> It looks like the recent changes are all about slowly locking down what extensions can do because it’s currently a free for all where random anonymous extension owners have full access to everyone’s browsers.
The major browser vendors already have extension "stores" that are supposed to be curated. I believe it's also true that installing an extension directly ("side-loading") is usually disabled by default (or just not an option at all).
They've done their due diligence for our "safety". Now, it's just bullshit to prevent us from blocking ads, trackers, and spyware.
Firefox's are, nominally, reviewed. I don't know if Chrome's are, but I would've assumed that they are- even if by some automated tool(s).
Granted, I'm sure malware slips through. But, what security danger is there to a user if an extension blocks a network request? Manifest V3 eliminating the ability to block network requests is NOT for user security. The absolute best excuse they can come up with is that it has something to do with performance, but that's also bullshit because I'm 99% sure I can find plenty of ways to make a Manifest V3 extension waste CPU and/or memory.
The major browser vendors already have extension "stores" that are supposed to be curated. I believe it's also true that installing an extension directly ("side-loading") is usually disabled by default (or just not an option at all).
They've done their due diligence for our "safety". Now, it's just bullshit to prevent us from blocking ads, trackers, and spyware.