What a shitty article. The entire point is “well, they’re not wrong that Google is evil and clearly wants to kill adblockers, but they’re MAYBE factually incorrect on some aspects”, reported by the extension developers themselves (who may or may not be more knowledgeable about this than the author).
Yes, it might be the case that extensions manage to work through the limitations and still limp along. In fact, this is probably what’s going to happen. The point still stands that MV3 will severely gimp adblockers and Google knows what it’s doing, the factual aspects of which (that the author doesn’t actually know about, by the way) are largely irrelevant.
It was the first article about this subject with explained at least a little bit how MV3 will hurt ad blockers so it was still an interesting read.
Did you read the article?
It was specifically calling out tech outlets erroneously stating that extensions must undergo an extensive review process. This wasn’t supported by the original interviews.
The new limitations placed on extensions I digress on.
It’s not maybe, it’s incorrect on the major aspect of every rule requiring a full update. There’s enough space for no-full-update-needed blocking of most ads and swapping out filter lists. Still, it’ll gimp the corners.
So am I wrong in assuming that the guy who wrote this article, is also the same person who posted the article here? Because they are both named Corbin.
I’m the author, yes.
Cool. The top comment is particularly brutal in its opinion on your work, care to respond?
Already did! I don’t think it was brutal, just asking technical questions.
I think they were talking about this comment: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/6264541
It seems like it didn’t propagate to infosec.hub.
Ah yeah, that one didn’t show up on my server. That’s just an opinion about the overall situation, not disproving anything I said.
That image was definitely made by AI, lol.
It does say “Credit: Microsoft Designer / DALL-E 3”
“Credit: Prompt Engineer/ DALL-E 3”
deleted by creator
The limit for dynamic rules is 30K (for basic block/allow) + 5K for more complex blocking, plus a minimum of 60K more for static complex rules: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#property-GUARANTEED_MINIMUM_STATIC_RULES
I agree the original article/quote was probably just worded weird and not being malicious. The issue is more all of the other articles that picked up on that with the wrong interpretation, as many outlets have through the whole Manifest V3 situtation.
The rush to publish first has become very frustrating because so much tech reporting has become catering to the doom-and-gloom crowd that rush to post links on link sharing sites and social media because it gets views and updoots.
Specifically with Ars Technica, this isn’t the first article they’ve published with at least a misleading premise. The commenter base there really basks in negativity and it seems like that’s the target audience.
I kinda agree, the whole adblocking space has felt very circle-jerky lately. Tech news writers are just cashing in on the hype with low quality articles. That said, even if google is not technically locking down adblockers, this does tend to be the first step towards killing such a thing. Its kinda the unspoken implication of the whole conversation
Also, considering you are criticizing clickbait-y tech articles, you should probably stay away from clickbait.
