Manifest v3 didn't kill ah blockers. It just got rid of the webRequestBlocking API and replaced it with declarativeNetRequest. This mean you don't have to give ad blockers permission to see all of the requests you are making. Ad blockers can still dynamically create rules for what requests they want to block.
I want to give my ad blocker permission to see my requests. I trust gorhill implicitly, moreover the code to ubo open source.
Ad blocking is a cat and mouse game. Google, a mouse, is trying to cripple the cat enough that they can squeak all of their ads through.
It is a fucked up situation when the attacker, i.e. Google, who does record everybody's history, is trying to convince us that our security will be enhanced if they stop allowing us to run our security software on our own devices. And that the open source security software is actually the attacker, with no evidence of that assertion whatsoever! The word "gaslighting" is thrown around frequently but what Google is doing here comes close to that.
Google knows that crippling ad blockers will result in more privacy violation, but they keep pushing this lie that ublock is dangerous and anti-privacy because they want to line their pockets.
Your comment made me take a closer look at what Raymond does and his twitter wasn't a positive surprise, it's full of political propaganda a lot of it anti-US and pro Putin/CCP. For example he shares Caitlin Johnstone tweets, which is a pro China account that might be known to people who follow what goes on in the sinosphere. Doesn't say anything about his code of course, but it's also not a sign to me this person should be trusted unconditionally. In general, there should be as little trust as possible. I expect my browser to ideally restrict extensions maximally and only give the permissions I explicitely agree to. The goes for open source code as well, there can always be a bug or exploit that hasn't been found yet.
Being anti-US (government) is a pretty reasonable stance considering known past transgressions. Since when is questioning the popular (western) narrative automatically propaganda? I can't really be bothered to look trough all the tweets to guess what you consider to be pro Putin/CCP but distrusting someone for sharing specific tweets from someone associated with Putin/CCP is too close to guilt by association territory for me.
In the end, almost everyone has opionions on politics. I'd wager that many more peole have opinions that you consider problematic than you realize - most just keep them to themselves. I don't think mistrusting those who are open about their views more than those that hidem them is a good policy.
In the end, gorhill is not trusted because of things he has said but because of his actions including retaking ownership of uBlock (now origin) after the new maintainers went against his ideals even thoug he originally did not want that burden. Do you have any actual reason to question gorhill's integrity or are you just spreading literal FUD?
Now as for Mozilla (and even moreso Google), they have shown their willingness to go against user wishes with telemetry, in-browser ads and experiments. Why would you trust them implicitly but find the idea of giving select extensions that same trust unthinkable? See, the problem here is not that browsers allow you to restrict what extensions can do but that browsers enforce certain restrictions and don't allow users to override them.
I do think it would be good if extensions were more commonly distributed (and hopefully checked) by (e.g. Linux distro) package maintainers rather than FF having its own developer-controlled update mechanism. But ultimately you do have to trust someone and the guy who has been dedicated to making the web usable without selling out so far is not a bad candidate.
