u/WrathofLegacy

Well I started falling down the rabbit hole of MV2/MV3 and trying to use AI to get me a list of MV2 extensions that are better than their MV3 counterparts. Had minimal luck really, almost none. It all started with U-Block Origin vs U-Block Origin Lite. However while doing so, I came across the MV2 Timeline for Chrome.

I get that's there's really nothing we can do to look backwards if using Chrome (and now Edge as well it seems...) but I tend to use alternative browsers anyways like Firefox/Brave/Helium/Cent Browser. Mainly Helium at the moment. All great browsers with more importantly, continued MV2 support.

To the point, it's one thing to disable them in their respective browsers and choose how they want to continue development. However, removing all MV2 extensions from the Chrome Web Store.... thee massive one-stop-shop for all Chromium based browser extensions with MS Store being second. That is devastating, almost sacrilegious in my opinion to user choice and I believe there is 0 reason for it other than to spite people really. I cannot fathom a legitimate reason. They could easily make it so the Web Store sees their browser and shows extensions for it or develop a MV2/MV3 category. They obviously keep track of which extensions are based on which Manifest Version since they'll be able to remove/purge the store of all of them. I'm sure there's many other routes that can be took so come to a solution rather than mass deletion.

Doesn't anyone else think we should be raising a storm about this and using our voice to start petitioning against this to try to not make that happen? I know a good amount of extensions have already transitioned but i'm sure there's some extensions that may be obscure, don't get regularly updated, and/or won't have decent alternatives, at least for a while.

I don't know what to exactly call this thread but I basically wanted a simple way to understand and to know what to vote for in as either yes or no for which Amendments that are in a way "For the people!". Especially so I would't vote wrong and let the corpo's & politicians fxck us even more. I did also give a "why" on why you should along with my opinion and related sources/thread discussions. To start off, "We meant what we said"

1. Amendments sourced from: https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026ballotmeasures
2. https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Amendment_3,_Prohibit_Abortion_and_Gender_Transition_Procedures_for_Minors_Amendment_(2026)

• Amendment 1:

Continue what we already have, "Shall Missouri continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites, and resubmit this tax to the voters for approval in 10 years?"

The measure allows continued collection of the existing sales and use tax, which generates revenue of approximately $140 million annually.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites. This will be resubmitted to the voters for approval in 10 years.

A “no” vote will not continue this sales/use tax.

If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes."

VOTE : YES

Why: Basically there's no downside to letting this continue like it has been. If it's stopped, we basically may lose those sites and parks that we enjoy, and/or degrade because they'll have to find the money elsewhere which I don't even want to think of where they'll try too.

• Amendment 2:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: require all charter counties, including Jackson County, to provide for the election of a county assessor; and require assessors in all charter counties to comply with any training requirements established by general law?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that all charter counties, including Jackson County, elect a county assessor and that such assessors comply with training requirements established by state law.

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions, which exempt Jackson County from the requirement to elect its assessor and do not require charter county assessors to follow training requirements under general law.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Edit: VOTE : NO -Undecided- (Yes/No?) | "Basically a solution in search of problem"

Why: Most other counties have an elected assessor rather than appointed now. This reddit post has a great discussion ground on it already. After reading comments from there I summarized my thoughts and it's still a hard one for me to chose because from my understanding, it depends on how you want to look at it.

If they're elected, it means they can't be specially chosen which naturally is a good thing. However, "An elected assessor would have possibly less oversight than an appointed one and may be "beholden to wealthy and out of state donors."

An appointed one would arguably have more oversight due to having to answer to whoever they were appointed by and those in return being responsible for person they chose if I'm understanding that right?

However this feels like that could be vice-versa though? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any thoughts and opinions are welcome.

• Amendment 3:

Missouri Amendment 3, the Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment, is on the ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.

• Election date November 3, 2026
• Topic Abortion policy and Constitutional rights Status On the ballot
• Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment
• Origin State legislature
• Missouri Amendment 3, the Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment, is on the ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.[1]

A "yes" vote supports amending the Missouri Constitution to:

• repeal the constitutional right to reproductive freedom, which voters ratified in 2024;
• prohibit abortions except in cases of "medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest," and permit abortions in cases of rape or incest only through 12 weeks of gestation;
• prohibit gender transition surgeries for minors, as well as the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments "unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition;" and make other changes
• A "no" vote opposes amending the Missouri Constitution, keeping the existing constitutional right to reproductive freedom, and not adding provisions that prohibit abortion and gender transition surgeries and procedures.

VOTE : NO

Why: I do actually agree with the "prohibiting gender transition surgeries for minors, as well as the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments"

Kids and teens should not be making life changing decisions at such early ages or stages of life when they're "finding themselves". Although it's more prominent now somewhat, there still isn't a big spotlight on trans people who have come out with massive regret on taking hormone drugs or going through gender surgeries at an earlier age.

However, I disagree with the rest and it'll just have to come a little later sadly since they're trying to roll it up into this amendment along with taking away some of women's rights.

In my humble opinion, if you respect and want to protect woman's rights and/or are pro-abortion. Do not vote Yes! They're trying to catch you up and trick you with the same named amendment wanting us to walk back the previous Amendment 3.

(Related Reddit Thread ; Vote no on amendment 3 to protect women's right)

https://www.reddit.com/r/missouri/comments/1oi18g0/vote_no_on_amendment_3_to_protect_womens_right

• Amendment 4:
• Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

Modify current requirements that a statewide majority of voters may approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; Require a majority of voters in each congressional district to approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; and Make available to each voter the full text of initiative petitions with their ballot? The Department of Corrections estimates increased annual costs of up to $21,817. The Office of State Public Defender estimates an unknown fiscal impact. Other state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to:

modify current requirements of Article III and Article XII that a simple statewide majority of voters may approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; require a majority of voters in each congressional district to approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; and make available to each voter the full text of initiative petitions with their ballot. A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to require majority approval in each congressional district for initiative petitions to amend the constitution or make available the full text of initiative petitions with the ballot.

If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

VOTE : NO

Why: Basically will let Politicians be able to beat/remove the Majority Rule and enact their own policies from stripping us of our power to decide what we the people want state-wide with by sectioning off districts. Worst of all it applies to citizen amendments. I'll link to some thread discussions that explains this way better.

(Related; Best explanation I've found so far of why MO should vote no on amendment 4)

• Amendment 5:
• Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

Require legislative phase-out of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes; Curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and Require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases? The proposal has no direct impact on state or local tax revenue. If passed, implementing legislation will have an unknown impact to state and local tax revenue. If implemented, state government entities expect a reduction of $57,000 annually in income tax check-off donations and implementation costs of at least $100,000.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require legislative phase-out and elimination of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes; curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to require legislative phase-out and elimination of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth; and will not authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes.

At this time, the impact on taxes is unknown.

VOTE: NO

Why: From my understanding, they'll basically cut income-taxes. It sounds nice at first but it's really not as they'll increase taxes elsewhere and across the board. This impacts the middle-ower class way more than the wealthy as they wouldn't flinch at price increases while we'll continue to struggle even further. I'm sure NONE of us want increased prices anymore than they are.

(Related; Amendments 4 & 5 are bad for Missouri)

Edit: I'm on mobile so sorry if the formatting is a bit effed. Tried adding spoilers to the Amendments themselves so the post wouldn't be mega-long. Also tried to condensed as much as I could and keep it straight to the point.

Edit 2: Fixed Amendment 4 - About Section (Thanks Machoman1169)

Edit 3: Removed spoilers. I apologize, I don't make posts often on Reddit so I assumed spoilers would be a Show/Hide dropdown box but Reddit just covers the text instead sadly.

Edit 4: Fixed "Ammendment" typos. (Thanks trivialempire)

Edit 5: Moved Edits to bottom of post so preview from Community List would be better rather than EDITBOX.

Post made; July 23, 2026.