tampermonkey VS uBlock

This extension makes use of JS computed property names to perform user specified dynamic actions on user specified elements.

I started working on an extension primarily for my own very specific use case. I knew of Tampermonkey and it's relatives before, but hadn't used it extensively. I also was following the news of MV3, so wasn't sure of their long term viability. But more than anything having recently got into frontend development I also just wanted to build an extension myself, getting to understand the newer limitation and alternatives was just a bonus point.

Literally a couple of days ago I got to know (From HN nonetheless https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38526277) that userscripts are going to be allowed in MV3 too, so I finally decided to actually check out ViolentMonkey, which is pretty neat, but from the looks of it would have to migrate to `chrome.userScripts.register` which would eventually require `userScripts` permission and with it would need [developer mode enabled](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/u...). While browsing through the subsequent discussions I saw there were many other alternatives for dynamic script execution, from creating and the dynamic code to `` tags to using `evaljs`, but I wasn't aware of them while building this (see for ex: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31425256">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31425256</a> and <a href="https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issuecomment-857838249">https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issu...</a>) (and tbf it wan't even my goal to get full JS execution in my extension).<p>Long term my goal was to build a small JSON config for the actions needed and parse and apply them to have the desired behavior. I also was planning on exposing some extension only behavior (like tab functionality) via message passing with service workers (The config could be something like

Do you use "Never Remember History"? There are bug reports about it. Fix is soon to be released.

Yes, I'm having the exact same problem. It was updated on Nov. 30 and I can't find a way to downgrade back to the last version. There's been several issues posted on the tampermonkey github recently but I don't have enough technical knowledge to know if any of those issues applies to this problem. And just like you, I can't even see my scripts to move them to a different script manager.

I have no damn idea why Tampermonkey, which as very best I can tell is closed source <https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/blob/master/REA...>, is on the "blessed" Firefox for Android list when Violentmonkey <https://github.com/violentmonkey/violentmonkey#readme> is MIT, although I readily admit doesn't it have a "politically correct" name

I use it a lot and it used to be on github until version 2.9. I guess I could use that but wondering if there are some other nice selfhosted versions where I can easily modify my Chrome webpages that I should consider.

I want to chime on that as it's worth noting that Tampermonkey is no longer open source. I mean it's like that for years - its GitHub repo clearly stands it's just an archive version and commits there date back to 2018. Here's one of the first posts when author went proprietary license and started gaining data (with his comment btw) and technically there's also Security section in FAQ and full Privacy Policy. Also FWIK website is the only place you get info about changes - highlighting that to stop looking for insights on GitHub.

If you can't the answers you're looking for in the Tampermonkey FAQ, you can ask them in the official Tampermonkey support forum.

Tampermonkey devs have implemented it but didn't release it yet and Violentmonkey devs don't want to implement it, so I guess I'm not fixing this issue anytime soon.

Specific case: uBlock Origin seems to block TamperMonkey from either injecting or running my userscript. (See https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/1709 ) I was thinking it might be one of the above rules but I can't really get much out of the logger, and trying to disable those rules doesn't work. Does anyone have an idea on how to progress?

https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/blob/master/COP...

this says GPL so unless they update their license file here, this stays

Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...

If ads, in particular on YouTube, are the problem, anything Chromium-based is probably only going to get worse and worse (see [1] and [2]). So that basically leaves you with Firefox and Safari.

I work for Mozilla (speaking for myself, of course), so I'll leave you to guess which I'd recommend :P

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.

What are the compelling advantages of Chrome nowadays?

Chrome is working to limit the capabilities of ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/chrome-pushes...

Whereas a compelling advantage of Firefox is that uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

Advertising networks have often been vectors for malware. Using an ad blocker is an important security measure. Even the FBI recommends ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising

https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624

> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules

That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...

> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.

What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.

It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.

> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.

This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.

> "Its happened before"

> That's not an argument

It's a subheading to "2. Browser engine monopoly". The subsection's purpose is describing how bad things were during the IE monopoly to reinforce that it's something to be avoided.

> in fact you could counter-argue that IE left a lot of technical debt

That would be agreeing with the article, unless I understand what you mean.

> On top of that, the internet was very different back then.

In a way that now makes it harder for truly new competing engines to pop up due to increased complexity of the web.

> I'm still not convinced, why would I change my browser?

The points made in the article are:

* Increased privacy, opposed to willingly giving your data to an ad-tech company

* Helps avoid a browser engine monopoly which would effectively let Google dictate web standards

* It’s fast and has a nice user interface

Onto which I'd add:

* Content blockers work best on Firefox (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...), doubly so when Manifest V3 rolls out

* Allows more customization of interface and home page

* UX improvements, like the clutter-free reader mode, aren't vetoed to protect search revenue as with Chrome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467)

Advertising networks are vectors for malware:

https://www.cisecurity.org/insights/blog/malvertising

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising

https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...

So if you're concerned about security then you want the browser with the best ad blocker.

uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...