• curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I was answering forking and how realistic it is. You’re changing the conversation into specifics around chrome.

    As I mentioned, this would be (not is, because its not even at a GA state) drastically simpler to fork, and there are many forks of a substantially more complicated browser already.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I was answering forking and how realistic it is. You’re changing the conversation into specifics around chrome.

      I’m not changing anything. they are powerless. if google decides to change chrome for the worse in a more significant way than UI design, they cannot avoid accepting that change.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Your example was Mv3. There are plenty of Chromium browsers that still support Mv3 Mv2. What’s your point?

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          all up to date chromium browsers support Mv3.

          if you meant Mv2, I doubt they will be able to keep up with the support for long. for now it’s very easy, because all the code is still there in the engine (recently you could still reenable it even in google chrome), but once chromium starts to refactor code, to make it simpler or more modern, those changes will not be done with kerping Mv2 support in mind, and fork devs will have an increasingly harder time to patch back support for it (safely!) as time goes on.

          • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            if you meant Mv2

            Yup! Edited the comment.

            Out of curiosity - have you tried any of the fully Mv3 compatible adblockers yet? I stopped using uBlock Origin a while ago, switched to AdGuard and Ghostery. Right now I’m running Ghostery exclusively (because they help with the cookies pop-up) and… it just works. Still blocks ads as well as uBlock ever did.

            I can’t find them now, but I saw some articles saying that actually Mv3 offers some new tools that help achieve adblock goals easier than Mv2 allowed. I have no clue if that’s true or if that’s a paid shill trying to calm people down, but from my own perspective, Mv3 seems to be painted as a much bigger baddie than it is.

            Please correct me if I’m wrong.

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Out of curiosity - have you tried any of the fully Mv3 compatible adblockers yet?

              I’m not using any chrome browsers.

              and… it just works. Still blocks ads as well as uBlock ever did.

              so your benchmark is what you see? that’s far too little in my opinion. I want to block tracking more than ads. but Mv3 blockers don’t have the capabilities for that anymore. Mv3 is useless for that, google knows full well what they have done.

              I can’t find them now, but I saw some articles saying that actually Mv3 offers some new tools that help achieve adblock goals easier than Mv2 allowed.

              I highly doubt there’s any truth in that. Mv2 blockers can do whatever they want with any asset that gets loaded.
              ok, no, there’s an exception. on chrome, Mv2 blockers could not filter traffic at browser startup (when previous tabs are automatically loaded), but that’s a chrome defect and this was not an issue on Firefox for a very long time (if ever)

              some wiki article s from the developer: