Manifest 3 conquered Chrome and we never noticed

[Mæstro]

While discussing µBlock, the subject of its appearance made me check just how old it was. In the process, Wikipedia informed me that µBlock for Chrome has been maimed, then murdered, just as has been foreseen for years. The lite edition of µBlock, as it was called, could only keep a fixed blacklist of sites before being forsaken. Google’s decisions are so remote to anything relevant to my life that this is the first I heard of this.

Oddly enough, the changes Manifest 3 imposed on µBlock remind me of how I had thought of extensions in early 2019, before moving to Pale Moon. At the time, I had been using Firefox 52 ESR with many tracker-blocking extensions of the variety which were later embedded into the browser itself, Disconnect and Ghostery among them, as well as µBlock. When I first discovered Pale Moon as a stupid undergrad, I recall checking whether every extension I already possessed would work in it, and declined to adopt this browser simply because Ghostery was unsupported. I had the wrong idea then that Ghostery itself was vital, that it did more than Easyprivacy or kindred filters. Hence, I used Waterfox (Classic) as a stepping stone before discovering my mistake and joining you. (Night Wing knows a bit more about this from PM.)

Many users surely still think of extensions like I used to, which would inform how Manifest 3 could go ahead in the first place. Users try to do their best according to their lights, but they rely on their existing, trusted sources of knowledge and might be slow to change their minds, even with evidence or advice. For my part, I adopted NoScript because a Neopets fansite endorsed it and RequestPolicy, and kept using it for years despite everything because, among other things, it had earned my trust through years of faithful service in Firefox. The same was probably true of Ghostery back then. I know better now, but at the time, I think Waterfox’s intent to go Quantum, which felt like betrayal, was critical in bringing me here.

Forks like Helium claim they will maintain Manifest 2 support ‘as long as possible’. One is reminded of SeaMonkey’s attitudes in years past to NPAPI and XUL. Otter, when I was testing it, seems to be the only Chrome derivative which has actually embedded a broad variety of filters into itself permanently. Are we blessed, or are others cursed?

[Moonchild]

Google will inevitably do what is in Google's interest. Core changes will make maintaining manivest v2 at least very cumbersome and at most impossible. Simply because v3 neuters and maims adblockers which is something Google will absolutely fight, because it attacks the bottom line. It is, in fact, their legal obligation to do so under US financial law, to do everything possible to advance financial gain for shareholders and investors. I did not realize this until not too long ago but apparently when a company goes public there is hard legislation behind pushing for "line must go up" in the USA.

[UCyborg]

The person behind Thorium experimented with lifting Manifest V3 limitations so it could go beyond limited number of filters. I don't follow closely so I'm not up to date on what (if anything) came off it, just remember experimental build was posted at some point and if I recall, it also required modified extension.

I wonder if Mozilla will also follow further into abyss.

I'm also curious if supporting UXP would really be such burden for someone like gorhill. I mean, you pretty much know what to expect, right? Unlike Google and Mozilla that keep throwing your hard work away and call it performance and security.

[Night Wing]

This is just a calculated guess on my part, but I think (Google) Chrome will be in trouble if and when Chrome goes all in on Manifest 3 and kills Manifest 2.

In the majority of linux distros, linux Firefox is still the installed default browser for linux distros. There are a few distros using linux Vivaldi, but Firefox is still king. Why? Because linux users like uBlock Origin. Linux users do not like uBlock Origin Lite which is a "very poor adblocker". UBock Origin Lite (I will use the abbreviation from here on out, UBOL), is absolutely "useless" when visiting YouTube.

As for Mozilla, I hope Firefox does not implement Manifest 3. If Firefox still supports and can maintain Manifest 2, Firefox may start to gain more users than it has now and thus increase it's market share. I personally think Chrome (with Manifest 3) without an adblocker (OBOL) that really does not blocks ads will lead to declining users and thus market share.

In retrospect.

When Google first released Chrome, Chrome was touted for it's "speed". But with Chrome's direction now hell bent on killing off adblockers, what do you think most browser users would want more? Would it be Chrome's speed without a real adblocker (UBOL) which will not block ads by design or would they want a browser which might not be as fast as Chrome, but fast enough and can also install an adblocker (UBO) that really blocks ads?

Speaking as a browser user, I would choose a browser that can install an adblocker (UBO) that really blocks ads. And that browser would not be Chrome or one of it's forks.

The above is just food for thought.

[van p]

It is, in fact, their legal obligation to do so under US financial law, to do everything possible to advance financial gain for shareholders and investors. I did not realize this until not too long ago but apparently when a company goes public there is hard legislation behind pushing for "line must go up" in the USA.

Uh, can you document this for us?

[Gemmaugr]

It is, in fact, their legal obligation to do so under US financial law, to do everything possible to advance financial gain for shareholders and investors. I did not realize this until not too long ago but apparently when a company goes public there is hard legislation behind pushing for "line must go up" in the USA.

Uh, can you document this for us?

Off-topic:
https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent ... t=expresso (It's not clear-cut, and in fact very ambiguous. Many newspaper articles say the same: https://search.brave.com/search?q=US+le ... source=web)

[Gemmaugr]

As for Mozilla, I hope Firefox does not implement Manifest 3.

Firefox already supports MV3 (https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/tag/mv3/ & https://extensionworkshop.com/documenta ... ion-guide/), they just keep the WebRequest API from MV2 for now. Most likely until all WebExtensions only code for MV3 (which would mean that MV2 webextensions are considered "old". Not the functionality perhaps, but the versioning numbers and last update date).

[Moonchild]

Most likely until all WebExtensions only code for MV3

...or until Google has a meeting with Mozilla execs where their further Google money is made incumbent on "Fostering a more mutually beneficial partnership"

[Night Wing]

...or until Google has a meeting with Mozilla execs where their further Google money is made incumbent on "Fostering a more mutually beneficial partnership"

That might be considered "blackmail" which could have or will have political repercussions. The European Union likes to target the big tech firms firms such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google with lawsuits since it has done so in the past.

American poltiticians "talk tough", but rarely follow through since our politicians absolutely love "political donations". I say this because at one time, our politicians wanted to force Google to give up Chrome, but that mysteriously "went away" if you get my drift.

[Moonchild]

I don't think it's blackmail. This is the type of thing where there is literally only positive incentive. Mozilla doesn't have to have Google as their primary search partner, after all. And Google doesn't have to continue the partnership for any reason. But this can be brought to the negotiation table pretty easily: "You are doing something that negatively impacts us. That is not in the best interest of our partnership." Renegotiations of terms will likely follow after that. Yes, it will put pressure on Mozilla if they are hellbent on remaining solidly in bed with Google, but that is entirely their choice.
All I see is what you'd expect in B2B negotiations, no blackmailing there.
Politics doesn't even enter the picture.

[Night Wing]

Politics doesn't even enter the picture.

I think politics does enter into it. I'll plead my case with an example.

Didn't Microsoft get into trouble with the EU when they had the Windows operating being bundled with the Internet Explorer browser? I think that was started way back in 2009. If I recall Microsoft lost that case and had to pay a fine which was the equivalent of 730 million US dollars in 2013.

I would not call coughing up 730 million dollars "small change". That was a hefty price tag in my opinion. The EU could do the same with Google (Chrome) with Manifest 3 "if" the EU still has the stones to take on Google.

Since this is now one month away from 2026 and the cost of things is much higher now than it was back in 2013, what if the EU slapped a fine of 1.4 "billion" US dollars on Google". That would certainly get Google's (CEO Sundar Pichai) attention and it's parent company, Alphabet.

[Moonchild]

You seem to conflate regulatory oversight with politics. Maybe you're used to them being one and the same, but that's actually usually not the case.

[Night Wing]

You seem to conflate regulatory oversight with politics.

I do conflate regulatory oversight with politics since they seem to be intertwined here in the USA where I live.

[van p]

It is, in fact, their legal obligation to do so under US financial law, to do everything possible to advance financial gain for shareholders and investors. I did not realize this until not too long ago but apparently when a company goes public there is hard legislation behind pushing for "line must go up" in the USA.

Uh, can you document this for us?

Off-topic:
https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent ... t=expresso (It's not clear-cut, and in fact very ambiguous. Many newspaper articles say the same: https://search.brave.com/search?q=US+le ... source=web)

Gemmaugr, I don't have time to read everything you linked to, but a quick perusal tells me that it's not "very ambiguous" and that Moonchild's concerns are overstated.

[Mæstro]

I would not call coughing up 730 million dollars "small change". That was a hefty price tag in my opinion. The EU could do the same with Google (Chrome) with Manifest 3 "if" the EU still has the stones to take on Google.

Since this is now one month away from 2026 and the cost of things is much higher now than it was back in 2013, what if the EU slapped a fine of 1.4 "billion" US dollars on Google". That would certainly get Google's (CEO Sundar Pichai) attention and it's parent company, Alphabet.

According to last year’s disclosures, it would be $2 million million to buy Google, and the firm receives $350 thousand million a year in revenue, mostly from advertising. If, as I presume, you mean ‘billion’ in the American sense, Google would hardly notice the effects on its dividend drawers. This is why fines achieve so little by themselves. But if you mean ‘billion’ in the European (including, traditionally, British) sense, now, that is another story.

[Night Wing]

But if you mean ‘billion’ in the European (including, traditionally, British) sense, now, that is another story.

I posted the word "billion" in my message and I meant "billion", not "million".

Most fines money wise are small in comparison to some of these tech companies who rake in hundreds of millions of dollars on a yearly basis. These companies view small regulatory fines as a "cost of doing business" which really doesn't change their attitudes or their business positions.

But if those fines are really LARGE and hurts the "coffers" of these companies, these companies "will sit up and take notice". In other words; "hit them in their wallets where it REALLY hurts" the bottom line because it will affect their shareholders in relation to the company's stock price.

[Mæstro]

Off-topic:
Billion has different meanings in English, for English recognises both a short and long system for counting large numbers. In American English and recent usage elsewhere, where the short system is used, billion is used for a thousand million, 10⁹. In traditional British usage, and on the Continent, we should call that a milliard. For us, who use the long system, a billion is what you would call a ‘trillion’, or 10¹², a million million. To avoid ambiguity, because I prefer to use the long system in English, I wrote thousand million and million million.

Our billions are big enough to make Google sit up and take notice, but yours are not. That was the point.

[Night Wing]

Our billions are big enough to make Google sit up and take notice, but yours are not. That was the point.

To basically let one tech company with a huge browser share (Chrome) who doesn't go by any so called web standards but their own, just doesn't sit well with me at all.

With that said, remember when I posted above that 1.4 "billion" fine. If it is going to effect every browser which is not Chrome where users want to block frivolous ads and Google wants to do away with that adblocking, I can compromise on a large fine.

Instead of a 1.4 billion dollar fine which you seem to allude is too small, make it a "144 billion dollar" fine. I think that amount would get Google's attention real quick. And affect Google's shareholders.

[Mæstro]

I think we are all here in the first place because we dislike Google yanking the net wherever it will for a decade and a half. If we were fine with that, we would probably use Chrome as chief browser ourselves.

Yes! Fines work, if they are proportional to the firm’s revenue.