• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Manifest V2 phase out is a big deal, as Google is pushing towards Manifest 3 only. Google’s version of Manifest 3 is hobbled by removing WebRequest blocking which breaks privacy and ad blocking tools - an obvious benefit to Google as an Ad and data harvesting company.

    Firefox is implementing Manifest 3 with WebRequest blocking, as well as supporting Google’s hobbled version declarativeNetRequest to allow compatibility with chrome extensions.

    • rbn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      3 months ago

      As far as I know there is no plan to phase out Manifest V2 at Mozilla. As long as V2 and V3 are active in parallel it shouldn’t have a negative Impact on adblockers etc.

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Shit like this is exactly why competition is of utmost importance. The internet was never meant to be single-handedly controlled by a corporation with private interests, and more importantly, private pockets

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      If we don’t see a somewhat significant rise in Firefox usage increases after this, then I fear that battle is already lost. People can complain a lot but doing something as easy as switching browsers seems to be the hardest thing for most of them.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even if Firefox were to win it’s still a bleak future because the ridiculously complexity and scope of browsers prevents new ones being made. Without the possibility of newcomers either the war never ends or there is one victor. We should start to abandon browsers in favor of apps that juts focus on each part of the browser (e.g. why does a browser need to render video to the screen when the user already has an app for that).

        “Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat.”- Kahless

      • Toes♀@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        In my experience people have a poor understanding of the software they use, it just needs to continue working as it always has.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        You Grandma and her Chromebook don’t care though. The numbers aren’t in our favor, but Mozilla absolutely dominating in the features and privacy arenas is.

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 months ago

    We’ve always been clear that the goal of Manifest V3 is to protect existing functionality while improving the security, privacy, performance and trustworthiness of the extension ecosystem as a whole. We appreciate the collaboration and feedback from the community that has allowed us - and continues to allow us - to constantly improve the extensions platform.

    “We’ve always been clear that the goal of our remote-unlockable front door product is to protect your family while improving the efficiency and safety of our field reconnaissance and repo unit. We appreciate your feedback that you really hate unannounced in-home data gathering incursions, and we are integrating that feedback going forward as we work to improve your interactions with our team. See you soon!”

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I assume with chromium being open source that there will be an alternative compiled version without this nonsense?

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s how it works for now, but eventually the code itself will be removed from chromium, not just disabled. At that point they’d have to maintain a large patch set reimplementing it, which would be extremely time intensive to maintain and keep secure.

  • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Internet is dominated by Netscape, then crushed by MS giving its browser away… Firefox steps in for a while and is great but starts to suck / get slow, google steps in people start to shift to google, everyone is on google… Wonder who steps in next.

    • Opisek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m afraid well-established “standards” are nearly impossible to overturn.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a lot more vendor lock in than there has been in the past. I don’t see there being a major change without legislation. It’s still too early to see how the EU’s DMA will affect market share, but it’s probably the best hope, even if it is limited to a few geographical areas.

      • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s a lot more vendor lock in than there has been in the past. I don’t see there being a major change without legislation

        LOL no… ActiveX on IE was the ultimate lock in, and that is gone now… Also we have A LOT of chromium based clones that don’t have these restrictions… It will still be a popularity contest.

        Firefox however is limited by its in ability / unwillingness to license or implement some DRM features / Codecs which kind of sucks.