I initially punished a comment disagreeing with you, but after thinking about it more, I agree. Google's clearly signalled that they don't want Adblockers to use "read/write data on all websites"; just like Apple did, Chrome's whole idea with Manifest v3 was to make that go away. Frankly, with the genuinely malicious extensions people keep installing, probably for the best. Furthermore having uBlock Origin "continue to behave as normal" will confuse users and make them think uBO is still blocking everything users expect it to (i.e. tracking), which can surely endanger some users.
Google's clearly signalled that they don't want Adblockers to use "read/write data on all websites"
Where have they "clearly signaled this"? Gorhil even disproves this in his own comment: he links to an ad blocker in the Chrome webstore that uses MV3 and has been approved, even though it uses the "Read/write data on all websites" permission.
> To give users greater visibility and control over how extensions use and share their data, we’re moving to an extensions model that makes more permissions optional and allows users to withhold sensitive permissions at install time. Long-term, extension developers should expect users to opt in or out of permissions at any time.
> For extensions that currently require passive access to web activity, we’re introducing and continuing to iterate on new functionality that allows developers to deliver these use cases while preserving user privacy. For example, our new declarativeNetRequest API is designed to be a privacy-preserving method for extensions to block network requests without needing access to sensitive data.
> The declarativeNetRequest API is an example of how Chrome is working to enable extensions, including ad blockers, to continue delivering their core functionality without requiring the extension to have access to potentially sensitive user data. This will allow many of the powerful extensions in our ecosystem to continue to provide a seamless user experience while still respecting user privacy.
Basically, Chrome is hoping to use the same psychological effect as Apple's "Ad Tracking Transparency" (the opt-in screen for cross-app tracking) to make people opt-in for "read/write data on all sites" permission, to try to transition the amount of adblockers with that permission from 100% (currently) to ~20% (the amount of people who opt-in to tracking on iOS) by scaring users about extension permissions.
Unsourced comments that cite unsourced comments... this is exactly how FUD spreads.
I agree that it's clear that Google wants to reduce the amount of extensions that users opt in to having access to their entire web browsing data. I don't think that's a psychological trick: I think it's very clear that most users don't understand that every single extension they install might have these permissions, and instead just click past the generic permissions dialogue that Google shows.
I don't think that that translates to "Google's clearly signalled that they don't want Adblockers to use "read/write data on all websites"". What Google has clearly signaled is that they want users to be able to opt in to using this permission for the extensions that are most important to them, and that they want extensions to gracefully degrade when those permissions are not available. For most users, that's going to be ad blockers: basic features work without full site access, and advanced features are available with more site access. That seems like a good thing to me, not a reason to rip those advanced features out all together.
