this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
1726 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2853 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Last I checked, Firefox had also been switching to Manifest v3 because they're also combating the tide of add-ons that pretend to do something useful, but actually steal your information. They asked uBlock at least a few times how they could build Manifest v3 in a way that'd be compatible. Instead of the browser asking about each URL, thereby giving the add-on access to personal information, uBlock could tell the browser what to block. uBlock's answer was always, "No. That's not good enough. Give the add-on access to URLs." It seemed to me like every time uBlock was approached, they turned to news sites to complain and IIR, the feature that would have given uBlock some functionality was removed from v3 because if nobody's going to use it, why build it?
I wonder, now that uBlock has conflated the discussion of, "How much should extensions be able to see and modify URLs you're visiting?", with, "v3 is a war on ad blockers!", how quickly Firefox will move forward with v3, if at all.
I think a lot of people don't realize what a gaping security hole extensions can be. Back in the 2000s, I'd install almost anything that seemed useful without realizing the amount of data that goes through them.