121–130 of 133 posts
uBlock Origin is what makes Firefox even greater and definitely one big reason I use Firefox over Chrome etc. It make the Internet browsable.
That may change since Mozilla is becoming an ad company
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish I could agree but sadly this has not been my experience with Firefox, and I have so many issues I've started to switch away recently. Wasting way too much time fighting with websites that turn out to work perfectly fine on Chrome, and the captchas I get on Firefox are becoming genuinely impossible for me to solve. I'm with you on the ads though, and glad it's working out for someone at least!
Try Firefox serving Chrome's UserAgent. You'll be shocked how many issues disappear.
It did not hit me yet, but I'm already rewriting my extensions to firefox to switch if Chrome really axes uBO
What does that mean? Firefox uses the same API. At most you have to change `background.service_worker` to `background.scripts` (literally just rename the key)
The title seems to be wrong, uBlock Origin supported it for many years at this point (only on Firefox). This seems to be a refactor of that code, not a whole new feature.
Ok, I've reverted the title to that of the page. Submitted title was "uBlock Origin supports filtering CNAME cloaking sites on Firefox now". If someone wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it again. Github commits without additional context don't usually make for great HN threads though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably that adblockers (or rather their users) would object to blocking domains that folks might actually want to load content from. I can’t imagine “domain” is the only signal one could use to identify ads, though. To truly befuddle them you’d make advertisements truly indistinguishable from content. This is not trivial.
I think what we're asking is what are the implications for the advertisement company. And yeah, I can trivially block stuff in uBO by using CSS rules for example, so that's still on the table.
Higher impressions? Higher integration cost? I guess I'm not sure what the confusion might be. Advertisers obviously want to ram their bullshit down as many eyesockets as they can find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already axed in canary release
I'm still at the "This extension may soon no longer be supported" warning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I've reverted the title to that of the page. Submitted title was "uBlock Origin supports filtering CNAME cloaking sites on Firefox now". If someone wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it again. Github commits without additional context don't usually make for great HN threads though...
Something akin to "uBlock Origin CNAME uncloaking now supports filtering by IP address" should be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean there are appropriate applications for advertising (like classifieds in a newspaper), but there is no reason why advertising should be so pervasive that it requires a massive surveillance apparatus like it does today. Advertisements are the reason why everyone switched from TV to Netflix, and that's back when cable TV was a paid service. secushare[1] makes the case that this is because the internet lacks a sec…
Ugh, micropayments again! I have no desire to pay for content or software -- torrents and OSS are all anyone needs.
Even in torrents you have private trackers and all of these annoying incentive systems for people to host content. If you had a good reward system on top of bittorrent/IPFS I think that idea could take over the world, but it is not efficient or decentralized to do so.
uBlock Origin is what makes Firefox even greater and definitely one big reason I use Firefox over Chrome etc. It make the Internet browsable.
Honestly I’ve used brave and Firefox and don’t see a huge difference. I still prefer Firefox though because of its philosophy and status as coming from a nonprofit. Brave is a quality project too though, and is my back up, although sometimes I throw Vivaldi in the mix because of its windows splitting and much superior tab management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not if. It's when. It has been 'when' since 2020. It is coming. It is not going to not come. It will be here in mere releases. Get ready.
You're probably right, but FWIW it's not unheard of for google to announce, continually delay, and eventually completely backtrack on things like this, like third party cookie deprecation.
It's because they were literally sued and are not allowed to remove it, not because they don't want to.