Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Every reasonable, independent organization confirms that Manifest V3 is the end of privacy for Chrom(ium) users, e.g.,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44543660

> It restricts and controls the access of extensions much more.

You mean, it restricts users even more and gives to websites the freedom to track you? I won't engage in further discussion with you, you're just trolling.





You link three things, that doesnt equate to "every independent organization". One of your links is a post by Brave and Brave isnt independent in this. The unsubstantiated fear of people for MV3 is beneficial for them, it could grow their userbase because they keep the support for MV2.

Content blocking (ad and "tracker" blocking) are convenience features, they dont foundationally improve security. Defining what a tracker is is difficult and you cant list them exhaustively. Also smart businesses and organisations can just shift to sending all data to the main domain and handling it server side to send it onwards to other domains, including third-party domains. If you dont trust a site to not send data to third party domains directly, why do you trust it to not send it indirectly?

No, I meam it restricts extensions because it does. Vouching for MV2 is like vouching for an Android OS without a proper permission model. MV3 helps against tracking, its good for privacy and security. If you want the convience of content blocking, uBlock Lite still works good enoough for many people. Though, you still lose on security and meaningful privacy (again, define a tracker and list them all, impossible) because extensions in general hurt site isolation and increase your fingerpint.


> You link three things, that doesnt equate to "every independent organization".

Seriouslu, is this the only counter-argument you could invent? I didn't have the goal to list all independent organizations in the world. Now, you have to find one saying the opposite to EFF.

> If you dont trust a site to not send data to third party domains directly, why do you trust it to not send it indirectly?

Because there were examples when 3rd-party ads delivered malware to clients: https://www.networkworld.com/article/946902/forbes-malware-a...

Also, because FBI recommends it: https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-b...

> MV3 helps against tracking

Against tracking by whom? By FLOSS add-ons intentionally installed by user and verified by the community? In contrast to random, untrusted websites running megabytes of proprietary JS?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: