Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 752 posts

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#381

Post by nottorp »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #75
cykros wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ads on YouTube?

Oh yes they are. Occassionally when I am on a device which doesn't have an ad-blocker. I witness it and I am always left feeling shocked at how many ads Youtube can have. We really don't know the plight of so so many Youtube users. I feel sympathy for them and want to hug them and install an ad-blocker for them. I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who d…

Last time i tried to skim through a longer video on non ad blocked youtube i got two ads every time i skipped. Ended up watching more ad than video... at least until half way through it when I gave up.

And even if you watch one without skipping I'm not sure the amount of ads is even legal in my jurisdiction.

Pay for Youtube premium you say? But I only use it like once per month anyway. Easier to just not try.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#382

Post by matheusmoreira »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #269
matheusmoreira wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good. It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should…

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good. I was under the impression that manifest v3 still allowed extensions to read anything, just not modify. Is that not the case? (Random link because this is hard to search for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303446 )

Yeah, if that's true then there's little point to Manifest V3... That completely invalidates the argument that it increases security by denying private page access. Maybe I misunderstood Manifest V3.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#383

Post by SahAssar »

EbNar wrote: post #226
hackernud3s wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave blocks those ads anyway so no point in Ublock, maybe that's why it's left out. It does inject it's own ads though, and then there's all the crypto nonsense.

Ads on Brave are opt-in (and not embedded on webpages anyway) and the "crypto nonsense" is a way for them to try to stay afloat without having to accept money from Google and the likes.

They are opt-out, not opt-in. Big difference.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#384

Post by maccard »

simonra wrote: post #371
jimmydorry wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a big step forward, towards a better security model, was overall a good thing, even if it meant that a good extension no longer had unfettered access to everything your browser saw. I don't think this change is ridiculous at all. And I don't want them to stop here either! v4 should close more of the avenues that malicious extensions are abusing! Extensions should declare everything up-front, so it's easy see…

How do you secure against the system vendor (in this case the browser) limiting what the consumer/user can or can't do (alone or with the help of third parties) with the product after acquiring it though? After all security for individuals against commercial and otherwise organized interests is one of the, if not the most important security after life and health. Even if one values the market overall for financial re…

You use a different browser, like Firefox.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#385

Post by shaky-carrousel »

latexr wrote: post #355
xtracto wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites. Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? . Sign of the times I gue…

> Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. An extension that you trust today can be sold to an unscrupulous third-party tomorrow. That has happened many many times and will continue to.

And sometimes the unscrupulous third party decides to build a browser and take over the market via forcing hardware vendors to bundle it with their OS. Like Google.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#386

Post by johannes1234321 »

culi wrote: post #271
Beijinger wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be illegal?

I don't think it should but it was taken down from Firefox's store because of a DMCA copyright takedown. Firefox was required by law to remove it. Using the extension itself is a legal grey area, but distributing it is usually illegal.

> because of a DMCA

That law doesn't apply to many HN readers

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#387

Post by elabajaba »

swed420 wrote: post #58
GeekyBear wrote: post #21

Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension. They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options. > Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of s…

> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension. They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen. Ladybird browser is going to be awesome.

Firefox started shipping adblock-rust in March (Brave's built in adblocker). It's not properly wired up in the UI yet but you can enable it and add filter lists in about:config.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#389

Post by duskdozer »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #238
ajb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... the greatest danger to us is masterless men ; lacking a coercive power to tie their hands, they would destroy society. How else but by binding to lord and master can they be held to the laws? So thought men during feudal times. In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving…

I'm supposed to be the master, actually. It's my computer, any foreign code is essentially a subject in my digital domain. It should be literally impossible for them to do something I don't want them to do. As the god of my little digital realm, I should have maximum power and freedom, while foreign developers get the absolute minimum amount of power that works, and in the ideal case this minimum is zero. The fact so…

We seem to have a similar philosophy. Have you found a good way to deal with modifying or selectively disabling things like webpacked js or react?

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#390

Post by elabajaba »

stubish wrote: post #159
swed420 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension. They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen. Ladybird browser is going to be awesome.

If Firefox baked in ad blocking, they would have to then deal with the financial incentive to make it worse. Sponsored ads, 'good' ads, government announcements, election propaganda... there is a slippery slope they are better off not getting on. A trusted 3rd party from the wider community seems a better option in many ways. The alternative is starting a web browser with a manifesto welded on that essentially states…

Firefox has baked in adblocking (using adblock-rust, brave's built in adblocker), but it has to be enabled through about:config and not the settings UI.
Post reply on HN