9 ms·

I find it ironic that the only API Google decided to cripple was the one used for adblocking when there are countless of ways to exfiltrate data from an extensi

by livre 5y ago

I find it ironic that the only API Google decided to cripple was the one used for adblocking when there are countless of ways to exfiltrate data from an extension. I share the same pessimistic view as Nicksil with respect to Firefox, this is the direction Mozilla has been going with other parts of the browser. Edit: I know Mozilla said they are waiting for a better alternative, but any alternative that can be proposed will end up being less powerful than what we currently have.

refulgentis 5y ago
I wonder if it's because it's the one API that gets a full firehose log of every single ask my browser makes for data
- livre 5y ago
  It is possible that that's the explanation but stopping just one API only affects people/extensions willing to follow the rules (uBlock Origin for example) while the bad players will just change a few lines and begin using other APIs. The end result is people are less protected because they have crippled adblockers and data can still be exfiltrated, and worse than that, malicious ads can't be prevented from loading anymore.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  The asynchronous API is still around and still gives you the firehose. Removing the synchronous API only locks out adblockers.
- rasz 5y ago
  Of course not. Google is leaving that one in place, they are specifically killing possibility of cancelling requests.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Google's new extension interfaces are reasonable though. They really are more secure. I want extensions to have as little access as possible. uBlock Origin just happens to be important and trusted enough that these limitations should not be imposed on it.
- handrous 5y ago
  If they're serious about keeping uBlock Origin around, and aren't just stalling while intending to remove what it needs eventually, they should agree to the new API for extensions ASAP... but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it under their wing (to whatever extent the author's willing for that to happen). Now that would be an interesting and pro-user move that sets their browser apart from others. But it might piss off Google a little too much, which is probably why they've not made that or a similar move long before now. One of FF's earliest differentiators, before it was even called Firefox, was a form of ad-blocking, after all (pop-up and pop-under blocking, which at the time mostly meant blocking really annoying ads)
  - shawnz 5y ago
    I don't think this would be the best thing to do for uBO users. This creates the possibility that the "Firefox internal uBO" could diverge in functionality from the one maintained by gorhill and get neutered by Mozilla managers. I think it is ultimately necessary due to the incentives at play that the adblocking technology can be delivered by any third party.
    - handrous 5y ago
      If other major browsers are cutting off critical functionality for it, the concern may be moot. As long as Mozilla aren't themselves in ad sales/brokerage I wouldn't be worried about a browser shipping an ad-blocker, as far as incentives go. Google doing it, that'd be concerning. Mozilla? Good. [EDIT] though actually this is another case of their relationship with Google being kinda crippling, since that does introduce a conflict of interest... which is part of why Google does it, I'm sure.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it under their wing I totally agree with this. At this point uBlock Origin's technology is so important and essential it should be a standard feature of every browser. I've posted this many times before. People usually say that uBlock Origin is better off independent because Mozilla is funded by Google.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by livre 5y ago

refulgentis 5y ago

I wonder if it's because it's the one API that gets a full firehose log of every single ask my browser makes for data

livre 5y ago
It is possible that that's the explanation but stopping just one API only affects people/extensions willing to follow the rules (uBlock Origin for example) while the bad players will just change a few lines and begin using other APIs. The end result is people are less protected because they have crippled adblockers and data can still be exfiltrated, and worse than that, malicious ads can't be prevented from loading anymore.
Nullabillity 5y ago
The asynchronous API is still around and still gives you the firehose. Removing the synchronous API only locks out adblockers.
rasz 5y ago
Of course not. Google is leaving that one in place, they are specifically killing possibility of cancelling requests.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Google's new extension interfaces are reasonable though. They really are more secure. I want extensions to have as little access as possible. uBlock Origin just happens to be important and trusted enough that these limitations should not be imposed on it.

handrous 5y ago
If they're serious about keeping uBlock Origin around, and aren't just stalling while intending to remove what it needs eventually, they should agree to the new API for extensions ASAP... but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it under their wing (to whatever extent the author's willing for that to happen). Now that would be an interesting and pro-user move that sets their browser apart from others. But it might piss off Google a little too much, which is probably why they've not made that or a similar move long before now. One of FF's earliest differentiators, before it was even called Firefox, was a form of ad-blocking, after all (pop-up and pop-under blocking, which at the time mostly meant blocking really annoying ads)
- shawnz 5y ago
  I don't think this would be the best thing to do for uBO users. This creates the possibility that the "Firefox internal uBO" could diverge in functionality from the one maintained by gorhill and get neutered by Mozilla managers. I think it is ultimately necessary due to the incentives at play that the adblocking technology can be delivered by any third party.
  - handrous 5y ago
    If other major browsers are cutting off critical functionality for it, the concern may be moot. As long as Mozilla aren't themselves in ad sales/brokerage I wouldn't be worried about a browser shipping an ad-blocker, as far as incentives go. Google doing it, that'd be concerning. Mozilla? Good. [EDIT] though actually this is another case of their relationship with Google being kinda crippling, since that does introduce a conflict of interest... which is part of why Google does it, I'm sure.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > but make uBlock Origin part of the browser, and bring it under their wing I totally agree with this. At this point uBlock Origin's technology is so important and essential it should be a standard feature of every browser. I've posted this many times before. People usually say that uBlock Origin is better off independent because Mozilla is funded by Google.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]