The blocking version of the webRequest API allows an extension to see all the data in a network request before it gets sent – and possibly block or alter it – and to see all the data in a network response – and possibly block or alter it – before rendering it to a web page. In fact, this change is meant to give developers a way to create safer and more performant ad blockers." Requests, and more requests "There’s been a lot of confusion and misconception around both the motivations and implications of this change, including speculation that these changes were designed to prevent or weaken ad blockers," said Simeon Vincent, Chrome developer advocate, in a 2019 blog post. There’s been a lot of confusion and misconception around both the motivations and implications of this change, including speculation that these changes were designed to prevent or weaken ad blockers Google insists the change is not about hindering content blockers. The most widely noted change in Mv3 – and there are many that have significant implications – is the removal of the blocking version of the webRequest API, which is being replaced by an API called declarativeNetRequest.
#Adblock for safari extension code
If Google removes the Mv2 code from Chromium, maintaining the code in a separate Chromium fork may prove to be too much trouble. Others building atop Chromium like Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi have indicated interest in continuing to support Mv2, though it's unclear whether that will be practical beyond June of next year. Makers of Chromium-based browsers inherit Mv3 and Microsoft has already endorsed the new spec. But it has been adopted, with some caveats, by other browser makers, including Apple and Mozilla.
An ad company making security claims that, coincidentally, hinder user-deployed content and privacy defenses looks like self-interest.Īnd Mv3 remains the subject of ongoing debate as the extension platform capabilities and APIs continue to be hammered out. The company's extension platform renovation was necessary – because extension security problems were rampant – and immediately controversial. Google began work on Manifest v3, the successor to Mv2, in late 2018, ostensibly to make extensions more secure, performant, and private. When Google discontinued the Chrome Web Store payment API in September 2020, only about nine percent of the extensions were paid or implemented in-app purchasing.Īccording to Chrome Stats, the most popular Chrome extensions block ads on Google and YouTube, making them something of a revenue sinkhole. Google's disinterest in Chrome Web Store metrics may have something to do with it not being a profit center like Apple's App Store or Google Play – which both Apple and Google celebrate for their revenue generation.
Comparing these numbers isn't straightforward – Google doesn't publish store data so third parties devise their own counting methods.Ībout two dozen Chrome extensions have over 10 million users, but most (about 87 per cent) had fewer than 1,000 installs in 2019, according to Extension Monitor, a now-defunct service. Today, that figure is said to be almost 114,000. The estimated number of browser extensions in the Chrome Web Store as of two years ago ranged between about 156,000 and 190,000. "We've been very pleased with the close collaboration established between Google’s Chrome Extensions Team and our own engineering team to ensure that ad-blocking extensions will still be available after Manifest v3 takes effect." A numbers game Google points to past endorsements, such as remarks provided by Sofia Lindberg, tech lead of ad amelioration biz Eyeo, which makes Adblock Plus. The internet titan, which declined to comment on the record, maintains that Mv3 aims to improve privacy by limiting extensions' access to sensitive data and that it has been working with extension developers to balance their needs with those of users. Google argues otherwise and maintains its platform renovation will meet developers' needs, including those making tools for content blocking and privacy.
It's that Manifest v3 caps the certain capabilities of extensions and cuts off innovation potential." "If you asked me if we can have a Manifest v3 version of Privacy Badger, my answer is yes, we can and we will," said Alexei Miagkov, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a phone interview with The Register.
Manifest v3 caps the certain capabilities of extensions and cuts off innovation potential Browser extensions such as Ghostery Privacy Ad Blocker, uBlock Origin, and Privacy Badger, along with scripting extensions including TamperMonkey, which are each designed to block adverts and other content and/or protect one's privacy online, are expected to function less effectively, if they can even make the transition from Mv2 to the new approach: Manifest v3.
0 kommentar(er)
