> Look at how many in Kaspersky’s list are advertised as ad blockers
By my count 5, 6 if we include "Autoskip for Youtube", out of 34. That might be an argument for dropping extensions, but I don't think it's an argument for breaking ad blockers.
> Those extensions used the same API that ad blockers used, but for malicious purposes.
Sounds like an obvious chance to flag the extension for further review, and probably a warning on the user side.
> So, you would support removing that API?
Of course not; that's throwing out the baby with the bath water. This brings us back to the "further review" thing; there's plenty of precedent for a platform having API surface that only a smaller subset of apps/extensions are allowed to use, because the features it exposes are legitimately needed for some things but it could be abused so it gets flagged and you have to write a detailed explanation for why your thing really needs this permission and then the reviewers can look at it particularly closely.
> Well, that’s what they did for MV3 and implemented an API just for ad blocking.
And then for bonus points they hobbled it so that it couldn't be used to make as good of ad blockers, which is why the whole thing is not okay.
Extensions and in turn MV2 blockers can easily be malicious.
https://usa.kaspersky.com/blog/dangerous-chrome-extensions-8...
Look at how many in Kaspersky’s list are advertised as ad blockers. The majority of users aren’t tech savvy like HN.