alt Hacker NewsAnyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".
Replies
It’s similar, but not the same. Safari lets you dynamically generate rules that are then compiled for privacy and efficiency. The limits were increased to 150000 rules per content blocker due to user demands [1]. And each extension can have multiple content blockers.
MV3 has a measly 30000 static rule limit. These rules are included with the extension and cannot be updated dynamically. And a 5000 dynamic rules limit. [2]
EDIT: Chrome now has a 300000 shared pool for static rules for extensions that go over their 30000 limit. And a 30000 dynamic rule limit [3].
[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-for-safari-1-11.html
[2] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3-beta.html
[3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concept...
I see boatloads of ads in Safari on iOS. To the point that web browsing on my phone is intolerable, so I don't do it.
> Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago,
iOS I'll give you, but macOS can in fact run ex. Firefox.
> finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard.
"Matching" inferior security+privacy is not a good thing. The only way this is an improvement if you think the blockers are malicious; otherwise a useful tool in the users interest has been made less powerful.