This is kind of an important point with Manifest V3: having more permission options is a good thing. It's good that declarativeNetRequest exists. Active Tab permissions are cool, I love being able to scope extensions to specific domains. Non-persistent background pages are a nice performance/security feature. The only problem with Manifest V3 is that Google is shutting down everything else and removing other APIs.
Safari's extension model kind of goes in its own direction, but it's based on similar principles to Manifest V3 and my contention with it is the same -- it's not a problem that you can build a permission-less adblocker in Safari, that's good. It's a problem that you have to, because getting rid of those permissions makes adblockers slightly less effective, which may or may not be worth it for every user. I can say with relative certainty that there is no adblocker on Safari that is as powerful as uBlock Origin on Firefox.
People bundle criticism of Chrome under the Manifest V3 label but aside from some more techy-type complaints around how Service Workers are being handled, in my experience at least a lot of Manifest V3 is really good. What's not good is that Chrome used Manifest V3 as an opportunity to get rid of a lot of other important APIs. So you don't see the same criticism levied at Mozilla because with Firefox you get most of the same benefits of Manifest V3 (and some additional benefits, Firefox's event-system is imo a better way to handle temporary background pages than Chrome's service-worker system) without the downsides of Chrome removing blocking web requests for the extensions that need them.
I'm using Manifest V3 for private extensions that I maintain for myself on Firefox. Manifest V3 is great and I enjoy trying to cut down my permissions as much as I can even though I'm basically just running the code myself. But none of my private extensions would work in Chrome or Safari or would be portable to either browser; they lack the APIs that I need and don't have any realistic equivalents.
Safari's extension model kind of goes in its own direction, but it's based on similar principles to Manifest V3 and my contention with it is the same -- it's not a problem that you can build a permission-less adblocker in Safari, that's good. It's a problem that you have to, because getting rid of those permissions makes adblockers slightly less effective, which may or may not be worth it for every user. I can say with relative certainty that there is no adblocker on Safari that is as powerful as uBlock Origin on Firefox.
People bundle criticism of Chrome under the Manifest V3 label but aside from some more techy-type complaints around how Service Workers are being handled, in my experience at least a lot of Manifest V3 is really good. What's not good is that Chrome used Manifest V3 as an opportunity to get rid of a lot of other important APIs. So you don't see the same criticism levied at Mozilla because with Firefox you get most of the same benefits of Manifest V3 (and some additional benefits, Firefox's event-system is imo a better way to handle temporary background pages than Chrome's service-worker system) without the downsides of Chrome removing blocking web requests for the extensions that need them.
I'm using Manifest V3 for private extensions that I maintain for myself on Firefox. Manifest V3 is great and I enjoy trying to cut down my permissions as much as I can even though I'm basically just running the code myself. But none of my private extensions would work in Chrome or Safari or would be portable to either browser; they lack the APIs that I need and don't have any realistic equivalents.