117
Firefox’s new ad tries to remind you of a time before the internet sucked. (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 1 week ago (26 children)

Several Chromium browsers have native adblocking built in at this point. No extensions required.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Which is great, for sure. But, additionally, I'm unwilling to go back to a single engine ecosystem, especially not one with Google's hands on it. I still remember coding around IE6. 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Google funds Firefox so it has their hands on it anyway. And Mozilla has proven to be a poor steward of Firefox anyway. I'm just not so sure one is better than the other anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago

    Yes but Google doesn't have any say over features Mozilla implements. However yes, Mozilla has been going in the wrong direction entirely without Google's involvement for a while now. But it's still better than supporting Google's ecosystem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    They don't do it as well as ubo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (19 children)

    They do. It works exactly the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    No, ublock origin actually has specialized features that in-browser adblockers don't replicate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    Go on...?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    Go on what?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (13 children)

    Go on and...back up the thing you said with some facts somewhere?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    You need sources that a browser extension has more features than a browser's built-in feature? This is not debate club. Point your eyeballs at the screen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    What "screen"?

    If you don't want to provide sources, that's your prerogative. But don't expect not to be treated like a fool for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Not the person you replied to but copied directly from https://ublockorigin.com/

    Lite vs. full uBlock Origin

    Choose Lite when…

    • You use current Chrome or Safari.
    • You want filtering modes with relatively little setup.
    • Its browser-supported filters cover the sites you visit.

    Choose full uBO when…

    • You use Firefox on desktop or Android.
    • You need dynamic filtering, the request logger, or advanced per-site controls.
    • You rely on filter syntax that Lite cannot support.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    I don't know what that has to do with the conversation. For the third time, we're talking about a native implementation. Not an extension.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (6 children)

    This seems to be a bit of a miscommunication. But an extension is not native. And all versions of Ubo are extensions, something else doesnt exist.

    You can define native a few different ways in english language so i get how it might be confusing if its not your first, but its similar to how a mod for a game is not native to the game.

    When you mentioned “native adblock in chromium” That does exists and it requires no extension. But they are never as fully featured as the full Ubo extension which only works on firefox. Which is what this comparison is about.

    I hope that helps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    When you mentioned “native adblock in chromium” That does exists and it requires no extension.

    Yes. That's what I'm referring to when I said 3 times that it's not an extension.

    But they are never as fully featured as the full Ubo extension

    But it is. It's the exact same functionality, built into the browser, natively.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    I am going to do my best to explain the technical side in simple terms.

    Chromium browsers use something called manifest V3.

    V3 is a google designed “upgrade” to manifest V2 and it blocks certain advanced features provided by comprehensive adblocker like Ubo.

    Wether an adblock is native or an extension does nothing to circumvent the native limitations of V3 that exists on all chromium browsers. If you have proof such hack exists that would actually be a technews worthy event.

    The only (mainstream) browser that still supports V2 is firefox. Which is therefor the only browser that allows all the features of the full ublock origin. Firefox has no inbuild adblocker to compare to a chromium one.

    I can believe that the features that work on V3 encompass your personal needs and that of many other people. But they are literaly not the same.

    Some examples of features included in comprehensive v2 adblockers that are limited on v3 are:

    (Not a full list)

    • per site dynamic filtering
    • per site disabling of javascript
    • more detailed logger
    • filters relying on runtime logic
    • more comprehensive element picker

    I (and the Ubo developers) would be happy to see any proof that shows otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Wether an adblock is native or an extension does nothing to circumvent the native limitations of V3 that exists on all chromium browsers

    As I've already stated several times, that's simply not true. MV3 literally only applies to extensions. But thanks for dumbing it down for me.

    I can believe that the features that work on V3 encompass your personal needs

    This has nothing to do with my "personal needs", this is a technical discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Apparently you're right that MV3 only restricts extensions, not native blockers. I stand corrected on that part.

    However, uBO on MV2 still has features that no known native ad blocker on a Chromium-based browser offers.

    The closest match I could find is Brave Shields, but it still lags behind on per-site control, mainly because it has no dynamic filtering matrix, and it has no logger comparable to uBO's. That most of the list i already mentioned multiple times.

    To date, nothing matches or beats Firefox + uBO, so the original point still stands. The burden of proof that shows the contrary is on you for that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •