> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data.

To be honest, to me it sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.

To me, directly messing with web page data and browser behaviour is the whole point of a browser extension - what else is a browser extension for?

Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result.

Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.

Mozilla relies 85% of income from Google for making default search engine Google.

They probably have strong implicit pressure not to.

This sounds like another one in those class of arguments that are essentially "We can't let users accidentally harm themselves on the devices they own." While I appreciate ergonomics and sensible defaults, ultimately I don't need you, Google or anyone else telling me I can't do something with my device because it's too dangerous to me. I mean I have a huge F U for anyone who tells me that quite frankly, just as I would if they said it about my car or my kitchen knife. I cleared the age of consent decades ago, I will use what I bought and I will accept responsibility for all of the outcomes. These little poindexter dictator nerds of IT who think they get to control everything about what I own can F right off. I applaud and will participate in any class action lawsuit against them and hope for the maximum penalties to be inflicted upon them.

>Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable.

Sounds like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Years ago, it was standard practice for software to be designed so that users could grant permissions to access invasive methods or functions.

Google relies on users' personal data (ads), which is why they introduced a unique ID to their Chrome browser (to track).

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.

Agreed. And you would think most paranoid HN types would too.

> It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted

Maybe I'm foggy on the history. But isn't this like Fork #4 or #5 of some previous AdBlock extension?

Seems like the only business model for this type of extension is "selling out" for certain ads. And then the cycle repeats and forum posters tell you to install qBlock Omega or whatever. Maybe Mozilla doesn't want to get in the middle of this?

> Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.

Don't kid yourself, even with mv3 if you install a rogue extension it's going to have access to a lot more data than you would be comfortable sharing to.

Of course it's tempting to reply "don't install random extensions". But a bigger point here is that browsers have grown so massively complex that it's almost impossible to build one, so we don't have an ecosystem where you can choose your browser for safety and I can choose mine for freedom. Of course, Google has had a big incentive and hand in making it this way.

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.

I was under the impression that manifest v3 still allowed extensions to read anything, just not modify. Is that not the case? (Random link because this is hard to search for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303446 )

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions...

Why are you installing random extensions?

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data

This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites.

Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? .

Sign of the times I guess.

No worries. Reading the rest of your comments shows, that your defense is paper thin .

Then don't install them. I want my extensions in my browser on my computer to do whatever I allow them to do and not what's allowed by Google.

"Random" is a funny thing to call an extension that you have deliberately installed.

I also don't want "random" programs accessing my home folder. That would be terrible! Who knows what programs that could be! I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily. Same for extensions.

The goal here isn't really to protect me from extensions. Extensions don't do anything on their own, they just sit there and wait for me to install them. So the goal is apparently to protect me from me (installing an extension), which really is to say protect their business (ads) from me (blocking them).

... the greatest danger to us is masterless men; lacking a coercive power to tie their hands, they would destroy society. How else but by binding to lord and master can they be held to the laws? So thought men during feudal times.

In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving such power to single monopolists. But it's not in Google's interests to build such mechanisms, any more than it was in the interests of the feudal overlords to look for alternatives to their rule.

The amount of replies this has gotten regarding the use of “random” is a fine example of the state of discussion on the internet and in general, and how HN is in no way immune.

Clearly “random” was used as a means of saying “any”, to describe extensions the author hasn’t thought of. That will be obvious to anyone arguing in good faith and steel manning the argument.

Of course the reasons weren't unreasonable, that's what made them great excuses for specifically blocking ublock origin.

Don't defend them then. Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system? If not, then it shouldn't be true of the browser either.

Nothing stops people from using a fork with manifest v2 support restored. In fact "VibeChrome" would probably be a successful product.

The Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer let users search Google directly from any webpage, block pop-up ads, autofill web forms, and highlight search terms. It also displayed PageRank metrics, translated foreign languages, checked spelling, and managed web bookmarks.