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

661–670 of 752 posts

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

#661

Post by al_borland »

herrherrmann wrote: post #640
al_borland wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern I've seen is that people move to a new browser due to speed and bloat. When IE was king, people started moving to Firefox, because it was fast and lean. Over time, it didn't feel so lean anymore, and then Google launched Chrome with TV ads showing how fast it was. Now everyone makes fun of the system resources Chrome requires, but people probably don't see a viable alternative to move to. Firefox is likel…

It’s hard for me to imagine that most people care about speed. I think it’s more likely that they just don’t know how bad Chrome is (for the internet) and how evil Google is (it’s still the main search engine for most people). I think Chrome is familiar, and Google is good at locking people in, pretending that Chrome does things better (or even making sure other browsers are handicapped on the Google sites, like YouT…

With Firefox, when it grew, most of what I saw was friends installing it on their friend’s computer. It felt very organic and word of mouth. It may have also been an answer to the pop-up hell of the era, but I’m more hazy on that.

> they just don’t know how bad Chrome is (for the internet)

I agree on this. Every time I’ve brought this up on HN I get a lot of push back from people arguing that Chrome is pushing the web forward and the other browsers are holding it back. I think this is a very short-sighted view.

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

#662

Post by culi »

Madmallard wrote: post #654
culi wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+rewrites+their+terms...

Yeah, nah. From your own google search: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/s/wo3T5ZB8ig https://youtu.be/-8bTquKjzos

Lol I this is internet inception. You, someone who didn't read any of the articles, linked to a reddit post. The reddit post is of an article that is full of confused redditors who also didn't read the article. The article's very first sentence says:

> After fielding user backlash over its new Terms of Use last week, Firefox browser maker Mozilla has rewritten its policy to address issues around the overly broad language it had previously used.

The next two sentences:

> Critics said the terms implied Mozilla was asking users for the rights to whatever data they input into the browser or upload, which some worried would be then sold to advertisers or AI companies.

> Mozilla said that was not the case, noting that the new terms didn’t represent a change in the way the company used data. The company also said that the original language updates were not “driven by a desire” to sell user data, and that the company’s ability to use collected data was still limited by the rights laid out in Firefox’s Privacy Notice.

Buddy, please save us both some time and actually read the articles...

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

#663

Post by culi »

Topology1 wrote: post #658
culi wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, huge difference - MV2 version has sophisticated scripts to not only block ads but prevent tracking. With the lite version you might not be seeing most ads but you are certainly being tracked more - MV3 version might "hide" ads but the MV2 version is blocking requests from every being made. All those stats you hear about improved battery and reduced bandwidth usage with an adblocker are only true for the MV2 vers…

Wow, I thought I was pretty savvy about the differences between Manifest versions; however, I had no clue about the CNAME part. Any idea what specifically became unsupported in v3 that caused this?

The whole debate is centered around the webRequest API which is only available with Manifest v2. MV3 instead relies on the declarativeNetRequest API. The declarativeNetRequest API does not expose underlying CNAME aliases

Without the webRequest API, it is unable to intercept raw web requests on the fly or query live DNS/CNAME records or dynamically reroute matching rules. The MV3 version is basically just a static list of rules that is only updated when you update the extension itself

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

#664

Post by qweqwe14 »

frogperson wrote: post #644

Just a reminder to everyone to support weird and new browsers. we'll never get a new crop if we don't water and nurture the alternatives.

For sure everyone will start using "weird and new" browsers that waste their time by breaking websites xD

Chromium is an open source project, forks such as Ungoogled Chromium exist, I literally had 0 issues with uBOL on Ungoogled Chromium.

People who complain about MV3 probably spent more time complaining about it than actually trying uBOL and seeing that it works just fine.

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

#665

Post by krick »

culi wrote: post #624
embedding-shape wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tampermonkey - Rating 4.7 (5,306 reviews) - 760,294 Users > Violentmonkey - Rating 4.7 (793 reviews) - 164,622 Users On Google Web Store, it's 11,000,000 users VS 900,000 users. Their popularity seems different by a magnitude, hardly surprising Firefox/Mozilla would chose to focus on one above the other.

I see GP's point tho. The original Greacemonkey was open-sourced. Tampermonkey was the successor and is proprietary. Violentmonkey came to fix that. I wouldn't be surprised if Mozilla rejected TM because of not being OS and rejected VM because of lack of popularity

I still just use Greasemonkey. What is even the point of both successors on Firefox?

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

#666

Post by imglorp »

alt227 wrote: post #527
iLoveOncall wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean did you try with Chrome and Ublock Original Lite? Because I have and there's literally no difference at all.

There is a lot of difference. Try watching Youtube with uBlock Lite for example.

Yes. I see no ads on youtube. Period. None.

I tried a blank Firefox on YouTube the other day for a 20 minute video and it was packed with pre-roll ads and then a mid-roll ad every several minutes. Unwatchable.

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

#667

Post by WorldMaker »

glenstein wrote: post #252
WorldMaker wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admiral and several other of the more obnoxious ad networks already claim that Firefox is an ad blocker simply because of its out-of-the-box blocking support for third-party cookies and those ad networks nag you to use another browser. If Firefox added actual ad blocking out of the box I can't imagine the havoc that would cause and how many more websites would claim that they don't work at all in Firefox.

A sharp point in this context because yet again, Mozilla faces contradictory demands in every direction. In today's edition, they are failing their users by not hard coding the ablocking in but also they need to give up on ad blocking because if they try they'll simply be blacklisted.

From my perspective that's not a reason to give up on ad blocking if Firefox wanted to bundle that out of the box, that's another reason that the Chrome hegemony is bad for everyone and ad networks that want to block Firefox "as an ad blocker" probably deserve to die. I was just pointing out that the fears in this thread of how ad networks would react to Firefox blocking ads out of the box are already here whether or not Firefox increases its ad blocking defaults.

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

#668

Post by inigyou »

alt227 wrote: post #525
inigyou wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is also the only "major" browser not installed on any device by default. People with windows use edge, people with mac or ios use safari, people with android use chrome. People with linux use firefox but those are extremely few since none of the machines you buy at the store have linux. It's really that simple. Marketing realism wins over technical excellence every single time . Do you know why Valve invested…

> Microsoft threatened to blacklist Steam from Windows That would never fly with consumers, Microsoft are big but not that big.

What would said consumers do about it? Nothing, that's what. No matter how much you think they should do, they won't. Just like your phone isn't a Linux phone.

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

#669

Post by inigyou »

shooly wrote: post #599
inigyou wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is also the only "major" browser not installed on any device by default. People with windows use edge, people with mac or ios use safari, people with android use chrome. People with linux use firefox but those are extremely few since none of the machines you buy at the store have linux. It's really that simple. Marketing realism wins over technical excellence every single time . Do you know why Valve invested…

> Marketing realism wins over technical excellence every single time It is so annoying to see this idiotic mantra being repeated every single time a thread like this pops up. It's simply not true. There is no conspiracy, people aren't being manipulated by Big Tech to like Chromium-based browsers more. Those browsers are simply better and that's it. That's really all there is to it.

No, they're simply preinstalled and that's it.

It's so annoying whenever you say chrome wins because it's preinstalled someone makes a stupid comment about how it's not a big tech conspiracy. Did I say it was a big tech conspiracy?

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

#670

Post by inigyou »

Tyr42 wrote: post #490
inigyou wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those sites that would shut down without ads are providing negative value and would make the world better if they shut down. Sometimes I make an exception. Sometimes.

Then don't visit? Or realize how bad they are with ads and bounce? They probably track bounce rate as ads load.

They're crowding out actually good sites.
Post reply on HN