That’s a good thing.
Brave’s native adblock is the best.
Wow Firefox just keeps getting worse.
who still trusts Mozilla these days ?
Lesser evil
same.
I trust Mozilla over Brave because at least the CEO isn’t outwardly a piece of shit.
don’t be confused. they are a piece of shit, just not outwardly so.
Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave’s ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
Huh, right after Waterfox started to implement it themselves. Must have spooked Mozilla. I don’t see how using Brave’s adblock engine is all that different from uBlock Origin though since they both just enforce DNS lists, right? Could be wrong, I know nothing about how adblocking works on the backend, lol
DNS lists?
Fuck no brother (or sister or non-binary sibling)Anyway. You can go as far as modifying the HTML page by overriding CSS rules.
Overrode the font on a page I am using at work because the vendor is apparantly not using their own product and the font is fucking tiny in some places.
You can override elements, dynamically remove with a selector wildcard, DNS blocks or subscribe to blocklists that can do all of it.Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff? Because FF already has debug tools built in that lets you edit the HTML or CSS of the page however you want, but it’s only for the current session. I’d occasionally use that before realizing I could just use reader mode for sites that did client side html5 bs for access control. Just go in and delete nodes using the picker tool. Until the annoying thing is gone.
I’ve never really played around with ublock’s capabilities, though did know that it must have been more sophisticated than just dns lists to stay in the arms race vs youtube (as well as why google was pushing “security features” that would kill it).
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff?
Yes.
uBlock at its core is really just a scripting system for replacing CSS content using certain rules.
The most common usage is to remove content you don’t like, but really it can manipulate things in a zillion different ways, many of the more advanced features are only available to the user and not larger block lists for security reasons.
It would be really nice too if they implemented Brave’s fingerprint randomization, which is obviously not perfect and I’m never going to expect Tor like anonymity, but is far better than most other browsers. Where Mullvad and Tor try to make everyone look the same, Brave randomizes nearly every important fingerprint.
And I know Firefox does this pretty well already, but from the research I did, Brave’s fingerprint vector randomization is another level.
Fuck no. I don’t want Brave stuff in my browser :(
The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.
Long live the hard fork!
Although I expect there are limits.
Quietly
The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.
Shhhhhh.
Despite this trope, public libraries usually don’t have a guideline or enforcement on noise levels.
But the developer was definitely using silent tactile switches.
A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
Lol, yes.
As long as it doesn’t interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that’s fine.
It’s not enabled by default.
So… no news
Until they enable it
I said it for Waterfox and I’m gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it’s just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
The biggest difference between Firefox and Waterfox in implementation is the WaterFox developers noticed this FF change early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news for users.
A few more reasons this is good:
- Rust is faster than JavaScript
- Native functionality is faster than an extension
- Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
At worst, it’s just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
I think you’re right but I’m sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?
I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.
My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don’t think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn’t stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Using entirely unrelated ad blocking technology is bad for what reason?
You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that’s not the only skeleton in their closet.
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doeant excuse it IMO.
Does it need an excuse? It’s a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
I can hate more than one of Mozilla’s decisions.
Zewm forgot to have a reason. Do you have one?
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
They should have built it in years ago, but called it “web security filtering” or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just
onetwo modules. (It’s in the “wasm” folder near the top of the list).(Edit: I was looking at outdated code; the newer version uses more, but IMO pales in comparison to the JavaScript filtering logic)
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don’t even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.
brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today
As someone whose employer blocks the installation of browser extensions, I am more than excited to hear that!
Using the web sucks since that policy has been implemented a year or so ago.
Integrated adblock engine would rectify that again.Try DNS sinkholing
If he can’t even install an addon for a browser, what do you think he can do with DNS?
It depends whether or not they left the DNS setting unlocked, which is actually highly likely.
Would have to use a public server, but it should in theory work.
Great.
Now you can be responsible for why group policies arent applying and the user is not able to access drive shares.Unless they just use Firefox’s proxy settings.
EDIT: It’s not DNS but should still work.
I wouldn’t think so. I would also assume that direct DNS requests to external servers aren’t allowed in the firewall. But even if they are, they probably can’t use a non-company DNS server if he needs to reach internally hosted services. So it would at least require using different browser for internal and external browsing, assuming DNS requests to external servers really are allowed.
Firefox supports DNS over HTTPS. Enabling it will bypass the operating systems DNS. You can set a custom server that has ad blocking.
If they locked down extensions, it’s highly likely they also locked down modifying the DNS settings.
They didn’t include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?
From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it’s. It enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.
It’s still a bit odd to deploy dormant code to non-testors, isn’t it? Mozilla can withhold a Nightly or Beta feature for as long as it feels like, regardless of how many versions are released as they develop it.
I’m not in software development so don’t have an opinion on the practice, just passing on what I read that seemed relevant.
I don’t think it’s as good as uBlock Origin.
It’s a re-implementation of the uBlock origin engine in a faster language, and it can be used with all the same lists as uBlock origin. The only thing missing is a decent user interface, and even if Firefox isn’t committed to providing one, WaterFox is.
Good to hear, actually something worthwhile from FF (rust?) rather than AI crap. Hope it gets to Zen soon (and i can trust it as much as uBlock).
it can be used with all the same lists as uBlock origin
Can it really? I mean, you already mentioned there’s “no decent UI”, which I take it to mean there’s no way to customize the lists in Firefox, but can it be customized in Brave? Also, can it handle the blocking of Youtube Ads as effectively as uBO does?
It’s been ages since I’ve last tried Brave, so I really want to know. I may actually try and use it as backup chromium-based browser if that’s the case.
That’s why it’s been “quietly added”, it’s not ready for use. You can add lists in about:config, but this is just a super early implementation.
Yes, you can adjust filter lists in Brave, including custom ones.
can it be customized in Brave?
Yes, Brave has all the same functionality as uBO. There are pre-enabled lists. You can use custom lists. You can block custom domains. etc.
Forgive me, I’m not a Brave power user, so I don’t recall. Does Brave have anything resembling uBlock’s “Element picker mode” and “User rules” to make it easier to build and test blocking rules?
I maintain my own block list on codeberg and it would be a pain in the ass to have to work outside the browser, push to git, and force sync the browser just to refresh and find out if something worked.
Is there a risk of negative conflicts if you also have uBO? Like having two antivirus apps being counterproductive.
I think that’s true for adjacent extensions, but because this is at the browser level instead of the extension level, it’s two separate layers of filtering.
Firefox already filters some trackers by default, and they’ve been doing it for a while.
It’s not but for non tech everyday normal users this is better than nothing.
Oh if it end up in the iOS app I’ll be thrilled, I use brave for YouTube only on iOS for Adblock
You can block YouTube ads in Safari with uBlock.
While this is good, Im still waiting for fucking tab groups on mobile. They’ve been stringing us along for 5 fucking years on that now
