2057
Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin (www.pcworld.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
426 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Firefox says it will keep supporting uBlock Origin even as Microsoft Edge and other Chromium browsers phase it out under Manifest V3.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 1 month ago (17 children)

So, I can finally point and laugh at the people who were saying that the manifest V3 thing was a non issue because their ad blocker was still working ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    no, because their ad blocker is still working

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    At a lower efficiency than before, and a lot of stuff now won't get blocked because of the limit in definitions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Define "lower efficiency", please.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    only ads on big sites or ads by big providers are blocked. cookie prompts and other annoyances much less, because there is a great variety of them. data mining and hardware fingerprinting cannot even be thwarted anymore.

    sure, if you only care about ads, but not at all about your privacy, it does not mean much to you. personally I would rather see ads (topic based) than give up my privacy, and the complete uBlock Origin is very useful for privacy too.

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

    only ads on big sites or ads by big providers are blocked

    This is false.

    cookie prompts

    Not part of any adblocker. Some, like Ghostery, have a separate mechanism to auto-reject these. I switched from uBO to Ghostery because uBO wasn't doing anything against those.

    data mining and hardware fingerprinting cannot even be thwarted anymore.

    That's not an adblock feature and there are hundreds of other extensions that handle that, like PrivacyBadger. Ghostery says it also handles trackers, but I haven't verified that.

    I would rather see ads (topic based) than give up my privacy, and the complete uBlock Origin is very useful for privacy too.

    Look up tools made specifically for it, then. Also: privacy related stuff is not affected by Manifest v3, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Not part of any adblocker. Some, like Ghostery, have a separate mechanism to auto-reject these. I switched from uBO to Ghostery because uBO wasn't doing anything against those.

    this is false. and instead of just claiming so, here is proof: there are built-in (but disabled by default) blocklists specialized for cookie prompts and such

    That's not an adblock feature

    and as I said, uBO is not just an ad blocker, so saying xy ad blocker can replace it well is false.

    and there are hundreds of other extensions that handle that, like PrivacyBadger

    except that not really. Because again, the required browser APIs were removed, and even before that, privacy badger was not so effective

    Also: privacy related stuff is not affected by Manifest v3, no?

    everything is effected that:

    • needs to block network requests, including loading of certain site scripts
    • depends on an up to date list of things to block
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    this is false. and instead of just claiming so, here is proof: there are built-in (but disabled by default) blocklists specialized for cookie prompts and such

    Let me rephrase then: cookie prompt blocking capabilities are not tied to the Manifest version (clearly, as exemplified by things like Ghostery). uBO could easily switch to Mv3 and still do those things.

    and as I said, uBO is not just an ad blocker, so saying xy ad blocker can replace it well is false.

    But we're discussing the ad-blocking features, because these are the ones affected by Mv3, no?

    All these other features exist and are perfectly fine in other extensions.

    except that not really. Because again, the required browser APIs were removed, and even before that, privacy badger was not so effective

    Define "not so effective". What's "effectiveness" in this case?

    everything is effected that:

    • needs to block network requests, including loading of certain site scripts
    • depends on an up to date list of things to block

    OK, but again: what's the difference for the end-user? Does it impact resources utilisation? Website loading times? Reactivity? I don't see a difference in how my uBO browser behaves vs how my Ghostery browser behaves, so what am I losing because of the Mv3 switch?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Let me rephrase then: cookie prompt blocking capabilities are not tied to the Manifest version

    never said otherwise.

    But we're discussing the ad-blocking features, because these are the ones affected by Mv3, no?

    no. that is not the only feature affected by Mv3. it is just the most noticeable feature affected.

    Define "not so effective". What's "effectiveness" in this case?

    ublock has many tools to defuse tracking mechanisms. it can fake browser mechanisms, it can stop scripts when they do a certain thing, it can replace entire javascript functions. it can modify outgoing network requests and incoming responses to them in many ways, which privacy badger does not implement. I don't want to include multiple pages of text here, so please go through the wiki pages of the uBlock Origin github repository, because it details all the capabilities and technical details.

    but as even the main uBlock Origin maintainer says, the addon wouldn't be worth anything without all the community sourced filter lists with quick fixes and specific blocking instructions for lots of websites. compared to that, privacy badger does not use filterlists. it can only do things that can apply to any website without breaking it, and that limits the options a lot.

    OK, but again: what's the difference for the end-user? Does it impact resources utilisation? Website loading times? Reactivity? I don't see a difference in how my uBO browser behaves vs how my Ghostery browser behaves, so what am I losing because of the Mv3 switch?

    I'm starting to think that you might be not arguing in good faith. but it is certain that we are going in circles and I'm wasting my time. you should look up the wast documentation of uBlock Origin and you will get all the answers, if you are genuinely interested. there are probably even technical comparisons between uBO and lite from the maintaners

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

    ublock has many tools to defuse tracking mechanisms (...)

    Fair. What I still don't understand is the level of impact this has. Considering I'm not being tracked in any noticeable way, or that I'm not seeing any ads, I just don't get why people in this post are acting like uBO being blocked is a significant downgrade to the user experience.

    I’m starting to think that you might be not arguing in good faith.

    Sounds like someone not arguing in good faith would say, if anything. How is me trying to understand the impact of the mechanisms used by uBO vs those used by, say, Ghostery, "arguing in bad faith? WTF are you talking about?

    you should look up the wast documentation of uBlock Origin and you will get all the answers

    I will not. Because I get the technical details, a bunch of people already talked about them here. But nobody was able to tell me what do these features actually do compared to other adblocks.

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

    Considering I'm not being tracked in any noticeable way

    lol. can you give me a few examples when tracking is noticeable? because I don't know any, other than when sites show me consent prompts and privacy policies with obvious lies.

    How is me trying to understand the impact of the mechanisms used by uBO vs those used by, say, Ghostery, "arguing in bad faith? WTF are you talking about?

    how? you do not seem to be trying to understand this.

    Because I get the technical details

    you are wrong. you do not get the technical details. Otherwise you would not be saying stupid things like "I'm not being tracked in any noticeable way".

    I have had enough. I will assume you did not find the information yourself because your favorite search engine only gives useless AI slop instead of information, so here is most things you need to know: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    lol. can you give me a few examples when tracking is noticeable?

    Various forms of suggested content based on searches/purchases, etc.

    how? you do not seem to be trying to understand this.

    People mentioned the technical differences a bunch of times. If you mean that I should get a PhD in network traffic and filtration to fully understand how these technical differences affect end-user experience, then yeah, i guess I'm not trying to understand it.

    If not - maybe you'd be the first to give me some actual info?

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)

    None of this explains what I"m looking for. Seems like you're arguing in bad faith. :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No, because ad blocks work perfectly fine.

    I’m using Ghostery on Vivaldi (Chromium-based) and it works perfectly fine, including blocking ads during YouTube videos.

    No idea why uBlock specifically is being blocked, but it’s not like you can’t have an ad-blocker anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Out of curiosity, why do you use Ghostery rather than uBlock Origin? It was quite controversial back in the day, but seems to be open source and stuff now. I still don't see any advantage over uBO, though, so I wonder what would move you to use it instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    I started using Ghostery because it had a cookies auto-reject mechanism. The ad-blocking stuff came in later, which I didn't even realise, but I installed it first on a new device, did some browsing, noticed there's no ads, and thought "well, good enough".

    I do miss the custom HTML-element cutting, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent