It’s common knowledge that Manifest V2 extensions are fundamentally dangerous to privacy and security, which is why Google has been deprecating it for the more secure Manifest V3 protocol.
Adblockers are purely convenience, and even if they did provide privacy or security, no amount of privacy is worth the massive security trade-off of using a Manifest V2 extension that can literally steal your passwords and TOTP secrets. Filter lists in general require trusting the maintainers of the filters, and they could become malicious at any time.
If one wishes to block ads, they should use their browsers reader mode.
PrivacyGuides should require that all extensions MUST support Manifest V3 and that any changes made to provide privacy CANNOT negatively impact security. Ideally, this section should be removed and users should be encouraged never to install any extensions under any circumstances, because extensions will always be a massive security risk even with Manifest V3.
People who support and use Manifest V2 extensions are dangerous conspiracy theorists with a vendetta against Google and their misinformation must be stopped.
No, this is not common knowledge outside of Google Chrome’s PR department. I’ll invite you to read my post here and the subsequent replies in the thread, as has already been brought up here in our uBlock Origin Lite discussion:
Your assertion that content blockers provide no privacy or security is false as well, they are a critical privacy and security tool.
Has uBlock Origin undergone a third-party security audit by a reputable security company? If so, have the results been published? If not, then it’s safe to assume nobody has audited and verified the code and it can’t be trusted.
I don’t think you understand how open source works. Many have looked at it and it is just fine - just because it is not officially done but a security company, doesn’t mean it is unsafe.
Also, if you don’t like it, then don’t use it. But to come here and claim you are right when you are objectively not, that shows how uninformed you are.
Personally, given the number of adverts on websites, I can’t see myself stopping using any ad blocker whatsoever. If I had to choose, I’d rather stop going on the internet, it’s a hellish situation.
These aren’t just any extensions; they’re the cream of the crop. We’re talking about carefully curated gems that meet the highest standards in security, functionality, and overall user experience. The selection process is rigorous, and it involves the meticulous efforts of the Firefox team, combined with valuable input from the community.
Imagine a team of experts and enthusiasts sifting through the vast ocean of extensions, handpicking the best of the best. But it doesn’t stop there. These chosen extensions undergo intense scrutiny in the form of manual security reviews. They’re examined from every angle to ensure they meet our strict policies, leaving no room for compromise.
Do you have a source on this? As for Google deprecating them in V3, that’s because it serves their purpose of serving you more ads and tracking you at every move. Nice try Sundar Pichai.
Quit spreading conspiracy theories against Google. Google is deprecating MV2 to protect your privacy, not to end adblockers (if that was their mission, wouldn’t they ban adblocking extensions in their chrome web store like they ban certain apps from their Google Play Store?). Saying Google is forcing MV3 to end ad blockers is a conspiracy theory to encourage baseless hate against big tech.
Google needs to make money to provide the serves you run for free. Data collection isn’t unique to Google and people can choose to opt-out of data collection. Choosing an “alternative” is just giving your data to another provider. Google takes security and privacy more seriously than most “privacy-focused” solutions (Firefox, Linux, /e/OS, and XMPP to name a few).
Putting that data in the hands of one tech giant who can then use it to extrapolate trends, statistics, public opinions.
The power they have on a country/world level, the ability to influence public opinions to achieve political goals, swing elections, huge financial gains by investing in predicted stocks/products.
Self host or paying privacy respecting companies is the best option.
I don’t know what your gripe with Linux is, but it does nothing like Google in terms of data collection, hell I think it has almost none.
If you think Google cares about your privacy, I’ll let you believe that so you can sleep peacefully at night, but they don’t and it’s a fact.
Linux is fundamentally insecure because it uses a monolithic kernel that wasn’t designed with security in mind and written in memory-unsafe C, and it lacks proper sandboxing, exploit mitigations, and verified boot that no amount of Linux hardening can achieve due to the broken nature and fragmentation of the Linux desktop. Even distributions like Kicksecure (not recommended) and Secureblue are at best harm reduction projects like what DivestOS used to be. Linux security is a lost cause and nobody in their right mind should ever support it.
Security is more important than privacy and “freedom”. Google has proven to take security seriously and have the resources to handle and properly secure advanced projects like Chromium and Android. Real security and privacy is achieved when you do not self-host or trust some random hobbyist project or small company like the /e/ foundation (notoriously insecure and behind in Android updates) or Posteo (shady and dishonest provider that doesn’t even get the basics of security) but when your personal data is managed and secured by Google or another reputable company with the technical knowledge, experience, and resources to properly secure and protect you from digital threats. You wouldn’t build your own web browser or operating system for the sake of “DeGoogle-ing” would you?
It’s sad that PrivacyGuides has little focus on security and makes questionable recommendations like uBlock Origin that sacrifice security for “privacy”. The fact they recommend any Linux distros or Firefox-based browsers besides Tor Browser at all proves that the PrivacyGuides community does not take security seriously.
