. In this particular case it may be that Brave’s ad blocking and privacy features are equivalent to uBO, but it’s still underpinned by an engine that Google has strong influence over, so it can’t completely shake their influence.
That’s from the Brave website
Nobody doesn’t know that it’s built on Chromium. The problem is you’re grossly overestimating the influence that Google has or wants. If Google wanted to control it, they would just not create Chromium in the first place, and force you to just use Chrome.
Do you have any evidence at all that Brave is controlled by Google in any way that is against their will? Anything that prevents them from doing whatever they want? Any evidence at all? Do you really think they wouldn’t say anything if they were?
GrapheneOS, LineageOS, eOS, CopperheadOS and CalyxOS all work identically but no one points at those and says they’re “controlled” by Google.
Adblocking should be accessible to every layperson and not just people who know how to set up a pihole or use a VPN. It’s a basic security feature.
I don’t understand what that has to do with this conversation…? Brave makes it easier than Firefox to get ad-blocking. You don’t even need to download an extension…
So Lynx is not going to support uBlock?? Outrageous
Well, Thorium developer stated he intends to support Mv2 past the 2025 deadline. Whether he’ll make it, we’ll see. It’s a one man show, there was some drama involving it in the past, and there’s the question of what’s the point in maintaining Mv2 extensions support if you won’t be able to install them from the store after they’re cut off?
To clarify for anyone curious about the drama, while it was blown out of proportion, it was absolutly vaild.
-
there was a light nsfw furry easter egg, removed once found. Considering the browser was originally a side project by a young guy (teen/early 20?) it’s not really surprising or a big deal. Once the browser gained a sudden boost in users and it was found, the image was removed (once the guy got back from vacation? hospital?, there was a month or two gap)
-
this one was a larger problem for sure, and again removed. If I reacll right, he was apparently hosting a website for a friend about supporting the end of a certain procedure done to baby males at birth. There were some graphic images, its not technically CP anymore than the infomus Nirvana cover, but still…not okay.
To make matters worse, the link the site was somewhere browsers home or about page, making it pretty easy for anyone to find.
It’s all old news now. Personally I didn’t really care, but some people might.
I don’t actually care about the drama per se at this point either. I mentioned it because, along with the fact that:
- development is not very open (in that only that one guy commits and releases stuff)
- release cadence is very erratic and often lags behind upstream chromium, which is a direct consequence of the previous point
- you mentioned about the guys absence - the first time was some time ago and he was inpatient in the hospital for (IIRC) alcohol abuse, and this absence actually coincided with the drama over the furry and the other stuff, so it took awhile for it to be addressed, which only added more fuel to the fire. The second was just this last couple of months were he was house sitting for his parents (mentioned on the release notes I linked before)
All of this paints a bleak outlook for the long term health of this project, IMO. Which is too bad , because I still think it’s one of the better forks of chromium.
-
Firefox
Open up the “Registry Editor” Program
Navigate to: Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome
With the Chrome folder on the left highlighted, select Edit/New/DWORD (32-Bit Value)
or, if you prefer, on the right side of the screen in a BLANK SPOT, you can RIGHT CLICK New/DWORD (32-Bit Value).
Name it ExtensionManifestV2Availability and hit enter.
Right click what you just created (ExtensionManifestV2Availability) and click Modify. Set the Hexadecimal value to 2, and click OK.
You’re done, but check your work by opening Chrome, and pasting chrome://policy in the URL Address bar and hit enter. You >
should see the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy, and the value should be set to 2. If you don’t see it, click “Reload Policies” > and/or review your work.
Easier solution: download Firefox. Install unlock origin
I wish someone could explain to me how it is firefox, which is not chromium based but larely dependent on google for funding, has the ability and manpower to maintain not just the manifest v2+all the other stuff, while every single chromium fork has no choice but to use v3. Why can’t they just fork the last usable version of chromium and go from there as an independent fork? Is it just that no one wants to?
Like firefox has lots of ports, some of the follow the main branch but then others like waterfox forked off older versions at some point and just kept going, why can’t chrome based browsers do a fork like that? How is it there are people making new browsers from scratch like ladybird, but this manifest stuff is just out of reach for everyone, except mozilla (and i guess other firefox forks).
A port of a browser is relatively minimal effort. Typically, the changes are largely cosmetic, and occasionally skin deep.
Developing a browser, Firefox or Chrome, takes a huge amount of effort, and are on a similar scale to both Windows and Linux. It’s a lot. There are a lot of places to hide things. Taking all of that, and making V2 continue to work… well it’ll be alright to start with. It’s probably a flag somewhere currently. But in 2 years time? 5 years time? It will take a lot to keep V2 working, let alone back porting V3 features that people may actually want.
Just use Firefox instead.
Not having control of the core codebase, and branching/tracking based on 1 (declared) legacy feature could lead to huge amounts of work and issue in the future.
Manifest V2 spec is defined, manifest V3 spec is defined… They can be developed against.
JS-whatever-spec is defined, CSS-whatever-spec is defined, HTML-whatever-spec is defined… They have industry standard approved specs (even if they can be vague in areas). They can be developed against.
They have defined spec documents that can be developed against.Firefox has control and experience of how they implement those specs.
Chrome forks do not have control of how those specs are implemented.
So if chrome changes how things are implemented, forks might not be able to “backport” for manifest V2 compatibility, and might find themselves implementing more and more of the core browser functionality. Browsers are NOT easy to develop for the modern fuckery of the web.
Firefox hopefully does have that knowledge and ability to include V2 manifest backwards compatibility in future development without impacting further spec implementations… It seems like Google is depreciating V2 to combat ad-blockers (ads being their major funding revenue)There are already very slight differences how Firefox and Chrome interpret all these specs. I’ve noticed a few sites & plugins that just work better (or just work) in Chrome. Which is why I still have (unfortunately) an install of Chrome.
You could also just stop using sites that don’t work in Firefox. Also https://webcompat.com/
You don’t need extensions when you have capable inbuilt adblockers. Stop fear mongering.
Unless by built in, you mean the ublock that comes with librewolf, thats fucking stupid. Adblocking is an armsrace that requires constant up to date collaboration on the adblock developer side. Thats why you need crossplatform plugins like ublock, otherwise you will end up seeing ads.
No, Vivaldi, Brave and Opera have builtin adblockers which don’t depend on the extensions manifest. Plus, one could always rely on AdGuard, which whould block ads system wide.
thats fucking stupid
Thanks, I respect you too.
I’ts been 3 years since I last used uBO and I have still to see a single ad on my browser. But you do you.
Average Google employee
Everybody knows that Chrome, the only browser made by Google, has a built-in adblocker. /s
Being called names just for stating the obvious. Typical lemmy.
It’s not my fault if Mozilla won’t bother implementing a decent adblocker and have to rely on an external unpaid developer to keep FF afloat.
Every thread that mentions Firefox draws hate from you. It’s tiring and your points are never good.
Cool. Just block me and get rid of my not so good posts.
I’ve done tests with the built-in Firefox strict mode vs uBlock and there’s a bit of a difference. Firefox blocks about two thirds, uBlock is almost 100%.
Firefox doesn’t have a proper adblocker. It’s just a tracker blocker.
