New extensions that use MV2 have been prevented from being added to the store since last January [1] and this has already affected some extensions which, as a result, have to be installed manually [2][3]
The time to switch to Firefox is right now.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv2/
[2] https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect/issues/45#issueco...
They are fundamentally misaligned with your interests on the net.
dotproto from the Chrome team commented on May 27 [2]:
> @mon-jai, the short answer is no, I don't have any updates to share. That said, I'll reaffirm that we plan to support userscript managers in Maniest V3 before the Manifest V2 deprecation.
But the deprecation is approaching and the Chrome team hasn't released any more information about this AFAIK. These extensions are going to require large refactors to support MV3 and they can't meaningfully start until the Chrome team elucidates how script injection will work. With MV2 deprecation coming so soon, I worry there won't be enough time.
[0]: Manifest V3: examine the effects · Issue #644 · Tampermonkey/tampermonkey: https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644
[1]: Migrate to Manifest V3 · Issue #1821 · brookhong/Surfingkeys - https://github.com/brookhong/Surfingkeys/issues/1821
[2]: https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issu...
We discussed Chromium's current plan to support user scripts managers in Manifest V3 during our WebExtensions Community Group (WECG) session at TPAC[1] last week. The notes for that meeting haven't been merged yet, but there's an open PR[2] and when they are they will live here[3].
In short, the current plan in Chromium is to require end users and extension authors to opt into execution of arbitrary scripts via a Chromium UI setting and new permission, respectively. During the meeting Firefox folks raised some questions/concerns about this plan and it's probably best to try to align with them on next steps if possible.
And typing this out is making me realize we don't have a great tracking issue for this in the WECG repo. Just threw together a placeholder issue[4] to track discussion in this area.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/7bbba4a3-8305-45cd-a998-6...
[2]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/pull/277
[3]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/_minutes/2022...
This is all on top of the many other issues with MV3 that Google is pushing under the guise of "improving performance".
For example it looks like you could use a lambda function with the Auth info pre-bound...
They've been doing false advertising for years on every channel, making consumers pay for absolutely useless products.
We're also in the space, I don't think we're selling useless products, or falsely advertising.
Our customers use our proxy servers to test applications that use your IP address to show you localized content (IP Location, GeoIP, etc). We're in 80+ countries 250+ locations globally.
Being able to switch your location with a browser plugin makes it just a few clicks, and _much_ faster than switching VPN endpoints. You also get to proxy just your browser traffic (or even just traffic against a few specific domains) rather than all the traffic on your machine. So your Spotify/Slack/Outlook connections can all run normally, and you're only proxying the site you want to test from somewhere else.
This change is terrible for us. Especially so because users flipping around between different proxies is a major use case. A user needing to re-enter their credentials for each unique proxy server is much worse than just once.
[1]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113549...
> I'm temporarily restricting comments to keep comments from turning into +1s while this is trending on Hacker News. If you have additional thoughts that you'd like to share with the Chromium team regarding this issue, please return in a few days to leave a comment (and apologies for the inconvenience).
> As a Chromium contributor that shares information about our progress on extensions issues, I sincerely apologize to extensions developers affected by this issue and the broader community for not sharing an update until now. I'm currently working on a "known issues" document for Manifest V3 that touches on several outstanding issues (including this one), but given the attention on this issue now, I'll quickly share our current thinking on this issue.
> We have always intended to provide support for this functionality in Manifest V3 (for both user-installed and force-installed extensions), and have been iterating on different possible approaches. Our tentative plan (which is not yet finalized) is that the Manifest V3 version of this capability will require extensions to request a new permission scoped to intercepting authentication requests, but will otherwise allow extensions to handle these requests in a similar manner to how they do in Manifest V2.
> The permission string and end user facing warning string have not been finalized yet. Also, we have not yet finalized how this new permission will interact with other permission grants, but extensions that currently have the webRequest permission and broad host permissions will likely not require an additional grant for this permission.
> Finally, I want to note that before we can pursue this capability, we first need to resolve issue 1024211 (now formally marked as a blocker). We are actively working on 1024211 and aim to resolve both that issue and this one before January 2023.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113549...
>Sorry no updates yet. Please star the bug if you wish to see this fixed sooner.
Okay Google, we've starred the bug. Please fix now.
Translation: my manager is blocking this; please star this so have a better chance of changing his mind.
"I'm temporarily restricting comments to keep comments from turning into +1s while this is trending on Hacker News. If you have additional thoughts that you'd like to share with the Chromium team regarding this issue, please return in a few days to leave a comment (and apologies for the inconvenience)."
"As a Chromium contributor that shares information about our progress on extensions issues, I sincerely apologize to extensions developers affected by this issue and the broader community for not sharing an update until now. I'm currently working on a "known issues" document for Manifest V3 that touches on several outstanding issues (including this one), but given the attention on this issue now, I'll quickly share our current thinking on this issue."
"We have always intended to provide support for this functionality in Manifest V3 (for both user-installed and force-installed extensions), and have been iterating on different possible approaches. Our tentative plan (which is not yet finalized) is that the Manifest V3 version of this capability will require extensions to request a new permission scoped to intercepting authentication requests, but will otherwise allow extensions to handle these requests in a similar manner to how they do in Manifest V2."
"The permission string and end user facing warning string have not been finalized yet. Also, we have not yet finalized how this new permission will interact with other permission grants, but extensions that currently have the webRequest permission and broad host permissions will likely not require an additional grant for this permission."
"Finally, I want to note that before we can pursue this capability, we first need to resolve issue 1024211 (now formally marked as a blocker). We are actively working on 1024211 and aim to resolve both that issue and this one before January 2023."
Man, Google sucks.
That time has long since passed.
I know, I switched from Firefox to Chrome and used it for a couple of years, but Firefox got better and Chrome got worse, so I've been back on Firefox for many years again now.
If Chrome doesn't do what you want or what you like, use Firefox. It does everything Chrome does, and more.
Here's a new profile, just default zoom set to 150% (ublock origin installed system-wide)
https://i.imgur.com/Z3MO8sr.png
https://i.imgur.com/hgscGrb.png
https://i.imgur.com/07QI1IU.png
https://i.imgur.com/owZm12J.png
What is even going on?
Are you saying it has unusual default settings, and that 150% zoom is one of them? For what it's worth in my experience of installing Firefox which are probably done half dozen times in the past year or so on various devices, I haven't experienced anything like this.
Now I'm even more curious to see how badly Chromium bangles this migration to V3.
I'm also curious as to why big internet advocacy organizations such as the EFF [0] have been quiet on this move.
--
Edit: It appears the EFF has spoken out about this a couple of times.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/googles-manifest-v3-st...
Time to settle with Firefox.
Could they be afraid of a surge in proxy Adblock extensions since they are trying to cripple the local ones?
That is completely incorrect. A proxy extension routes requests through a proxy server. It does not rewrite anything.
I always have a hard time with chrome. because where firefox has a config area to set the proxy chrome wants to use an environment variable. so do these proxy extensions fill this missing config gap?
The proxy we all use at work is SwitchyOmega. Been using it for years and it's fantastic.
As far as I understand, after MV3, ad blockers won't be able to use a long list of ads to remove them.
How about using a simple ML algorithm to detect whether the request is a genuine one or an advertisement? I am sure that getting training data wouldn't be too hard (all the ad lists that will get useless after MV3 are good data).
I don't make chrome extensions so I don't completely know how MV3 will cripple ad blockers.
Any feedback would be appreciated!
Sure, there are still going to be some work arounds that still allow extensions to read and change what a user sees, but anyone looking at this honestly can see what the intention is.
Throwing ML at this problem doesn't make sense at all as reading and then rewriting requests is exactly what Google doesn't want extensions doing anymore.
extends v2 from January 2023 EOL until June 2023
January 2023
Chrome stops running Manifest V2 extensions
Enterprise policy can let Manifest V2 extensions run on Chrome deployments within the organization.
June 2023
Manifest V2 extensions no longer function in Chrome even with the use of enterprise policyWhat I ended up doing and found to be better is to connect to the proxy over a wireguard IP. I can recommend this solution to individuals and people who don't need granular authentication.
If it catches on (and it could since it'd be free and fast), maybe some big sites would evolve to advertise themselves as 'virtous'.
So I meant it looks like a lost battle. And it may be better to reboot to a smaller, nifter browser that a small team/community can handle.
edit: and of course cut all ties with Google financing.
I think it wants to implement all of JS eventually though.
it wants to implement all of JS
Also small JS engines already exist, like QuickJS.
More recently, Ladybird, which was discussed last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809126