Chrome Users Beware: Manifest V3 Is Deceitful and Threatening (2021)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Chrome’s move to Manifest V3, a new extension framework that removes powerful request-blocking APIs, is seen by many as a serious blow to effective ad blocking and privacy tools, despite Google framing it as a security and safety improvement. Commenters argue that while some technical gaps have been partially addressed over time, the replacement API (declarativeNetRequest) remains too limited, pushing developers toward workarounds like external proxies and weakening user control compared with Firefox’s more permissive approach. The change fuels broader concerns about Google’s dominance across browsers, ads, and web standards, and may motivate privacy-conscious users to switch to alternatives or adopt network-level blocking instead.

Reasons People Still Use Chrome

  • Perceived faster performance than Firefox, especially on Android and some Linux/macOS setups; others report the opposite or parity.
  • Better integration with Google services (Gmail, Docs, Meet, GSuite), including higher webcam resolutions and smoother UX in some cases.
  • Chrome dev tools remain a key draw for some developers.
  • Built‑in page translation is valued; some didn’t know about newer Firefox translation features or add‑ons.

Performance and Compatibility Experiences

  • Highly mixed anecdotes: some find Firefox unusably slow or glitchy on mobile; others say Firefox + uBlock Origin makes sites much faster than Chrome due to blocking.
  • On desktop, people report both “Chrome feels lighter” and “Firefox uses less memory.”
  • Certain sites and web apps (Teams, some niche sites) still work better or only on Chromium; others report no issues running everything in Firefox, Safari, or Edge.

Manifest V3 and Ad Blocking

  • Many see MV3’s removal of blocking webRequest and its replacement with declarativeNetRequest (DNR) as an intentional downgrade that weakens powerful blockers like uBlock Origin.
  • Some argue MV3 improves security by restricting what extensions can modify, aligning with Safari’s more limited model.
  • Counterpoint: MV3 leaves observational APIs intact, so spying is still possible; the main effect is constraining defensive tools, not attackers.
  • Firefox is adopting MV3 for compatibility but keeping blocking webRequest, widely praised as a better balance.

Security, Privacy, and Control

  • Chrome’s security team is described as excellent, but many stress the conflict of interest: a dominant ad company controlling anti‑tracking capabilities.
  • Concern that weaker adblocking increases attack surface and tracking.
  • Debate over paternalism: some favor strong restrictions to protect non‑technical users; others argue for user education, explicit “advanced” toggles, and warnings instead of hard removals.

Extension Ecosystem and Developer Impact

  • MV3’s service‑worker model adds complexity; Google has improved it but it remains harder to build powerful extensions.
  • Some extensions must now proxy traffic through external servers to work, which paradoxically reduces privacy.
  • MV3 bans dynamic code, simplifying review but limiting sophisticated behaviors and userscripts; workarounds (new APIs, dev‑mode scripts) are seen as clumsy.

Workarounds and Market Outlook

  • Users mention DNS‑level blocking, large hosts files, proxy‑based tools, and MV3‑compatible “lite” blockers, though these are acknowledged as weaker.
  • Some expect degraded adblocking in Chrome to finally push users to Firefox or other browsers; others note Chrome’s entrenched market share, Chromebooks, and user inertia make big shifts unlikely.