A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
post
As long as it doesn't interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that's fine.
It's not enabled by default.
"Quietly™" by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.
Its become quite a trend with headlines, huh? I guess it implies "we're airing some dirty laundry, come look!" With the hopes of boosting click-throughs.
How Brave
As someone whose employer blocks the installation of browser extensions, I am more than excited to hear that!
Using the web sucks since that policy has been implemented a year or so ago.
Integrated adblock engine would rectify that again.
If he can't even install an addon for a browser, what do you think he can do with DNS?
It depends whether or not they left the DNS setting unlocked, which is actually highly likely.
Would have to use a public server, but it should in theory work.
I wouldn't think so. I would also assume that direct DNS requests to external servers aren't allowed in the firewall. But even if they are, they probably can't use a non-company DNS server if he needs to reach internally hosted services. So it would at least require using different browser for internal and external browsing, assuming DNS requests to external servers really are allowed.
Great.
Now you can be responsible for why group policies arent applying and the user is not able to access drive shares.
Firefox supports DNS over HTTPS. Enabling it will bypass the operating systems DNS. You can set a custom server that has ad blocking.
No company that doesn't allow you to install browser add-ons will allow you to run a pi-hole instance. Not on your machine, and much less as an actual pi plugged into their network. If you did plug an actual pi into the network it would probably reason to be just straight up fired.
I said it for Waterfox and I'm gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
The biggest difference between Firefox and Waterfox in implementation is the WaterFox developers noticed this FF change early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news for users.
A few more reasons this is good:
- Rust is faster than JavaScript
- Native functionality is faster than an extension
- Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?
Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?
From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just one two modules. (It's in the "wasm" folder near the top of the list).
(Edit: I was looking at outdated code; the newer version uses more, but IMO pales in comparison to the JavaScript filtering logic)
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don't even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.
brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today
firefox support is often not a priority even today
Dunno if I can name a time it was ;)
I guess it might be a priority for Mozilla sometimes
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
They should have built it in years ago, but called it "web security filtering" or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
I think you're right but I'm sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?
I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.
My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don't think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn't stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Using entirely unrelated ad blocking technology is bad for what reason?
You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that's not the only skeleton in their closet.
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doesnt excuse it IMO.
I mean what's wrong with buying a company to access it proprietary code. NFTs were a dumb grift, but if the specific software product they offered was sound what's the issue?
If the code was good, nothing would be wrong with it. It would be even better if the code was free. And that's my point.
(In Mozilla's case, it's actually much worse because they bought private customer data along with the technology and then canned the technology while keeping the data, but that's a different story.)
we were shocked and disappointed by the amount of fraud in crypto and NFT
That sounds so funny, somehow
Why?
I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.
It doesn't really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.
Cool.
Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the "this video was sponsored by" segments on YouTube).
Add DeArrow in there as well (anti-clickbait)
I wish SponsorBlock and DeArrow were integrated into Invidious, like with Piped.
Freetube has integrated sponsor block (might have to enable it in the settings first). I've generally been very happy with the Freetube flatpak, although there have been times when YouTube actively fought against third parties where Freetube did not work for a month.
Oh, cool. I didn't know about SponsorBlock!
Though there are a few creators that do such good ad segments that even those are worth watching. Map Men, Aging Wheels, and lazerpig all come to mind.
SponsorBlock
I believe uBlock manages to remove all ads on yt by tickling the subscription of some list bundled in its installation already
Sponsors don't see if you skipped their ad segment.
Citation needed. When you hover over a video's progress bar, there is displayed a little graph showing something resembling a probability density function for timestamps users most frequently skip to. Advertisers can use this information to determine how likely a user is to sit through a sponsorship for a given channel.
Not that that matters. Don't feel like you need to watch ads. Advertising is bad in all its forms.
Sure they do.
Edit: I have a YouTube channel. The metrics are exportable. This is not a debate — advertisers often ask for these metrics. They absolutely can see when big channels have high SponsorBlock rates.
Sure they do.
How, exactly, do they see that?
YouTube knows exactly where you start and stop the video, what segments you skip, etc., etc. and the channel has access to those analytics. Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors, but the mechanism IS in place.
Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors,
That's my point. The sponsors of individual youtubers don't have access to that information
I don't know anything about sponsor agreements. Just because the sponsors don't have direct access, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways for them to get that information.
Of course, the creator has an interest to show this data to the advertisers if they have a good audience retention during these sponsored segments. The creators that want to hide this probably can be assumed to have a worse retention... So the advertisers can just ask for the data and know how much money that ad space is worth, and make decent estimates even when the creator refuses to share that data.
In the end, that data may very well influence how much the creator receives.
They don't require it as they already have metrics and data, by the unique promo code from each ad read. That tells them viewers of X will go to the website and buy something.
But I have never done that, because I don't buy something because one person I like to watch was paid to talk about it.
What youtube interface is that?
I don't remember seeing that.
Only creators and YT know the numbers and they don't share it.
Do you have proof it harms them?
Unless you personally click the link and sign up using code WeAreAScam at checkout, they don't get anything extra. They already have been paid for the ad read.
It's like saying you're stealing from a TV station because you took a piss during the ad break.
Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren't the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count. AFAIK it hasn't made too much of a difference yet (though channels with high skip-counts are less likely to be given the decent sponsor deals) but if youtube makes the analytics easier to access it probably will have a pretty big impact.
Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren’t the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count
If they're that paranoid, they aren't worth taking the money because a YouTuber forgot to include a capital letter in their pre-approved script.
If they personally scan the timeline on a video, they are the same company that gets mad at an ad being wrong because they read it as ThingLy and not Thing-ly.
If they are that paranoid, they don't deserve to your money.
oh, thank you for clarifying. I'm not arguing they're decent people - just that this sort of thing could potentially harm a creator. Unfortunately while in an ideal world creators would be able to tell the companies with this sort of overbearing contract to go fuck themselves, that's not the one we live in. "Creators don't have the power in the relationship: a capitalism story..."
Skipping the sponsored segment doesn't net the creator less money. They're paid before the video gets uploaded, or at worst by view count iirc.
I'm never removing SponsorBlock until YouTube cracks down on scams being promoted by big yotubers.
So, never.
Are you watching vids of youtubers who promote scams?
So many yt'ers promoted honey, that weird Scottish land certificate thing and betterhelp. I would argue all of those are basically scams.
Honey and that one thing that said "oh you can be a Lord if you buy some land in scotland", among suspicious VPNs and other "problem solvers".
If they pay to be spoken off, odds are it's worth your money.
most content creators starts peddling some cringe beliefs at some point, no loss there.
Quietly
The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.
Shhhhhh.
Despite this trope, public libraries usually don't have a guideline or enforcement on noise levels.
But the developer was definitely using silent tactile switches.
Maybe not in Canada but every library in Asia has
That's cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams
I used brave for a while. Recently switched to zen browser to try some better tab management. But despite all braves issues, it’s ad/tracker blocking was always very good imo. I think it will be a good addition to Firefox.
I don't think you can separate a product from their CEO

top 100 comments