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

Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

itsfoss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 276 posts

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#251

Post by Timon3 »

rpdillon wrote: post #244
Timon3 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you think that the issue is that Brendan Eich "voted differently than" me, you're either not understanding or willfully misrepresenting what this discussion is about.

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. He gave a thousand dollars to a political campaign that was in favor of outlawing gay marriage in California. This is standard political stuff that people can agree or disagree on. What's being misrepresented?

First, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm upset about considering your first comment ignored the donation, even though that's the primary critique levied against him.

Second, it's your subjective view that this "is standard political stuff that people can agree or disagree on", and I very much disagree! Tax policy or similar areas, sure, we can agree or disagree. But keeping basic rights (or even taking them away) from a subset of the population is not "standard political stuff" to me.

Would you say the same if, instead of gay marriage, the issue was interracial marriage? I sincerely hope not, even though certain voices on the right are trying to turn this into "standard political stuff" too these days.

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#252

Post by ragall »

crazygringo wrote: post #245
ragall wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is nothingness. I've tested on the same page that uBo on Firefox blocks more than Chrome, and especially it blocks hidden tracking. That's the reality. All else is irrelevant.

Your one-page test is "nothingness." The internet does not consist of one page. And other things are relevant, like resource usage.

[flagged]

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#253

Post by rpdillon »

Timon3 wrote: post #251
rpdillon wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. He gave a thousand dollars to a political campaign that was in favor of outlawing gay marriage in California. This is standard political stuff that people can agree or disagree on. What's being misrepresented?

First, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm upset about considering your first comment ignored the donation, even though that's the primary critique levied against him. Second, it's your subjective view that this "is standard political stuff that people can agree or disagree on", and I very much disagree! Tax policy or similar areas, sure, we can agree or disagree. But keeping basic rights (or even taking them away) fro…

I do view interracial marriage the same way. The answer is very clear to me, but I know it's a constant topic of discussion across the world in different societies, religions, and cultures. Right now there's a debate in my country about whether we should post religious texts on the walls of public schools. We've also regressed in our discussion of women's rights and autonomy with their body. The list is basically endless, and amazingly, people really do have different opinions about this stuff. I mean that seriously. It's easy to imagine that there's one right answer and that you have it. But if I look around at the opinions of 300 million people, there's still 37% in the U.S. that think Trump is doing a good job.

I guess I'm just not willing to write off 40% of society because they disagree on a particular issue that may seem clear as day to me. The most important thing I would like to foster is civility in our discourse with our neighbors, and that has been sacrificed on the altar of dogma to a degree that I cannot condone.

But I'm not absolute in my tolerance. Marriage rights don't trigger me much at all, but genuine human rights abuses like we're seeing in the wars going on, and the rise of fascism in the US are both areas where I would boycott a company (like OnlyOffice, for example).

Tax policy is actually a big part of the driver of fascism, since it entrenches oligarchs and allows consolidation of e.g. the media, and therefore the narrative. But I guess I'd call that standard political stuff, too.

So I guess I'm not exactly sure where I draw the line, but donating a thousand dollars to speak out against gay marriage didn't cross it for me. Yes, I disagree with him. And yes, I still like Brave.

I do appreciate the discussion!

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#254

Post by MarsIronPI »

Timon3 wrote: post #243
MarsIronPI wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But why? You haven't given an argument. Fair enough. My argument is this: as a society we need to live alongside people we disagree with, perhaps even disagree with fundamentally. My ideal is to not judge people's work in one field by their work (or opinions) in another. I think that this way we can get more done in the fields in which we are in agreement. How well do you think the United States would have gone wit…

Thanks, with that argument I can better understand where you're coming from. But I would counter: compromise on a social level doesn't require all individuals to compromise too. Boycotts etc. have always been a tool for individuals to make their voices heard, and to influence the exact compromise that is reached. Since we're apparently still trying to find a compromise on this topic, it seems imperative to me that I…

I'm glad I could make my position clear and I'm sorry it didn't come out coherently the first time. I'm also glad you're willing to look for compromise.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line when it comes to boycotting people or companies?

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#255

Post by crazygringo »

ragall wrote: post #252
crazygringo wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your one-page test is "nothingness." The internet does not consist of one page. And other things are relevant, like resource usage.

[flagged]

Your comment is inappropriate. Please read the guidelines.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#257

Post by lxgr »

ragall wrote: post #186
lxgr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox. Oof, so even people that should really know better are now equating MV3 with "no more ad blocking"? I think at this point the entire thing just needs to be renamed. (Only Chrome removed the request blocking API from their MV3 implementation; Firefox did not.)

"This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox" clearly means that MV3 makes ad blocking worse, not entirely disabled. How can you get "no more ad blocking" out of that ?

Again, no. MV3 (the specification) does not do anything to ad blocking. Chrome's implementation of MV3 does.

For precision, I should have said "significantly worse ad blocking", not exaggerated as "no more ad blocking".

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#258

Post by lxgr »

curt15 wrote: post #126
lxgr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's nothing in MV2 that uBlock Origin needs that doesn't exist in MV3 on Firefox, unlike Chrome. This issue is completely overblown.

Are you disputing uBlock Origin's list of MV3-incompatible capabilities [1]? [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Not really, but this FAQ, like almost all articles published on MV3, conflates MV3 the specification with Chrome's MV3 implementation. (FWIW, I'm almost certain that this is either due to sloppy/imprecise writing or intentional, with the authors not wanting to confuse users already appropriately riled up by equally imprecise reporting on MV3. They definitely know the difference.)

In any case, for better or worse, when people say MV3, they now usually mean "Chrome's MV3 implementation", which obviously never applies to Firefox.

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#259

Post by lxgr »

Perepiska wrote: post #256
the_gipsy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say "almost orthogonal".

Like "partially pregnant" :)

How are correlation or orthogonality binary conditions? Things can be almost (but not entirely) unrelated to other things as well.

Re: Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine

#260

Post by lxgr »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #234
crazygringo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But MV3 supports uBlock Origin Lite. Which, in my experience, blocks ads just as well, but also lets pages load significantly faster. MV3 supports uBlock.

UBO lite has a long list of all the types of filters that aren't possibly under MV3: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... Not sure about page load, but CPU time is about the same between the two: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1

This list only applies to Chrome, so it's completely irrelevant when talking about Firefox.
Post reply on HN