• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also FF will be affected by V3 and require some changes to avoid V3, at least if Mozilla can leave the contract, as intended, with Google as the main sponsor until 2024, otherwise it will have to abide by its conditions. The only which can’t avoid it, is the user of Chrome itself. The devs of most other companies are already working to show the middlefinger to Google, in the EU anyway. Vivaldi has an inbuild ad/trackerblocker which can use remote lists that are not affected, out of reach of Google, no need of the Chrome Store for this, also no need of Tampermonkey, Greasymonkey u other extensions to install scripts as extensions itself, if needed.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Implemeting support for v3 is not the same as dropping web request blocking API from v2… Google pays to Mozilla for service they provide having them as default search engine - it’s not a sponsorship…

      Saying that, I’ve done some more recent research and Google has already softened their stance on requests blocking with current manifesto proposal of up to 5k dynamic rules with a proposal to extend up to 30k being popular.Sources: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-filtering-in-manifest-v3/ proposal: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319#issuecomment-1682073791

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, Mozilla recive money from Google, not only to use it as default search engine, it’s way deeper, so Mozilla send data to Alphabet, googleanalytics and googletagmanager, as said, if you create an account in Mozilla, Google also receive this data.

        The Firefox save browsing API is also from Google, the same which also in the Cromiums, which in Vivaldi can be desactivated in the settings, like other Google APIs left to the user choice. Extern sponsores never are a good idea, it gives other the power to make decisions for the own brand. I hope that Mozilla manages to finish this contract next year, as intended.

        Yes, Google can limit the lists which use adblocker extensions, eg uBO, but not the lists itself used by others. Anyone can use the filterlist he want. I think that also FF will be forced in the future to use an inbuild adblocker.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          To be clear Google has no direct way to force FF to do shit. The reason Google is implementing v3 is to disrupt adblocking (by dropping v2 APIs) the reason Mozilla is supporting v3 is to make life easier for extension Devs. They don’t have to comply with same restrictions

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Mozilla don’t make life easier for the devs, these must anyway change to V3, yes or yes, or their extensions will stop working and die, that simple.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Firefox safe browsing API is also from Google

          It is, however it doesn’t send data to google. Browser receives the list of all unsafe pages and checks against it locally

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Not at all, the API also send Data to Google, its not a simple list hosted by the Browser but by Google. At least I’ve desactivated it, because the adblocker do the same, if you use eg uBO, it also wikk block webs with malware or fraudulent content, because these are also in the blocklists, so the save browsing API isn’t really needed. Better sending data to GitHub as to Google.