Probably for the same reason that Waterfox developers gave: Because uBO is GPL licensed and combining with an MPL licensed codebase makes things complicated for downstream developers who cannot GPL license their codebase.

The Brave module is MPL licensed already.

Sure, I would prefer that everything is GPL, but it's not my project.

Ublock is way better than that brave crap. As long as they don't start moving towards Manifest 3.0 "because we have builtin adblock now" :( I wouldn't put it past Mozilla because they've really been cozying up to the ad industry. With anonym, the "privacy-preserving attribution" BS, stuff like that.

Because Rust is cool and JavaScript sucks

It's probably faster than using an extension, especially if we're talking about the mobile version of Firefox, which is still very unoptimized compared to Chrome-based browsers.

I don't know about this specifically, but Rust in general is fast and at least memory safe (which helps with general security but doesn't guarantee it at by any means).

I also used Brave for quite a while and anecdotally it was quite fast. So in my personal experience the performance is good.

I don't see it as a step towards bring google-like, personally. But who knows with FF these days

Is this a step towards implementing Google’s same extension restrictions in FF, setting themselves up as the primary arbiter of adblock tools?

I wouldn't expect that:

Firefox, however, will continue supporting both blockingWebRequest and declarativeNetRequest — giving developers more flexibility and keeping powerful privacy tools available to users

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-manifest-v3-adblockers/

and

And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/

So even if that would change (which I'd be very surprised by), it wouldn't happen for another twelve months, so plenty of time for outrage then.

Haha, I don't think anyone's talking about killing uBO, and I'm fairly sure gorhill wouldn't do that, unless he grew tired of maintaining it.

(They could remove the APIs it uses, like Chromium did to some extent, but Mozilla has publicly committed to not doing that.)

Can we really trust mozilla to be in charge of adblocking? It’s not like users have any power over firefox’s source code if mozilla decides that google ads are okay, for instance.

Just add custom filter lists. Never understood the outcry back when people used AdGuard and an optional whitelist was on by default.

If you can install a 3rd party web browser, you can change filter rules as well.

I'm a bit late to answer but I certainly don't trust them after all the crap they created.

In the end, the developer of uBlock Origin may be bored, stop developing, and we'll have to rely on Mozilla while losing all the knowledge that uBlock Origin brought. It's always bad in a professional environment, it will be bad for any open-source project.

I'm mostly worried they'll underutilize it! That would be unfortunate, but it would still be an improvement.

I disagree. It might change nothing for us on Lemmy already using plenty of extensions but it changes things for millions and it will hit Google very hard

The code has shipped; it is dormant, but can optionally be activated (instructions are in the article, under the "How to enable Brave’s adblocking engine in Firefox" subheading)