Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's hear it then because I'm using Brave and don't see the opt-out.
https://support.brave.app/hc/en-us/articles/38305898674957-H... and simply dont use their homepage as your new tab page
Cheers!
Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
691–700 of 752 posts
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#692Thank God for the Brave browser. For those disliking their built-in adblocker, there is a Manifest v2 opt-out specifically for uBlock if you need it.
Why use Brave rather than FF? Sincere question. Lots of tech minded people choose it, when FF seems like an ideal choice? My reasoning for not using Brave: not only is it a wrapper around Chromium, but their crypto stuff and some dodgy affiliate injection in the past paints them as untrustworthy.
Come on, this was 6 years ago, they have apologized since. Firefox also had trips like pop-up ads in 2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36073619 and ToS rewriting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43251762.
Brave is faster, suspends tabs when getting short of RAM with hundreds of tabs, has a first-class built-in ad blocker and fingerprinting protection, is compatible with Chrome extensions, includes Tor support, provides anonymous Brave Search with Goggles out of the box, free and private AI assistant Leo.
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#693Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#694There's a mystery here. People hate ads. Firefox is the only major browser (save Brave?) that properly blocks ads. Yet people don't use Firefox (indeed its popularity is in free-fall). Why? Is it because they don't know about it? Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS? I'm not sure. I just don't get it.
> Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS? Chrome isn't the default on Windows or Mac, but it's far more popular than Edge or Safari.
It's because it's been heavily advertised in Google Search, social media and numerous installers as an optional feature (checked by default).
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why use Brave rather than FF? Sincere question. Lots of tech minded people choose it, when FF seems like an ideal choice? My reasoning for not using Brave: not only is it a wrapper around Chromium, but their crypto stuff and some dodgy affiliate injection in the past paints them as untrustworthy.
Come on, this was 6 years ago, they have apologized since. Firefox also had trips like pop-up ads in 2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36073619 and ToS rewriting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43251762 . Brave is faster, suspends tabs when getting short of RAM with hundreds of tabs, has a first-class built-in ad blocker and fingerprinting protection, is compatible with Chrome extensions, includes Tor…
I was just explaining my reasoning. Trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets. Affiliate fraud is far more serious and untrustworthy than a popup advertising their own product. But yes Mozilla have had their missteps too, no doubt.
In any case, thanks for explaining. There are some features there I was unaware of
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
Javascript is not a declarative language.
There are at least two uses of "declare": one the colloquial english usage that has been around for at least hundreds of years, which roughly means "announce" or "state". The other use of declare is the much more specific programming language version which you're referring to. Here's what the comment you're responding to said: > They should have to declare to the browser what it is they want done instead. Arguably it…
I'm the one who wrote the sentence you are quoting, and I most definitely meant it in the sense of "declarative language, where you say what you want and the runtime figures out how to do it internally".
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a declaration, that's a statement. An imperative statement, to boot. Here's what it would look like in an actual declarative language:
What do you think is the difference between a declaration and a statement?
I don't need to think, I can just look up their definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_(computer_programm...:
> a declaration in a syntactic language construct is the process of specifying identifier properties for its initialization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_(computer_science):
> a statement is a syntactic unit of an imperative programming language that expresses some action to be carried out
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
The level of mental gymnastics in this thread denying the extent to which companies like Google (and their puppets like Mozilla) control the internet is too damn high. Fortunately if projects like Ladybird gain enough momentum, websites might be forced to cater to it. Time will tell.
> Fortunately if projects like Ladybird gain enough momentum, websites might be forced to cater to it. Time will tell. Ladybird has corporate sponsors too. Sponsorship is influence. Obviously, the more sponsorships you have the less influence an individual one have but it is worth knowing.
True, but it ultimately depends on the terms of the sponsorship.
One would hope that a project like Ladybird (which is motivated to compete with a product which was ruined by Google's sponsorship) would choose those terms carefully.
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
>An adblocker, by its nature, needs to access * Well that's what is in contention. Does everything claiming to be an adblocker really need access to *? Is Adblocker5++ (totally not malware) entitled to as much access as uBlock Origin? You can declare upfront all the URLs you don't want accessed (which on top of security gives a substantial performance boost), and who's to say someone won't figure out a better way of…
What does "entitled" mean here?
A valid claim. The unfettered access to. etc.
Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model? uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpe…
Removing capabilities is not progress towards better security. Putting them behind opt-in permissions, making permissions more granular, more robust... those are security upgrades. Removing capabilities is a feature downgrade.
Security upgrades are never opt-in, and for good reason. The status quo would remain in-secure. Every encryption suite upgrade, SSL software version, DNS versions, etc. maintained backwards compatibility for a window then closed it... just like we have seen here with manifest v2 -> v3.
"Please stop looking at all network requests, especially when you don't need to."
doesn't result in action... while:
"You can no longer look at all network requests" requires extension makers to update to the new paradigm.