Yeah, I read the post eager to see what AdGuard's thoughts were after building their MV3-based blocker, but the article never actually goes anywhere. It's just repeating Mozilla's stance from at least a year ago.
I tested both AdGuard and uBlock Origin in MV3 for a while, and they seemed fine to me. Adguard's had less friction due to opting sites into cosmetic filtering by default.
No? The submission was for a blog post from 2 days ago by AdGuard, and now you've made it into a blog post by Mozilla from last year. That's a pretty extreme change. The Mozilla blog post gives some background, so why not just post that link instead of changing the whole submission?
This was a mistake, dang. Not to mention it doesn't have (2022). Which it didn't need, before you changed the link.
The AdGuard blog post has details that the Mozilla post doesn't, such as a specific discussion about ad blocking, as well as recent developments in Chrome's deprecation timeline.
I've seen some pretty weird submission alterations recently, not sure what's purpose of that. I know there's tendency to have information linked to as close to original source as possible but it's just complete miss sometimes
We haven't changed anything about how we edit titles or URLs—all these practices have been stable for many years. So if you've noticed weirder changes lately, it must just be luck of the draw.
I obviously got this change wrong since people hated it so much - but no one much liked the original URL either (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850937). If there's a better article, we can change it again.
> If there's a better article, we can change it again.
There's not a better article. I think people are mainly confused by the title of the article.
There are 2 different links to mozilla.org with background info in the first 3 sentences of the article, so it seems like people just aren't clicking those links.
To me, it's clear that the intention of the article is primarily to criticize Google and Chrome, with a contrast to the behavior of Mozilla and Firefox. Which is why the title can be a bit confusing, and people are expecting a long explanation of what Firefox did, when the point is really that Google could and ought to do better.
Much worse dang. The original article wasn't bad; it just glossed over the details. But has a lot on the background and the migration to V3, so another vote to revert to the original submission.
