Google’s Manifest V3 Still Hurts Privacy, Security, and Innovation

SpiderWeb

Level 9
Verified
Well-known
Aug 21, 2020
403
What I have seen of young people confirms with what @Nightwalker is posting. Younger generation accepts that advertising is a constant background noise. I don't have the source at hand anymore, but I have read a study on the correlation between the length and frequency of the advertising intervals corresponding with the the attention span (time) of kids at (high)school. Another observation study confirmed that youngsters pick up their phone and start to socialize digitally during TV advertising. They seem to accept and understand that advertising funds the 'free' internet services they are using (valid point made by @blackice and @oldschool).

The irony of advertising is that when everyone is shouting for attention, people tend to give less attention and are harder to reach. Brave's own advertising (from which people can still can opt out) has a 4 times higher click through rate than market average (that is an incredible 400% higher response).

So despite Google's big-data and user-tracking we will see more alternative advertising vehicles (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera) in future with a better timed and dosed advertising frequency to prevent people like @Digmor Crusher and @SpiderWeb doing everything they can to prevent ads to reach them.

Also economic-political forces like the EU privacy laws, China's internet wall and territory claims and Russia's geo-political USSR revival will eventually split the internet into different digital worlds.
You are absolutely right about that. The new generation is different from ours. Our generation rejects all forms of ads out of principle, almost for ideological reasons to maintain privacy. This new generation doesn't mind interactive brands and alternative advertising, they feed into it ironically and unironically, a generation starved of attention will turn to anyone who does pay attention to them and companies capitalize on that. They are aware of the massive army of parody and fan accounts on social media and they know those people wouldn't mind getting a paycheck. There has been a seismic shift towards powerful subliminal advertising like Brave or Apple promising privacy in one domain while also selling it away in another.
 

Arequire

Level 27
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,699
Morally my personal feeling is that it doesn’t have to be illegal. You are taking something without paying for it, which is why there are so many pay walls now. People aren’t going to work for free when the ad revenue dries up. This is why sites have been dropping dead for years. You can use a different term than pirating, but the end result is you consume content without compensating the creator. I really would like some sort of middle ground, but I fear we’ve blown right past it. Ads are terrible and nobody wants to see them, including me. But, I don’t feel I’m owed the fruits of someone else’s labor just because there’s no legally binding contract. That’s just my personal conviction.
I agree that something doesn't have to be illegal to be morally objectional, but like you said morality is personal; it's subjective, which is the problem with using it as the basis of any argument.
If you look at this post I made back in 2017, you'll see that, at the time, I chose to use Privacy Badger because it automatically unblocked ad networks that honoured Do Not Track, and that I felt uncomfortable blocking networks that did the right thing. I also said that I believe publishers deserve compensation for their work, and I still hold these views today but in a significantly diminished state, because the publishers were never really the problem, the advertising industry was, and in the 5 years since I made that post, that same multibillion dollar industry has done little to nothing to address the problems I outlined in that post. So while I do still feel bad about depriving publishers of compensation, that bad feeling is mostly gone when I think about how the industry propping up those publishers continues to exploit and facilitate genuine harm towards consumers, and then rages at them when they choose to engage in the only defence they have against it: Blocking ads.

I really would like some sort of middle ground
I would too but who decides what a middle ground looks like? Eyeo (Adblock Plus's developer) claims its Acceptable Ads program is the ideal middle ground; allowing ads to be delivered and publishers to profit off them, but forcing them to adhere to strict placement and sizing guidelines, and according to Eyeo the majority of their userbase agrees. But once again subjectivity raises its head, because ads being annoying is the least of my (and probably a lot of other people) problems with them. The ads under the AAs program still engage in data collection, and they still act as a vector for malware delivery.

Ultimately I believe the entire industry needs reforming, but it's not going to do so voluntarily and lawmakers have proven they're only willing to impose meager adjustments on it. So what we have is what we're stuck with, and publishers will sadly continue to be caught in the crossfire.

(Man, imagine being able to engage in political discussion like this, instead of all sides just screaming obscenities at each other ad-infinitum. Sigh.)
 
Last edited:

silversurfer

Level 83
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Aug 17, 2014
7,290

Local Host

Level 25
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 26, 2017
1,427
Driving GorHill out of business is Google's dream but they can't because he works on uBO as a hobby. The truth is the API that uBO is using is perfectly compatible with Manifest V3. But Google Chrome only allows enterprises to utilize that API. Imagine if someone said that only corporations are allowed to use firewalls, consumers must allow all traffic in and out. This is how completely bonkers Google has become. Chromium will deface the Internet and the question is, will people migrate to Firefox fast enough to provide balance like they did in the 2000s? If Mozilla goes bankrupt, we're all screwed.
I honestly couldn't care less about GorHill, he is an attention seeker. Adguard is already working on a new engine that supports Manifest V3, so is not going anywhere for anyone looking for an AdBlocker extension on Chrome.

The time GorHill spends whining would be better used converting his extension to V3, but I assume he lacks the knownledge to do so, and that is fine, his competition is already working on it with positive results (and I don't mean only AdGuard).

Fact is even Firefox is going to implement V3 eventually, and despite the current stability issues, there is no denying V3 is safer than V2 (extensions have to much control over the browser with V2, is a malware haven).
BTW, since most people here don't seem to use facebook I should let them know that it's impossible to block facebook video ads. The host/urls that facebook use to serve normal video and video ads are identical. So it's not possible for filter maintainers to differentiate them. Fanboy couldn't do it, Adguard couldn't either. I even sent Alex of Adguard my browser's HAR log file, but that didn't help. So if Google wants, they can implement such things in the future, making it even harder for us to block ads. But they have not yet. I'm not taking Google's side here, but thankfully this Manifest V3 is at least better than what facebook does.
Google used the same tech on YouTube videos, and is true for a while AdGuard failed to block both, but currently AdGuard can block both YouTube and Facebook ads with no problems, as long as you have AdGuard Extra enabled (which is by default) on the Desktop APP.
A problem with the piracy analogy is that by pirating a movie, you are directly violating legally binding property rights placed on that movie. It's a clear breach of the law.
Publishers don't have the same legal standing. No one signed a contract with them agreeing to view ads in exchange for accessing the content on their website. And while publishers argue that there's an unwritten agreement between them and visitors to their site, and that viewing ads is the price users must pay for accessing their content, their argument collapses when you think about the fact that their unwritten agreement would also have to extend to the myriad of—mostly invisible—third parties present on most websites nowadays.
Is not illegal to download pirated content in most countries, is only illegal to redistribute, plus you never run into malware if you get the content from the right sources (scene releases), the whole malware thing is a scare campaign from the copyright holders to keep you away.
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 41
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Mar 16, 2019
3,085
Google used the same tech on YouTube videos, and is true for a while AdGuard failed to block both, but currently AdGuard can block both YouTube and Facebook ads with no problems, as long as you have AdGuard Extra enabled (which is by default) on the Desktop APP.
Maybe it was possible before, but at the moment Adguard has no solution to this. As I said, I talked to Alex from Adguard, more precisely GitHub user Alex-302 with whom I had a conversation on Telegram. I saw fanboy also said the same thing about facebook video ads on the EasyList forum.
Is not illegal to download pirated content in most countries, is only illegal to redistribute, plus you never run into malware if you get the content from the right sources (scene releases), the whole malware thing is a scare campaign from the copyright holders to keep you away.
I agree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and oldschool

plat1098

Level 27
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 13, 2018
1,640
The time GorHill spends whining would be better used converting his extension to V3, but I assume he lacks the knownledge to do so, and that is fine, his competition is already working on it with positive results (and I don't mean only AdGuard).

Wow, don't you think that's a little harsh there? I can't think of any other program that improved my quality of life online more than uBlock Origin. You pay for many things to improve the quality of yourr "real" life:--you pay for that. uBlock Origin has always been free.

If I'm ever compelled to get another content blocker for whatever reason, fine. It's important to where i'd pay for that. But I'll always be grateful to Mr. Hill for his excellent and free program.
 

Local Host

Level 25
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 26, 2017
1,427
Wow, don't you think that's a little harsh there? I can't think of any other program that improved my quality of life online more than uBlock Origin. You pay for many things to improve the quality of yourr "real" life:--you pay for that. uBlock Origin has always been free.

If I'm ever compelled to get another content blocker for whatever reason, fine. It's important to where i'd pay for that. But I'll always be grateful to Mr. Hill for his excellent and free program.
I have nothing to thank GorHill for, uBlock is a fork from two other projects, he pretty much dropped the original uBlock and threw the responsability on top of someone else.

Later he regrets it, forks his own project and discredits everyone that tried to help him with the original project.

Plus there is no denying he currently just seeking attention, we all already heard his concerns about the V3 Manifest ages ago.

He either mans up and starts working on uBlock Origin to support V3, or you guys can start looking for alternatives, sooner rather than later, cause even Firefox is going to enforce V3 eventually.

As stated the competition is already working on it, instead of complaining it about it monthly.
 

oldschool

Level 66
Thread author
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
5,589

gorhill commented yesterday •​

edited​

There is also the issue of denyallow filter option, not supported by the declarativeNetRequest API.
There has been changes in the DNR API, and new conditions have been added which I think will allow to implement denyallow:
  • excludedRequestDomains
  • requestDomains
excludedRequestDomains= should be usable directly as a replacement of denyallow=:
The rule will not match network requests when the domains matches one from the list of excludedDomains [sic].
Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal · Issue #338 · uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues
 
Last edited: