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

Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 53 posts

Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#1

Post by electricant »

Firefox 149 ships adblock-rust (Brave's Rust engine, MPL-2.0) completely disabled with no UI. It's controlled by two about:config prefs with no WebExtension API, so you can't touch them programmatically from a standard extension.

This extension gives it a UI: ETP toggle (via browser.privacy API, instant), filter list manager with clipboard helpers for the manual about:config steps, and 8 preset lists. You can also add your own if you so desire.

Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker
github.com

Re: Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#3

Post by embedding-shape »

> Disable Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection so adblock-rust handles blocking instead.

What concrete and practical differences are there between the two? I'm guessing because this exists, adblock-rust somehow is better than the built-in ETP? In what way?

I'm using ETP + uBlock Origin right now, and can't remember the last time I saw an ad, if I used this instead, what practical differences would I notice?

Re: Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#4

Post by mp3geek »

kgwxd wrote: post #2

Don't want it. Tracker/Ad blocking should forever be an extension, maintained by someone with zero obligation to, or association with, the ad/tracking industry. A USER agent.

The lists are maintained same as extensions.

Re: Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#6

Post by ernesth »

embedding-shape wrote: post #3

> Disable Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection so adblock-rust handles blocking instead. What concrete and practical differences are there between the two? I'm guessing because this exists, adblock-rust somehow is better than the built-in ETP? In what way? I'm using ETP + uBlock Origin right now, and can't remember the last time I saw an ad, if I used this instead, what practical differences would I notice…

I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182)

Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).

Re: Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#9

Post by RandomGerm4n »

Can this extension effectively block ads on YouTube? When I manually enabled the Rust ad blocker in about:config and added filter lists there, ads still appeared on YouTube and some porn sites. While uBlock Origin blocks everything.

Re: Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

#10

Post by RandomGerm4n »

kgwxd wrote: post #2

Don't want it. Tracker/Ad blocking should forever be an extension, maintained by someone with zero obligation to, or association with, the ad/tracking industry. A USER agent.

One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.
Post reply on HN