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?
ernesth 2 hours ago [-]
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).
RandomGerm4n 2 hours ago [-]
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.
This sounds like good advice so upvoted. I’m a big fan of Raymond Hill¹’s products so I am curious about how much benefit Adguard provides if uBlock Origin is already blocking online trackers, ads and other annoyances.
¹ In this case, the developer – not the musician. I really liked the user interface of uMatrix.
RandomGerm4n 1 hours ago [-]
I’m a Firefox user myself but there are some very valid arguments against it on Android as well. Firefox on Android is significantly more vulnerable to exploits, lacks internal sandboxing and doesn’t properly isolate tabs from each other.
avazhi 57 minutes ago [-]
Firefox and Brave are both profoundly bad on iOS. Scrolling is a nightmare.
jdmg94 55 minutes ago [-]
everything on iOS is just a safari skin
dadoum 8 minutes ago [-]
There is Reynard if you're motivated too (Gecko-based, but it's not ready for prime time yet, and to get good performance you'll have to resort to some workaround to get JIT enabled, as it does not rely on Apple's BrowserEngineKit; one of the goals of the project is giving to not up-to-date iOS devices access to a modern browser).
rafram 24 minutes ago [-]
That's not totally true. Orion supports Chrome/FF WebExtensions, for example. The engine does (practically, even in the EU) have to be WebKit, but that's not the same thing as a "Safari skin."
nemomarx 2 hours ago [-]
You might want to not use chromium?
Dwedit 59 minutes ago [-]
Some people don't like how Brave is pushing cryptocurrency.
kuekacang 1 hours ago [-]
Genuine question, does brave have ff's container extension? currently that's one of the thing that keeps holding me on ff. another big one is i test website on firefox so to not get carried away with features only available in chromium
2ndorderthought 17 minutes ago [-]
Containers are experimental as of very recently. So they will soon, but expect it to be in development right now.
I also test on FF and I don't care much for chromium. I was just curious why the author chose to do this.
Larrikin 1 hours ago [-]
Why support Chrome at all?
avazhi 58 minutes ago [-]
Why would you use Brave when for many years it wouid surreptitiously install a VPN service on your Windows machine. The Brave devs took more than a year to even address it, let alone remove it.
More ideologically, Google and Chromium are awful for the internet as monopolistic tech.
ndisn 49 minutes ago [-]
What’s wrong with a VPN service as long as it doesn’t route your traffic or anything.
jrm4 25 minutes ago [-]
Their whole thing looks sketchy, frankly. I'm not saying they're evil or have some deep secret ulterior motive. But their "vision" appears to be bunch of absolutely half-baked ideas for privacy, for which Firefox has a much more boring, and consequently better, track record.
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.
RandomGerm4n 2 hours ago [-]
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.
gblargg 8 minutes ago [-]
If browsers came with ad blocking that's enabled, it would just make those lists less effective since advertisers would have a serious incentive to work around them. I'd rather ad blocking only be used by people who care enough to install it.
These are the lists you say you do not want being used.
Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.
Rendered at 16:03:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
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?
Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).
(AdGuard does have an option to supplant uBlock in this stack btw, does “advanced” blocking https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ which is nice but trust $mm-refusing uBlock dev gorhill forever)
¹ In this case, the developer – not the musician. I really liked the user interface of uMatrix.
I also test on FF and I don't care much for chromium. I was just curious why the author chose to do this.
More ideologically, Google and Chromium are awful for the internet as monopolistic tech.
"https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt",
"https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt",
"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..."
These are the lists you say you do not want being used.
Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.