Mozilla should spent money to advertise(Is this right? I don’t know verbs fuck) a flaw in Chrome? It’s not like the public cares about it.
No, not a flaw in chrome, it has always had flaws even regarding what security oriented extensions like uBO could do.
Not a flaw in chrome, but that the tools they depended on still work over here.The do get most of there funding from Google
Mozilla is the maker of the famous Firefox browser which has been using its own web engine called “Gecko” since forever, and hence, is not affected at all by these moves from Google.
You answered your own question. It doesn’t effect FF.
But, I do agree they should use the downgrade in functionality of V3 as a point for advertising FF.
affect
What good would advertising “Still supporting Manifest V2” do for your average user? They also wouldn’t want to openly advertise that “Your ad block still works with us”.
Most sane take in this whole thread.
Some of y’all get a little conspiratorial.
That is literally the premise of the article
Don’t they get like 90% of their money from Google?
Yes.
that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, big moneypants might say something
No, big moneypants is getting sued for monopoly practices, which means Mozilla’s search revenue may dry up. I’m guessing they don’t want to ruin their chances with a competitor should they need to find another search partner.
sure, that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, new big moneypants might say something
Didn’t they remove XUL extensions to make their extension interface compatible with inferior chrome web extensions?
Yes, after twenty years of refusing to stabilize any part of that interface.
Chrome is absolutely the villain in this context. But Mozilla has been fucking itself over since the single-digit version numbers.
I just did a quick online search and it seems like the reason for removing that was that it was way too much work to maintain and stopped them from implementing performance improvements for Firefox. Apparently it was also a lot of work for extension developers, since they had to update their extensions constantly.
That’s just what I read tho, I wasn’t there when XUL extensions where still a thing.
i wouldn’t say inferior… mozilla extensions were more performant and flexible, web extensions (ie the initial chrome format - now a standard that most browsers use) are easier to develop, and thus there were a lot more of them
"We really can’t rock the boat on this Google money "
Mozilla is silent about Firefox in general, not just about Manifest v2 and v3. I assume there is nothing new to report. Mozilla already stated somewhere they will support V2 and the extensions will work as before. But I don’t understand why Mozilla does not use this moment from marketing standpoint to market the Firefox Extension Manifest V2 the hell out of it.
Why piss off the guy who pays your bills bro
Don’t they need to pay the bills if they don’t want to get in antitrust investigations?
Google lawyers would make the calculation on how much, if, when, what etc monthly on this.
Mozilla’s actions would factor into the calculation, but are definitely not the deciding factor.
That check is going to run out sooner, rather than later
mozilla the organization has acted extremely reluctant, almost embarrassed, to talk about the browser.
Because they are an organizational mess.
One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.
Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/
Why would it not be?
Well of course they are, after all they are slowly becoming one of these malicious companies it tried to fight with.
There are thousands of user configurable flags/settings in about:config
An option for Manifest V3 has been there for quite a while. It wasn’t enabled by default.
In FF Nightly for Android it is enabled by default along with V2.
Manifest v3 extensions work in Firefox, too. Its just the new thing. Its way easier to build cross-browser extensions with, too. V3 is actually a good thing overall, as its led to a lot of extensions being available for Firefox when the devs might have just targeted chrome. Way more feature parity between browsers with v3.
Chrome dropping support for v2 doesn’t merit a response from Firefox because nothing changes for Firefox users and they’re not going to drop support. Any one who actually cares (and they should) will move to Firefox on their own, so why waste advertising money on that? Eventually Firefox and any other browsers who want to allow stuff like ublock will probably have a way to do the same tasks in v3 (and the Firefox Dev team has said as much in blog posts for ages), then it’ll just be a feature that doesn’t work in chrome. V3 just simply doesn’t have the API that ublock uses in v2.
There have been discussions for years in the w3c standards group about this whole shitshow and this is one the chrome team have basically refused to budge on despite all the other browser teams. Its honestlu a mirscle they delayed it as long as they have. This was originally supposed to happen at the start of 2023.
Chrome is kinda like a country with a overrule veto vote at the UN when it comes to w3c working groups since they can just do whatever they want anyway, and nothing will change until they no longer have that power. That said, browser feature parity is at an all time high recently and its because all the browser teams are working together better than ever. There are just these hard limits chrome chooses to stick to.
What you said makes sense from a technical standpoint but not from a practical standpoint. If I’m losing good adblock on Chrome, but good ad block still works on Firefox, it would be easy for Mozilla to put up some blog posts or tweets or whatever to point out that they are a great option, because they’re adblock isn’t going anywhere.
This is an obvious concern for many users, Mozilla has the capability to issue a press release or anything at all, and they’ve chosen not to do so. Therefore, people are reasonably questioning why they’ve chosen not to do so. Free marketing but they’re throwing it away, and their best defense for doing nothing is essentially what you wrote, which is essentially to dodge the precise issue at hand.
Biggest thing I learned from that article is that over 1/3 of users use an adblocker. I did not know adblockers had become so prevalent amongst normies
Have you visited a website without it, its 10:1 ratio of ads to content
Oh yeah I would never browse the internet unprotected by an adblocker, but knowing that normies are feeling this way now too? That’s something else entirely
Because it doesn’t make sense for all Firefox marketing material to be how shit chrome is. Save that bullshit for American president elections
It will be exciting to see Kamala and Trump debate whether Gecko or Blink should be the industry leader.
Would it… though?
Kinda off topic, but I find it weird that Kamala is usually referred by first name, and trump by surname.
Trump™ Kamala™
It’s a “brand recognition” kind of thing.
I think it’s because that’s the more distinctive part of her name. “President Harris” sounds kind of generic, like the fictional president from an action movie.
It may start to constitute a pattern that the same was true of Hillary Clinton, though in that case it was likely that just saying “Clinton” might cause confusion with Bill.
Also Bernie Sanders is mostly referred to by his first name, so…
They should get married. Then it would be Kamala Trump
Harris can’t deny the popularity of Blink. Trump is a die-hard EdgeHTML advocate.
Not saying anything bad about chrome is probably in the contract they have with Google which is most of their income
Nah I doubt, it would be a huge lawsuit if google was found to pay competitors for staying quiet about their flaws
Sure they could sue but that’s a lose lose situation even if they won Google would not give them money anymore and they need that to stay in Business
Hold up
American presidents are hating on Chrome? What did I miss?
… because Mozilla already clarified their position on this last year.
TL;DR
No, Mozilla is NOT ditching manifest v2.
Well what’s happening with MV2 you ask? Great question – in case you missed it, Google announced late last year their plans to resume their MV2 deprecation schedule. Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.
Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/
Did you read the article? Your link supports the point it was making: Mozilla doesn’t mention ad blocking anywhere. It’s immediately brought up in the comments, but Mozilla itself doesn’t want to broach the topic.
Years ago, Mozilla would explicitly call ad blocking a privacy feature, and proclaim it explicitly.
Now they don’t.
Removed by mod
but Mozilla itself doesn’t want to broach the topic.Again, a reminder that Mozilla plans to continue support for the Manifest Version 2 blocking WebRequest API (this API powers, for example, uBlock Origin) while simultaneously supporting Manifest Version 3.
Years ago, Mozilla would explicitly call ad blocking a privacy feature, and proclaim it explicitly.Ahem! https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/ > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/adblocker/
Cooking up conspiracy theory instead of research is easy, is not it?
Source: 2022
Incorrect, that’s actually from 2022 B.C.
And your other page was 2018
Correct, the snap of article from 2018 looks exactly identical to 2024 instance with ZERO modifications. Mozilla finally gave us on Privacy it seems, as no one bothered to update that page since 2018.
Wait a sec, they also haven’t updated this article as well since 2020. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/compare/chrome/
/s
You keep posting things that agree with me. I don’t think you understand that.
The only way to find a contradiction is to find new articles that trumpet their ad blocking capabilities, not old ones from years ago.
Do you understand, years ago?
Yes, like publishing a new article every day just to prove their commitment to end-users’ privacy.
Incremental updates to articles, hosted literally on home page, with details of newer privacy features is so old school.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Also not what I said.
Mozilla started selling private data to advertising companies in 2023.
Mozilla became an advertising company in June, 2024.
Isn’t it curious that they’ve suddenly become much less outspoken about ad blocking after 2022?
