Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options.
> Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality and user experience. After receiving Recommended status, safety standards are maintained through automated checks, monitoring, and periodic technical reviews
I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but not recommended. I wonder what is going on with that.
That's pretty cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't see where it says 'on every update' unless you're referring to the automated checks?
I've always wished extensions had more granular permissions though (a la phones, but more so). I think automated ai security checks sound promising soon.
Automated checks are done for every extension on every update. But their recommend extensions they feature on the Extension store, they do other extensive checks for each update.
I'd like a way to easily specify exactly what sites an extension can run on. There are extensions that I'd like to run on a subset - often just one or two sites - without giving them access do anything else. For that matter, a way to only activate an extension as a one-off when I click it and on no other tabs.
What about container specific permissions? If they implemented that it would be enough for me since I tend to split up my services by type (eg: shopping, banking, work, hack) so enabling an extensive on a specific set of containers would rock. Right now I think the only control we have is over private tabs/windows?
I'm using an extension that does exactly that¹, actually every update of the extension is mostly about then supporting more websites and asking permission to access those.
So maybe more developers could do a all sites and manually select sites option?
The extension can declare which websites it can access, but the other commenter was looking for the ability for the user to declare which websites it can access.
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen.
Websites already can barely be assed to care about supporting Firefox users, doing adblocking by default is a great way to get websites to start putting up banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome" en-masse.
And Mozilla did develop anti-fingerprinting tech, but they can't enable it by default because it breaks lots of websites and when a website doesn't work they're not going to appreciate Mozilla for protecting them, they're going to be pissed that it doesn't work.
Brave has native ad-block and anti finger-printing, enabled by default, and the web works excellently as in I don't know of a single site that doesn't work with it.
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.
People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a decade ago, couldn't handle 1000 tab sessions.
I hope Firefox keeps up the fight but HN loves to crap all over them for not being perfect.
Can’t speak for all users, but at least as of about six months ago, there appears to be a bug in Firefox in NixOS where the shader cache doesn’t appear to be able to write properly, and as such video acceleration doesn’t work. It became most evident when I was trying to watch 360-degree videos in Immich.
Entirely possible that this is an issue specific to NixOS or my machine, but because of that issue I switched over to Brave.
I would like to go back to Firefox at some point. Maybe I’ll see if I can make a patch to fix video acceleration on NixOS.
the obvious thing to do is keep using firefox as your daily driver, and load up the other browser as needed for the video etc.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek here because it seems most people just give up on safari/firefox if one thing doesn't work and go to some chromium-based browser as their default driver. That's sad.
I don't understand it. I do keep an ungoogled chromium install around for the few times when I suspect a site is intentionally breaking itself for firefox, and it's not a big deal to open on occasion. Otherwise, if you value customization at all, you have to use firefox.
Thats what I do - that 1 page in 100, if at all, goes to chrome. But basically 100% of pages I ever use work fine.
They will have to pry with significant force firefox with ublock origin from my old dusty finger bones... fuck the rest for selling us all out.
Even if it won't move the needle a bit, I can look at myself in the mirror in this specific regard and be content that I didnt bow my head like bland masses did and didnt work towards massive enshittification of our global society from now on.
Because thats what its all about, nothing less. With our choices, we shape future for our kids and grandkids. Shame on you, all you rich faangs who are directly helping this. Godwin's law is never too far in such cases and history wont be kind to you, no reason to be
They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read.
Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.
And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.
Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent.
> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.
I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).
FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.
GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.
Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.
Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people.
>> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
> This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
Are you joking? You brought the claim to the table, and now that people see the flaws in it you deny them talking about it? You're some mental gymnast..
With a normal Firefox on desktop on Linux, I get unsolvable recaptchas all the time, especially on cloudflare pages.
Ironically, if I fake instead a chromium to be on Windows (UA and Sec-CH headers), I am allowed most of the time even though my TCP fingerprint must mismatch then.
It's annoying to see what the normal web has become. Can't even read news anymore.
Ironically, all these bot defenses make it easier for bots to scrape their website, but make it harder for actual users to use them.
The only bot defense web app firewall that still works with Firefox seems to be Anubis. Pretty much all others autoflag Linux users as bot users, which feels insane if you think about less web developers must know about how botnets work.
> I get unsolvable recaptchas all the time, especially on cloudflare pages.
If you really mean reCAPTCHA (the one with a “select all squares that have X” kinda challenges), then Cloudflare hasn’t used that for quite a while now. archive.today uses a Cloudflare-looking (old style) page with a reCAPTCHA (and they do serve it quite often), but I don’t think I’ve seen other sites do that.
Admiral and several other of the more obnoxious ad networks already claim that Firefox is an ad blocker simply because of its out-of-the-box blocking support for third-party cookies and those ad networks nag you to use another browser. If Firefox added actual ad blocking out of the box I can't imagine the havoc that would cause and how many more websites would claim that they don't work at all in Firefox.
A sharp point in this context because yet again, Mozilla faces contradictory demands in every direction. In today's edition, they are failing their users by not hard coding the ablocking in but also they need to give up on ad blocking because if they try they'll simply be blacklisted.
That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
What stuns me is that most people still use browsers that cannot block ads, seem genuinely annoyed by ads, but don't want to even try switching to a browser that will easily block those ads. It's amazing how much crap people are willing to wade through when the alternative is trying something new.
> That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
No it's not.
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
No, quite the opposite. FF has a history of adopting extensions as baked-in functionality if they prove useful/popular enough. There are tons of examples of this from the past for various features, which is great.
But that fact makes it even more absurd that they refuse to do the same for what is likely their most popular extension of all time: uBlock Origin
Google has been trying to kill them since they moved the Chrome team into the same building as the now defunct SF office.
(Apparently they offered people a lot of money? There are some words I could use to describe people who do things they think are unethical for cash I'll leave unsaid.)
If Firefox baked in ad blocking, they would have to then deal with the financial incentive to make it worse. Sponsored ads, 'good' ads, government announcements, election propaganda... there is a slippery slope they are better off not getting on. A trusted 3rd party from the wider community seems a better option in many ways. The alternative is starting a web browser with a manifesto welded on that essentially states 'death to all advertising', and until that can be crowd funded I can't see that happening in today's world.
What I am surprised about is that none of the browsers or forks have created a specialist plugin API for adblocking and maybe other filtering. Provide what is needed and only that (keeping the surface tiny), and then evolve the general purpose API in the way they need. I don't think we need V2 of the API any more, except for keeping this one absolutely critical plugin working, do we?
In one of the monthly update videos Andreas mentioned that although they are working on a basic built-in adblocker for Ladybird, long-term they want extension support and the adblocking functionality to be in an extension.
Why does ad blocking always have to be relegated to an extension? Browsers build in so many things. Why do they all draw the line at a feature like ad blocking that every user wants?
See, this is the kind of thing that makes Firefox cool. They have not only just as good of developer console tools as Chrome, they have forward thinking, truly user-oriented policies. They have had trouble in the recent past at securing funding, but something tells me their user philosophy might save them when all the others turn completely to corporate greed as their main operating mechanism (if they already haven't).
Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now. But they don't, and likely never will.
> Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now.
It's not black and white, and your inability to see the larger context is disturbing.
You could, by the same logic, criticize Mozilla for not serving you coffee which is certainly a "user-oriented policy" "baked-in" or rather "brewed-in". But we must be realistic about how far UOPs can be stretched, Mozilla is better than the rest, which includes large corps with far more money than them. If you can do better than Mozilla, I'm all ears.
Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
> Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
One would hope that's one of the more useful things an LLM could assist with if not now, very soon. In the meantime, there's no reason they couldn't have uBlock kept as an extension but bundled by default like they've done with other functionality over the years. Wait, never mind. There's one rea$on why they wouldn't, and it's already been $tated.
After watching them butcher their own side tabs implementation, I don't know if we really want that, unless they're actually hiring the uBO team directly.
Rather than introducing additional attack surface and privacy risks with yet another extension you can just use archive.is/archive.ph instead of Bypass Paywalls Clean.
Or, just pay for journalism since it’s not free to do.
You mean Bypass Paywalls Clean? It's illegal and it's not even on the Firefox extension store. You have to download it from some Russian Github alternative and manually install it.
I will say however, it works remarkably well. I haven't seen a paywall in years!
I don't think it should but it was taken down from Firefox's store because of a DMCA copyright takedown. Firefox was required by law to remove it. Using the extension itself is a legal grey area, but distributing it is usually illegal.
It's been taken down by DMCA copyright strikes on every western platform that could distribute it. That's why you can't find it on the Firefox extension store anymore
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
Why, are they worried it might interfere with the spyware they bake into Firefox themselves?
What's funny is that extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do. Guess that was a bit too much freedom for Google to accept, so they had to make a store with a gate, and destroy the APIs so that they're useless. Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that and ram it through the pipeline despite everyone's objections, and the frog got boiled.
Now we're back to needing an actual extension system that does what extensions were supposed to do in the first place.
> Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that
Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only the conflicts of interest inherent in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker prevent that.
Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result.
Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.
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 perpetuity).
>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?
A funny argument to make because the thing that would make such a measure ridiculous as you rightly point out, is exactly what already makes the Manifest changes ridiculous in the first instance. They were making a rhetorical point and you elaborated on their point for them as if doing so expressed a disagreement.
I think a big step forward, towards a better security model, was overall a good thing, even if it meant that a good extension no longer had unfettered access to everything your browser saw. I don't think this change is ridiculous at all. And I don't want them to stop here either! v4 should close more of the avenues that malicious extensions are abusing! Extensions should declare everything up-front, so it's easy see if abuse is occuring.
The purpose of browser extensions is to build up an install base then sell out to some corporation that then promptly leverages that user base to exfiltrate data and monetize it.
No thanks. They should have to declare to the browser what it is they want done instead.
This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do.
I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
Right, basically no web browser has a profitable business model except through licensing or being subsidized through some other branch of the business.
The best pure browser company in history was Opera, and they didn't fail because they weren't innovating. It is simply not a survivable model. People don't remember anything, but during Google's recent anti trust case, one floated "solution" was to spin Chrome off as a separate company, but that was regarded as unrealistic partly because such a company would not have a credible path to profitability separate from Google.
I happen to disagree, they could have collected a search licensing fee just like Firefox but that model is already being regarded as monopoly adjacent.
And extensions do exactly that in Firefox. When installing (or updating) extensions you're notified of any and all permissions the extension is requesting from the browser and you're given the choice to proceed with the installation or not. Google goes a step further and just straight up denies user choice entirely.
Why should there not be a middle ground between “can do absolutely everything with all my data” and “is basically a glorified bookmark button” based on the level of trust I have for an extension?
Because security is the pretext, not the goal here. I'm sure browsers could have better security controls for extensions, but giving users extra control over software doesn't seem to be very popular among corpos nowadays.
> Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
Don't kid yourself, even with mv3 if you install a rogue extension it's going to have access to a lot more data than you would be comfortable sharing to.
>Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable.
Sounds like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Years ago, it was standard practice for software to be designed so that users could grant permissions to access invasive methods or functions.
Google relies on users' personal data (ads), which is why they introduced a unique ID to their Chrome browser (to track).
When was that standard practice? Cause years ago (like 2000) I remember even trivial and simple software (WeatherBug) being able to read/write all over the computer (Windows). And some crap I just installed on Win11 can see all over the box, just slightly less.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
Agreed. And you would think most paranoid HN types would too.
> It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted
Maybe I'm foggy on the history. But isn't this like Fork #4 or #5 of some previous AdBlock extension?
Seems like the only business model for this type of extension is "selling out" for certain ads. And then the cycle repeats and forum posters tell you to install qBlock Omega or whatever. Maybe Mozilla doesn't want to get in the middle of this?
Of course it's tempting to reply "don't install random extensions". But a bigger point here is that browsers have grown so massively complex that it's almost impossible to build one, so we don't have an ecosystem where you can choose your browser for safety and I can choose mine for freedom. Of course, Google has had a big incentive and hand in making it this way.
You can't trust a code that you didn't audit before. End of story.
What you are asking for is simply impossible, even without any permissions rogue extensions can still do a lot. It's what some developers spend their entire time working on.
If Google couldn't fix it with Android, which has granular permission per applications, why do you think it's going to be even remotely effective on the web browser ?
The amount of replies this has gotten regarding the use of “random” is a fine example of the garbage state of discussion on HN and the internet in general.
Clearly “random” was used as a means of saying “any”, to describe extensions the author hasn’t thought of. That will be obvious to anyone arguing in good faith and steel manning the argument.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
I was under the impression that manifest v3 still allowed extensions to read anything, just not modify. Is that not the case? (Random link because this is hard to search for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303446 )
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data
This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites.
Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? .
... the greatest danger to
us is masterless men; lacking a coercive power to tie their hands, they would
destroy society. How else but by binding to lord and master can they be held to the laws? So thought men during feudal times.
In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving such power to single monopolists. But it's not in Google's interests to build such mechanisms, any more than it was in the interests of the feudal overlords to look for alternatives to their rule.
I'm supposed to be the master, actually. It's my computer, any foreign code is essentially a subject in my digital domain. It should be literally impossible for them to do something I don't want them to do. As the god of my little digital realm, I should have maximum power and freedom, while foreign developers get the absolute minimum amount of power that works, and in the ideal case this minimum is zero.
The fact someone gave developers a turing complete language inside the browser where random code is automatically downloaded and executed is a major reason why we even have uBlock Origin in the first place. The vast majority of developers heavily abuse this privilege and cannot be trusted, and that is why we block them with extreme prejudice.
This is the way. The owner of the computer should be the ultimate authority over what gets run and not run on that computer. Not Microsoft. Not Apple. Not Google. Not Mozilla. Not some web site developer.
They don't specifically block uBlock Origin though. I have no doubt they intended it to, and that's literally my only objection to Manifest V3: it's good but it hurts uBlock Origin therefore I don't accept it.
The right thing is to simply bypass all of that. The fact is uBlock Origin should be literallly built into the browser like the good old popup blockers once were.
If only we had a browser that was independent of ad money.
"Random" is a funny thing to call an extension that you have deliberately installed.
I also don't want "random" programs accessing my home folder. That would be terrible! Who knows what programs that could be! I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily. Same for extensions.
The goal here isn't really to protect me from extensions. Extensions don't do anything on their own, they just sit there and wait for me to install them. So the goal is apparently to protect me from me (installing an extension), which really is to say protect their business (ads) from me (blocking them).
"Random" is what I call pretty much every extension that is not uBlock Origin. I absolutely want them limited to the fullest extent. Maybe if they were, I would actually install some of them.
> I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily.
I don't. My standard operating practice is to virtualize them.
My security posture is considerably more lax towards free and open source software, for obvious reasons, and even then this trust only extends to the software in my Linux distribution's repositories. Stuff coming from PyPI, npm, cargo, ruby gems, and other such "developer centric" repositories get the full virtualization treatment. If it's easy for randoms to publish packages, then it's equally easy for malware to make it in.
QEMU virtual machines. Sandboxes like firejail and bubblewrap share a kernel: attacker is one exploit away from root. Hypervisors present an infinitely smaller attack surface, and if they're ever defeated the entire industry is done, not just me.
I have a base system image that gets forked off into delta qcow2 images for every project I'm working on or whatever ephemeral execution context I need.
I started a side project to build software just to manage those VMs. I'm daily driving this thing even though it's my first "vibecoded" project, it's just way too useful and has saved me quite a few times from accidents.
The firewall works but it's pretty clunky. I'm working on a custom Rust network stack to replace it.
You'd probably prefer something that isn't literally made by one guy and his AIs though. Docker sandboxes seem to be a good solution that also employs virtualization.
> Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system?
Yes, and I have actually started virtualizing everything inside my computer because of that belief. I don't want random software touching my trusted host.
"Random software" is currently defined as anything outside the official repositories of my Linux distribution of choice. I don't want to share a home directory with such things. I don't want to share a user and its permissions, I don't even want to share a kernel with them.
There's a difference between you virtualizing programs and your OS vendor virtualizing programs for you without giving you an opt-out. Cough snaps cough.
The Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer let users search Google directly from any webpage, block pop-up ads, autofill web forms, and highlight search terms. It also displayed PageRank metrics, translated foreign languages, checked spelling, and managed web bookmarks.
> Google ... had to ... destroy the APIs so that they're useless.
I see this repeated over and over and yet uBlock Origin Lite still seems to block almost all ads. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer the non-lite version. But, given I basically still don't see ads it's kind of hard to argue Google destroyed the APIs so that they're useless
The crux of the difference is the webRequest API which is only available in Manifest v2. This allows uBlock to strip all tracking data from the requests themselves. So while Chrome w uBlock Lite is hiding almost all the same ads from you, it's not protecting you from tracking
The Lite version also relies solely on filter lists that require you to update the extension itself while the MV2 version can do so dynamically. Additionally, it lacks CNAME Uncloaking which I imagine will become much more commonplace soon enough which will make it impossible to block those ads.
uBlock Origin Lite is available on iOS/iPadOS for Safari however last time I checked it’s inferior to AdGuard/Wipr due to the API it uses (it only works in Safari but doesn’t provide ad blocking in the web views like the other two do). Otherwise it’s equivalent with the desktop version.
Browser extensions were also one of the biggest ways to distribute malware. The situation was genuinely horrific. Malware distributors would offer popular extension devs millions of dollars to buy the extension, then silently insert malware which gets auto deployed to millions of people.
Firefox extensions are already so incredibly locked down. It used to be they could edit any part of the UI anywhere. Now they each get a button at the end of the URL bar if they're lucky, otherwise it's some obscure hamburger menu item.
There are good solid reasons why Manifest v3 is preferable for most extensions.
The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it, so an addition, or workaround should be made, but when Google has the amount of influence they have, that didn't happen.
The upshut is that people hate ads and like free stuff, so there is now a good selling point for Firefox. Hell some of us switched to Firefox because it blocked popup ads and had tabs, back in the day.
I often forget how browsing the web looks for most people. Can't understand why they put up with it, or do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
I currently don’t use ad blockers. The only time I used ad blockers was when a previous employer specifically asked me to, when using a company machine.
> Can't understand why they put up with it
To see which (rare) sites don’t put up a million ads and actually care about the reading experience.
A lot of the top-listed sites on HN are small blogs without ads (or in the case of danluu.com or lwn.net - without almost any formatting).
daringfireball.net is notable for actually having small, non-intrusive ads that I wouldn’t ever feel the need to block (unless you consider the entire site an ad for Apple but that’s a seperate concern).
> do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
It is integral to the business models of the sites putting up those ads. And if those sites don’t make money then they’ll also be unable to pay writers. Much like herd immunity or financial speculation there will always be “somebody else” to watch the ads and essentially subsidize the ad-blocking audience, but I’d rather not be one of those people, I want my usage to be worth the while for the writers.
I am sometimes (rarely) willing to pay for an ad-free experience if I’m a repeat visitor. But more often I’d rather not visit at all if a site is too annoying. Another unfortunate situation is that even if you pay for a subscription, some sites have no ad-free option, such as the New York Times.
The big exception is YouTube, where I visit often, am bombarded with ads but also don’t want to pay Google.
I turned off my adblocker on 404 Media since I wanted to support them, I loaded one new tab in an article and it maxed my CPU at 100% for so long that I paused and had to figure out what was spiking my computer.
Open your browser’s dev tools while loading a website and there’s usually a continuous stream of HTTP and JS errors and warnings. That websites actually work surprises me sometimes, but that’s the pragmatic beauty of the web.
That's a bit hyperbolic. The areas of the internet I frequent do not have egregious ads (for example, this page). Areas where I really would like good ad-blocking (youtube) are often not covered by these ad blockers. Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
Maybe it's better these days but I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit, so I've always shied away from them (with the exception of a password manager).
> Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
True, but some of us refuse to give that company money on principle. The minute I can't watch YouTube without ads is the minute I stop watching YouTube. (The creators I follow make way more money off me on Patreon than Google would ever pay them, anyway.)
> I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit
I always found that not using uBO was a pretty big performance hit. :)
Edge is dropping support. Helium is not a major browser.
Brave is the only one that might be considered a valid point. However, because of Chromium dropping support they've had to implement a custom bypass to support Manifest v2 and they are also hosting a version of uBlock Origin for Chromium on their own servers.
It's really questionable how long this state of affairs can go on for. Brave has said they will support it "as long as they are able" but Google could easily just remove the `webRequest` API from Chromium or the engineering burden to keep it alive might just get to be too much
Unfortunately, I think it has an expiration date on any Chromium-based browser.
Brave blocks those ads anyway so no point in Ublock, maybe that's why it's left out. It does inject it's own ads though, and then there's all the crypto nonsense.
Ads on Brave are opt-in (and not embedded on webpages anyway) and the "crypto nonsense" is a way for them to try to stay afloat without having to accept money from Google and the likes.
Qutebrowser seems to _want_ uBlock Origin-style filtering, but development on the feature has been ongoing for a long time and seems to have somewhat stalled: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/pull/7629
I use Firefox with (non-lite) uBlock Origin, and occasionally fire up Chrome (with uBO Lite) for testing. The main issue that I run into is that uBO lite filters can't vary per-domain, so in order to rule out an ad-blocking-false-positive on something I'm developing, I have to turn it off for _all_ sites, not just localhost. (Actual false positives are rare, but needing to check is not so rare.)
I have not really had any issues with ads using uBlock Origin Lite. It's like the complainers live in an alternate reality or just listened to some influencer and never actually checked.
I do miss the rules that let me remove stuff based like CSS like selectors. The strange thing is, even though uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support that feature it's still totally possible to make an extension that does that. Maybe the specific thing uBlock Origin was doing is not possible but making an extension that follows rules and hides/deletes elements with different rules per site is still fully possible under manifest v3
But you can do this with uBOL? I’m not sure what you mean. I have multiple rules to hide elements on various sites. With HN I hide elements and can give it a custom CSS dark mode through uBOL. Works on both desktop and iOS.
Haven’t tried it but apparently there is an unofficial port of the full version of uBlock Origin to work on manifest v3, the largest challenge being that, on manifest v3, the webRequestBlocking permission is only available to enterprise sideloaded extensions: https://github.com/r58Playz/uBlock-mv3
Great but as soon as Google decides to completely strip the `webRequest` API from the codebase, it's game over. Now that it's deprecated it's only a matter of time. This also means Brave, the last Chromium-based browser to support it, will also be unable to support it
You can have my ad blocker when you take it from my cold dead fingers. I will literally move to a shack in the woods rather than go back to late 90s level of bullshit advertising.
The web is completely unusable without UBO+FF. Any time I have to use a clean browser, I feel assaulted and dirty, plus wonder what malware just got injected into my machine.
If it were to go away, I would probably accelerate retiring to an analog, offline life.
It's different under the hood. The crux of the difference is the webRequest API which is only available in Manifest v2. This allows uBlock to strip all tracking data from the requests themselves. So while Chrome w uBlock Lite is hiding almost all the same ads from you, it's not protecting you from tracking
The Lite version also relies solely on filter lists that require you to update the extension itself while the MV2 version can do so dynamically. Additionally, it lacks CNAME Uncloaking which I imagine will become much more commonplace soon enough which will make it impossible to block those ads
I'm a web developer and I have a deep love of Firefox. I've been on it since version 3 and I'll be with it to the bitter end. I love that uBlock Origin is still available and while the news of Firefox's declining market share can be quite concerning, I hope it will be around for a long time.
Yes, well, kind of. Opera had Multiple Document Interface (MDI) which was actually (back then) far more flexible than tabs. But yes, Opera was first with MDI, and also I suppose the first web browser for the smartphone.
- MV2 version has sophisticated scripts to not only block ads but prevent tracking. With the lite version you might not be seeing most ads but you are certainly being tracked more
- MV3 version might "hide" ads but the MV2 version is blocking requests from every being made. All those stats you hear about improved battery and reduced bandwidth usage with an adblocker are only true for the MV2 version
- CNAME uncloaking is only done with MV2 version. That means when advertisers on sites cloak their CNAME, you won't be able to block them
- filters lists on Lite can only be updated when you install an update. In MV2 version it updates the lists dynamically. Advertisers change their domains all the time
I was shaking my head when my fellow developers, and some hackers, moved from Firefox to mostly Chrome. “It has better dev tools you see”, “it’s so much faster you see”, and a boatload of other excuses.
But what about the remonopolization of the web? I remember how much it SUCKED when internet explorer had 95% of the web thanks to Microsoft’s illegal practices. I saw the same behaviour from Google, the ad company and they haven’t event gotten a slap on the wrist. Fuck, people fucking loves Google, despite their turn to the dark side.
Well here we are, with the open web almost dead. It’s time to revive it. Start using alternatives again. Seek out and support people and organisations that are actively working to build the community web, not this corporate shit it’s morphed into.
> But Firefox is one of the few web browsers remaining that isn’t based on Chromium, and it’s now the only major browser to still support uBlock Origin. Neither Safari nor DuckDuckGo—the two other major non-Chromium browsers out there—support uBlock Origin
Does anyone here use DuckDuckGo browser? I've honestly never heard of anyone using it, so I'm pretty surprised to see it categorized as a "major browser". I already basically think of Firefox users (which includes myself) as a pretty tiny minority, so I'm not sure how much smaller you can really get while still being "major".
I got a Android tablet...I can't recommend it. YT has gotten pretty toxic with the dark patterns. There are the usual interstitial ads, but after you skip and go full screen there's another ad widget in the lower left of the video. You have carefully navigate a popup menu to dismiss it without triggering an ad popup. If you pause or double-tap to -10s the video it restores down and shows an ad on the right side.
The Edge browser for has the best ad-free experience I've found so far on Android. It supports Widevine (DRM videos) and performance is good enough for most videos. I do get an occasional stutter with higher res videos. Firefox supports Widevine, but it didn't last week? Or I just didn't get the popup to "Enable DRM" for some reason. Edge claims to have blocked 15k YT ads in the last week with the built-in AdBlock Plus. It works with uBlock Origin as well (this week anyway).
NewPipe is a YT frontend that blocks ads, allows downloading, can run in the background and is generally great. It's a killer app for Android in my opinion.
Firefox works fine on Android, and supports ublock origin and playing youtube in a background tab/with screen off. Couldn't speak to DRM as I've never used it on any platform.
Oh yes they are. Occassionally when I am on a device which doesn't have an ad-blocker. I witness it and I am always left feeling shocked at how many ads Youtube can have. We really don't know the plight of so so many Youtube users. I feel sympathy for them and want to hug them and install an ad-blocker for them.
I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who didn't even ask! I just feel like Ad blocker is such a useful thing that I can do to people that I care about who don't know deeply about it.
I must say that it is one of the top entries of lists of most useful/time-saving things I have done in actually saving anybody's actual time.
I express gratitude towards the universe for Ublock Origin. Words can't comprehend how much I love it.
It's on a time limit. Chromium deprecated MV2 but still keeps the webRequest API in the codebase. Google could at any time decide to strip it entirely. Or it could just stop working due to lack of maintenance as Chromium grows.
Brave is relying on a fork that takes advantage of the fact that the webRequest API is still technically there
I mean sure, but there's a bit of a difference between "sells data to no one really knows who" and "sells data to no one really knows who AND PALANTIR" which the original commenter seem to be flagging as a problem.
Well Thiel investing in Brave once at the beginning doesn't necessarily mean that Palantir is getting any data now (even though it's presented as if it was a fact in other comments here). It's probable, but really it's just speculation, just like anyone can speculate about who's getting data from Firefox.
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
I think it's necessary for the future of the web. Ever since Opera gave up on Presto and Edge gave up on Trident, we've seen a massive and sudden consolidation towards Chromium. It's sad how quickly we forgot the lessons we learned from the days of IE's dominance
Sad indeed. What trully pisses me off though is the fact Mozilla has like hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, possibly a billion dollars, and yet they continue to neglect Firefox.
In that case Firefox is also out. They have been caught auto installing random hidden extensions with full read/write access to all websites and blocking uBlock Origin from working on, for example, the Firefox extension site.
That's basically exactly what Brave (the only Chromium browser still supporting uBO) is doing to support uBlock Origin. But it's flimsy and likely has an expiration date.
AFAIK they are using the built-in support which Google still maintains even if they don't expose it.
My point is that when MV3 was announced there was an assumption that maintaining a Chromium fork to continue supporting MV2 would be too much work and too expensive. But now with LLMs that's no longer a safe assumption. The non-Chrome chromium based browsers can fork chromium and add back MV2. No need for any expiration date.
I just started using Zen (Firefox-based Arc clone) after Arc updated to Manifest V3. It's great! Last time I installed zen it was a battery hog, but it's much better now.
1. Vivaldi supports uBlock Origin, if you consider Firefox a "major browser" then sure also Vivaldi and Brave are major browsers
2. while I use uBlock Origin on phone (Firefox) and desktop (Vivaldi), it's overrated, AdGuard works under MV3 AND unlike uBlock supports element picker, so if I was on browser not supporting uBO I would switch to AdGuard since I can't live without element picker
I agree. The death of Edge's Trident and Opera's Presto has been really scary for the web. I know it's really far off but I truly hope Ladybird, Servo, and Flow succeed in building mature and competitive web engines
It is possible to write your own extension and still use it in Chrome as long as it's not bundled. It would be a huge pain to get the source for uBlock origin and implement it locally yourself, but it might be worth the pain to block ads.
The original uBO relies on Manifest V2, the API Chrome no longer supports. It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
Are there any Chromium-based mod/plugin loaders out there? I mean something that uses the same DLL/SO hijacking or injection tricks game hackers use to build mod loaders, to expose a hooking layer for plugins.
Do people not remember Firefox changing their terms of service last year and allowing them to sell your data to third parties? I don't get it did people forget?
I switched over to LibreWolf and other browsers like that then and never looked back.
They rewrote the terms almost immediately after the backlash. They also claimed the original terms were written in response to the overly broad legal definitions of "data sales" under laws like the CCPA. Which tbh sounds reasonable
We all just either memory-holed it or convinced ourselves that it wasn't what it was. Easy to think you just misunderstood what they said, even though they were very explicit about it.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted; you're right. Firefox the browser is an amazingly capable tool but I wish it was shepherded by an org that prioritized its users' interests (privacy, performance, etc.) instead of ramming AI, crypto or cute marketing campaigns that NOBODY wants into its flagship offering.
It will be "largely fine" until the ad networks start using the methods not blocked by the Lite version. You may not even notice that they start tracking you efficiently. See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... for some examples of things Ublock Lite can't do.
Related discussion:
uBlock Origin Lite now available for Safari (apps.apple.com)
1156 points by Jiahang on Aug 5, 2025 | 451 comments
I wouldn't be sure this is a long term solution. Maintaining a this into perpetuity would probably take a lot of resources that Vivaldi team might not have.
Unless upstream introduces breaking changes I don't see why not. Google was killing this functionality for policy reasons, not because changes to the renderer required it or something. And LLM analysis is going to make maintaining forks easier going forward.
For all possible MV2 extensions this is unsustainable for a small company. Supporting just uBO used by tens of millions of people? pretty doable as it only relies on few hooks into C functions that arent going anywhere.
Unfortunately, new generations seem to be completely fine with this. People in general, they're just so completely captured by the dark patterns that I get the impression they cannot even imagine a world without them.
I install uBlock Origin on every browser I come across. Everybody notices. The internet just feels better, somehow. People can't quite explain what changed, but they know.
Also, Firebug showed what was possible with developer tools. Inspecting elements or network requests or whatever else wasn't really a thing before that extension.
I wonder if new generations will just get better and better at visually blocking off ads when they read. So many layouts are so common that I read a lot of sites and have absolutely no idea what ads they're running because 30-odd years of browsing rendered HTML pages has trained my brain to block off and not process certain areas of the page.
I'm not an advertising apologist, just pointing out that I can remember what ads were on a freemium TV station I watched two nights ago and what ads were on a radio station I listened to this afternoon but I can't remember a single web ad since...I don't know when. This might be because the TV ads have audio and visual, and with radio my alternative at the moment was looking out the window of my car, but web ads just seem very easy to mentally filter.
Exactly. The Lite version is basically "hiding" ads rather than blocking. The MV2 version stops the requests themselves from being made which save your bandwidth and battery. The light version lacks those benefits
If only they focused on making Firefox the definitive good browser instead of a platform for their AI efforts.
Firefox will never convince people to leave chrome on philosophy alone. I detest Chrome with a passion and refuse to touch it with a ten-foot pole, but cannot in good faith recommend Firefox to anyone in today’s world. “It kinda works” is about as far a compliment you can give it.
I have used Firefox exclusively every day on macOS for the past year, several hours a day, and have not one single time had to open another browser. None of the customers of my B2B saas use Firefox. Not once have I needed to test in their browsers except quick smoke testing to prove to myself that the rendering and details are identical. All my other browsing is indistinguishable from before when I used Chrome, and from on mobile where I (tragically) am forced by Apple's monopoly to use Safari.
I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it was Google astroturfing every single thread relating to FF. Yes, Mozilla isn't perfect and had some questionable decisions, but we're somehow okay with the worse option out of the two? Somehow, Mozilla's decisions are enough to never use FF, but Google's infinitely many horrible ones are acceptable for.... What reason?
> Somehow, Mozilla's decisions are enough to never use FF, but Google's infinitely many horrible ones are acceptable for.... What reason?
I think these people are real and predate AI. I think it comes down to a fundamental psychology in how the two browsers are marketed online. Firefox users would say "Firefox is better than Chrome." Chrome users would say "Chrome is good." Firefox is touted as a better browser on the principle of the freedom it gives its users, and paradoxically, that draws heavy scrutiny.
I don't think I am doing a Goomba fallacy here. People that claim to care about privacy and browser freedom will express disgust with Mozilla then, in the same breath, say they are opting into Chrome out of spite, which is 100x worse.
> say they are opting into Chrome out of spite, which is 100x worse.
That is what is frustrating, indeed.
Firefox is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. There have been changes in Firefox over the years that I don't like. (I'm still hurting from it moving the tabs to the top, so annoying.)
In a scale of 1 (100% user-hostile) to 10 (absolutely perfect user-centered browser), Firefox only scores a, let's say, eight.
But chrome scores a solid 2, so obviously I'm not going to use it, ever, no matter if Firefox makes the occasional mis-step.
What do you think doesn’t work on Firefox? Aside from Google products purposely crippled, everything works just fine in my experience. It’s fast and stable. If there’s a bunch of AI stuff in it, I’ve not seen it. Of course I believe it exists, I just don’t ever read popups anyways. To be fair, I probably use 5% of the browser’s capability (I imagine many are like me). I browse websites and I have UBO installed.
Anecdotally my own experience is consistent with this with the same platform+browser combination.
It appears that there are now significant numbers of sites - or at least noticeable parts or features of sites - that rely on Google-specific APIs and haven't been tested on other browsers.
However visiting those sites from Apple devices is often similarly frustrating. I'm not sure this is an anti-Firefox thing. It seems more of a not realising there are other browsers apart from Chromium-based ones thing.
I kinda wondered myself if this was some kind of coordinated effort to make Firefox not work. It wouldn't surprise me if it was later discovered that Google paid some Linux subsystem maintainer to slip in some nefarious code somewhere that altered the way Linux implements rendering specifications ever so slightly such that Firefox appeared broken. Just the conspiracy theorist in me.
I daily Zen (Firefox under the hood) and the only thing that I consistently need to open other browsers for is direct USB support (mouse/keyboard drivers in the browser). Other than that, I don't remember when was the last time something wasn't working in Firefox.
Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do. I had ~7 standard extensions that I pretty much always install into chrome browser. Over the past month or so I've been using Claude code to build a single custom extension that handles all of the things I used 7 extensions for previously. One extension does everything. You can even use the existing extensions you already use as guides for Claude to make sure all of the features you want are included. One extension to rule them all!
Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options.
> Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality and user experience. After receiving Recommended status, safety standards are maintained through automated checks, monitoring, and periodic technical reviews
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
Complete, authoritative list of Firefox extensions officially recommended by Mozilla.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=re...
Some quite informative discussion on Firefox subreddit when I discovered and posted the above list there a few months ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pyvx2v/complete_a...
The Recommended Extensions program description: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but not recommended. I wonder what is going on with that.
Probably just resources. Mozilla has to vet each update to give them the "recommended" badge and so they probably focus on the most popular extensions
They should have vetted ViolentMonkey instead of TamperMonkey the last time around.
That's pretty cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't see where it says 'on every update' unless you're referring to the automated checks?
I've always wished extensions had more granular permissions though (a la phones, but more so). I think automated ai security checks sound promising soon.
Automated checks are done for every extension on every update. But their recommend extensions they feature on the Extension store, they do other extensive checks for each update.
what permissions do you suggest?
I'd like a way to easily specify exactly what sites an extension can run on. There are extensions that I'd like to run on a subset - often just one or two sites - without giving them access do anything else. For that matter, a way to only activate an extension as a one-off when I click it and on no other tabs.
What about container specific permissions? If they implemented that it would be enough for me since I tend to split up my services by type (eg: shopping, banking, work, hack) so enabling an extensive on a specific set of containers would rock. Right now I think the only control we have is over private tabs/windows?
I'm using an extension that does exactly that¹, actually every update of the extension is mostly about then supporting more websites and asking permission to access those.
So maybe more developers could do a all sites and manually select sites option?
¹BPC extension
The extension can declare which websites it can access, but the other commenter was looking for the ability for the user to declare which websites it can access.
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen.
Ladybird browser is going to be awesome.
Websites already can barely be assed to care about supporting Firefox users, doing adblocking by default is a great way to get websites to start putting up banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome" en-masse.
And Mozilla did develop anti-fingerprinting tech, but they can't enable it by default because it breaks lots of websites and when a website doesn't work they're not going to appreciate Mozilla for protecting them, they're going to be pissed that it doesn't work.
Brave has native ad-block and anti finger-printing, enabled by default, and the web works excellently as in I don't know of a single site that doesn't work with it.
Not saying your wrong, but the number, and type, of sites you browse is going to be a very narrow slice of the sites that all Firefox users browse
> start putting up banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome"
That's how IE 6 was killed.
It was killed by a lawsuit, mostly.
Also FE devs using all new Chrome shinny APIs, and their Electron junk are also to blame, and they aren't going to throw their toys away.
> banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome"
Which in practice means "switch to using a Firefox extension which fakes looking like Chrome, and just to selected shitty sites like ours".
Websites blocking Firefox because of ad blocking has happened before:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070817224229/http://whyfirefox...
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.
You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare?
> You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core
If you want to inherit all of Firefox's flaws, I suppose.
> and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare?
Considering Cloudflare is a sponsor of Ladybird, something tells me they're going to grant an exception for it.
What flaws exactly?
People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a decade ago, couldn't handle 1000 tab sessions.
I hope Firefox keeps up the fight but HN loves to crap all over them for not being perfect.
People complain about Chrome as often as about psychopaths, because it can't be fixed.
Can’t speak for all users, but at least as of about six months ago, there appears to be a bug in Firefox in NixOS where the shader cache doesn’t appear to be able to write properly, and as such video acceleration doesn’t work. It became most evident when I was trying to watch 360-degree videos in Immich.
Entirely possible that this is an issue specific to NixOS or my machine, but because of that issue I switched over to Brave.
I would like to go back to Firefox at some point. Maybe I’ll see if I can make a patch to fix video acceleration on NixOS.
the obvious thing to do is keep using firefox as your daily driver, and load up the other browser as needed for the video etc.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek here because it seems most people just give up on safari/firefox if one thing doesn't work and go to some chromium-based browser as their default driver. That's sad.
I don't understand it. I do keep an ungoogled chromium install around for the few times when I suspect a site is intentionally breaking itself for firefox, and it's not a big deal to open on occasion. Otherwise, if you value customization at all, you have to use firefox.
What you say is what I do, Firefox is open all the time, I switch to brave or edge if ff won't load something. I use adnauseam as adblocker.
I have never had chrome on windows 10 or 11; nor chromium.
For a year chase.com wouldn't allow me to login from Firefox. Dumb.
Thats what I do - that 1 page in 100, if at all, goes to chrome. But basically 100% of pages I ever use work fine.
They will have to pry with significant force firefox with ublock origin from my old dusty finger bones... fuck the rest for selling us all out.
Even if it won't move the needle a bit, I can look at myself in the mirror in this specific regard and be content that I didnt bow my head like bland masses did and didnt work towards massive enshittification of our global society from now on.
Because thats what its all about, nothing less. With our choices, we shape future for our kids and grandkids. Shame on you, all you rich faangs who are directly helping this. Godwin's law is never too far in such cases and history wont be kind to you, no reason to be
Aw man, one issue you don't even know is Firefox's fault?
Sadly Cloudflare's browser detector is the main barrier to using Servo for most websites, so they're not the angel they seem
They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read.
Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.
And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.
I hope Ladybird does well, too.
Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent.
> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.
I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).
FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.
> Do we trust them or don't we?
GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.
Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.
That was a rhetorical question.
Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people.
We could tell it was rhetorical, to imply the position was ridiculous. But when accepting nuance there is a real answer.
> Raymond Hill of all people.
As good as he's been, he's still just one person with a hobby project. Yes please review it!
And what if he gets hacked?
>> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
> This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
Are you joking? You brought the claim to the table, and now that people see the flaws in it you deny them talking about it? You're some mental gymnast..
With a normal Firefox on desktop on Linux, I get unsolvable recaptchas all the time, especially on cloudflare pages.
Ironically, if I fake instead a chromium to be on Windows (UA and Sec-CH headers), I am allowed most of the time even though my TCP fingerprint must mismatch then.
It's annoying to see what the normal web has become. Can't even read news anymore.
Ironically, all these bot defenses make it easier for bots to scrape their website, but make it harder for actual users to use them.
The only bot defense web app firewall that still works with Firefox seems to be Anubis. Pretty much all others autoflag Linux users as bot users, which feels insane if you think about less web developers must know about how botnets work.
> With a normal Firefox on desktop on Linux, I get unsolvable recaptchas all the time, especially on cloudflare pages.
I get this with Chrome on MacOS.
I'm becoming more convinced that Cloudflare is the bane of the internet.
> I get unsolvable recaptchas all the time, especially on cloudflare pages.
If you really mean reCAPTCHA (the one with a “select all squares that have X” kinda challenges), then Cloudflare hasn’t used that for quite a while now. archive.today uses a Cloudflare-looking (old style) page with a reCAPTCHA (and they do serve it quite often), but I don’t think I’ve seen other sites do that.
Admiral and several other of the more obnoxious ad networks already claim that Firefox is an ad blocker simply because of its out-of-the-box blocking support for third-party cookies and those ad networks nag you to use another browser. If Firefox added actual ad blocking out of the box I can't imagine the havoc that would cause and how many more websites would claim that they don't work at all in Firefox.
A sharp point in this context because yet again, Mozilla faces contradictory demands in every direction. In today's edition, they are failing their users by not hard coding the ablocking in but also they need to give up on ad blocking because if they try they'll simply be blacklisted.
"Do X." versus "Don't do X." is a set of demands faced by most programs.
That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
What stuns me is that most people still use browsers that cannot block ads, seem genuinely annoyed by ads, but don't want to even try switching to a browser that will easily block those ads. It's amazing how much crap people are willing to wade through when the alternative is trying something new.
Not "everything", just a few common things that almost every user wants.
> That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
No it's not.
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
No, quite the opposite. FF has a history of adopting extensions as baked-in functionality if they prove useful/popular enough. There are tons of examples of this from the past for various features, which is great.
But that fact makes it even more absurd that they refuse to do the same for what is likely their most popular extension of all time: uBlock Origin
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla.
It's been 20+ years, nobody cares about that anymore.
>since Google basically owns them
Google has been trying to kill them since they moved the Chrome team into the same building as the now defunct SF office.
(Apparently they offered people a lot of money? There are some words I could use to describe people who do things they think are unethical for cash I'll leave unsaid.)
People believe ublock because it's reputable and not affiliated with browsers IMO.
If Firefox baked in ad blocking, they would have to then deal with the financial incentive to make it worse. Sponsored ads, 'good' ads, government announcements, election propaganda... there is a slippery slope they are better off not getting on. A trusted 3rd party from the wider community seems a better option in many ways. The alternative is starting a web browser with a manifesto welded on that essentially states 'death to all advertising', and until that can be crowd funded I can't see that happening in today's world.
What I am surprised about is that none of the browsers or forks have created a specialist plugin API for adblocking and maybe other filtering. Provide what is needed and only that (keeping the surface tiny), and then evolve the general purpose API in the way they need. I don't think we need V2 of the API any more, except for keeping this one absolutely critical plugin working, do we?
In one of the monthly update videos Andreas mentioned that although they are working on a basic built-in adblocker for Ladybird, long-term they want extension support and the adblocking functionality to be in an extension.
Why does ad blocking always have to be relegated to an extension? Browsers build in so many things. Why do they all draw the line at a feature like ad blocking that every user wants?
Because they want a level of plausible deniability.
See, this is the kind of thing that makes Firefox cool. They have not only just as good of developer console tools as Chrome, they have forward thinking, truly user-oriented policies. They have had trouble in the recent past at securing funding, but something tells me their user philosophy might save them when all the others turn completely to corporate greed as their main operating mechanism (if they already haven't).
Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now. But they don't, and likely never will.
> Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now.
It's not black and white, and your inability to see the larger context is disturbing.
You could, by the same logic, criticize Mozilla for not serving you coffee which is certainly a "user-oriented policy" "baked-in" or rather "brewed-in". But we must be realistic about how far UOPs can be stretched, Mozilla is better than the rest, which includes large corps with far more money than them. If you can do better than Mozilla, I'm all ears.
Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
> Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
One would hope that's one of the more useful things an LLM could assist with if not now, very soon. In the meantime, there's no reason they couldn't have uBlock kept as an extension but bundled by default like they've done with other functionality over the years. Wait, never mind. There's one rea$on why they wouldn't, and it's already been $tated.
You're absolutely right.
After watching them butcher their own side tabs implementation, I don't know if we really want that, unless they're actually hiring the uBO team directly.
Also for youtube download plug-ins. yt-dpl does not work for youtube anymore.
Still works for me. The occasional 403 has always been an issue
I recommend two more:
1. pass paywalls clean.
2. Social Fixer
Rather than introducing additional attack surface and privacy risks with yet another extension you can just use archive.is/archive.ph instead of Bypass Paywalls Clean.
Or, just pay for journalism since it’s not free to do.
You mean Bypass Paywalls Clean? It's illegal and it's not even on the Firefox extension store. You have to download it from some Russian Github alternative and manually install it.
I will say however, it works remarkably well. I haven't seen a paywall in years!
Why should it be illegal?
It’s not illegal. But it’s a step too far for some.
I don't think it should but it was taken down from Firefox's store because of a DMCA copyright takedown. Firefox was required by law to remove it. Using the extension itself is a legal grey area, but distributing it is usually illegal.
It's not. Op is wrong
It's been taken down by DMCA copyright strikes on every western platform that could distribute it. That's why you can't find it on the Firefox extension store anymore
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
Why, are they worried it might interfere with the spyware they bake into Firefox themselves?
https://www.howtogeek.com/557929/how-to-see-and-disable-the-...
I don't like telemetry being defaulted to opt-in but relax. It's anonymized and it's far and away the least intrusive of the major browsers
It's not anonymized, because your communication with Mozilla has plenty of identifying information.
Also, Mozilla officially un-committed to not using sell this and any other data it collects from you:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-...
What's funny is that extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do. Guess that was a bit too much freedom for Google to accept, so they had to make a store with a gate, and destroy the APIs so that they're useless. Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that and ram it through the pipeline despite everyone's objections, and the frog got boiled.
Now we're back to needing an actual extension system that does what extensions were supposed to do in the first place.
> Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that
Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only the conflicts of interest inherent in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker prevent that.
Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result.
Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.
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 perpetuity).
>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?
A funny argument to make because the thing that would make such a measure ridiculous as you rightly point out, is exactly what already makes the Manifest changes ridiculous in the first instance. They were making a rhetorical point and you elaborated on their point for them as if doing so expressed a disagreement.
I think a big step forward, towards a better security model, was overall a good thing, even if it meant that a good extension no longer had unfettered access to everything your browser saw. I don't think this change is ridiculous at all. And I don't want them to stop here either! v4 should close more of the avenues that malicious extensions are abusing! Extensions should declare everything up-front, so it's easy see if abuse is occuring.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data.
To be honest, to me it sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.
To me, directly messing with web page data and browser behaviour is the whole point of a browser extension - what else is a browser extension for?
The purpose of browser extensions is to build up an install base then sell out to some corporation that then promptly leverages that user base to exfiltrate data and monetize it.
No thanks. They should have to declare to the browser what it is they want done instead.
This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do.
I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
Right, basically no web browser has a profitable business model except through licensing or being subsidized through some other branch of the business.
The best pure browser company in history was Opera, and they didn't fail because they weren't innovating. It is simply not a survivable model. People don't remember anything, but during Google's recent anti trust case, one floated "solution" was to spin Chrome off as a separate company, but that was regarded as unrealistic partly because such a company would not have a credible path to profitability separate from Google.
I happen to disagree, they could have collected a search licensing fee just like Firefox but that model is already being regarded as monopoly adjacent.
And extensions do exactly that in Firefox. When installing (or updating) extensions you're notified of any and all permissions the extension is requesting from the browser and you're given the choice to proceed with the installation or not. Google goes a step further and just straight up denies user choice entirely.
I think you're confusing the extension and the browser. The browsers are generally in the business of supporting an advertising company.
It still sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.
Bro, they have to declare there Firefox's policy. What the heck are you doing? Hallucinating claim after claim to support your weak defense. Just stop
... But they do that. The declaration is written in a language called JavaScript.
Javascript is not a declarative language.
Why should there not be a middle ground between “can do absolutely everything with all my data” and “is basically a glorified bookmark button” based on the level of trust I have for an extension?
Because security is the pretext, not the goal here. I'm sure browsers could have better security controls for extensions, but giving users extra control over software doesn't seem to be very popular among corpos nowadays.
Because the browser already has bookmark buttons
> Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
Don't kid yourself, even with mv3 if you install a rogue extension it's going to have access to a lot more data than you would be comfortable sharing to.
>Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable.
Sounds like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Years ago, it was standard practice for software to be designed so that users could grant permissions to access invasive methods or functions.
Google relies on users' personal data (ads), which is why they introduced a unique ID to their Chrome browser (to track).
When was that standard practice? Cause years ago (like 2000) I remember even trivial and simple software (WeatherBug) being able to read/write all over the computer (Windows). And some crap I just installed on Win11 can see all over the box, just slightly less.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
Agreed. And you would think most paranoid HN types would too.
> It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted
Maybe I'm foggy on the history. But isn't this like Fork #4 or #5 of some previous AdBlock extension?
Seems like the only business model for this type of extension is "selling out" for certain ads. And then the cycle repeats and forum posters tell you to install qBlock Omega or whatever. Maybe Mozilla doesn't want to get in the middle of this?
Of course it's tempting to reply "don't install random extensions". But a bigger point here is that browsers have grown so massively complex that it's almost impossible to build one, so we don't have an ecosystem where you can choose your browser for safety and I can choose mine for freedom. Of course, Google has had a big incentive and hand in making it this way.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions...
Why are you installing random extensions?
Not GP, but sometimes I want my browser to do pretty random/niche things without that compromising all of my browsing data.
Create a new profile, do the niche thing there, separately from the rest of your browsing.
How can the browser tell the difference between a random thing you want and a random thing you don't want?
I'm not. The only extension I trust enough to install is uBlock Origin.
Well great! You are already protected from random extensions then.
Yeah, by opting out of them altogether. I'd very much enjoy having useful extensions that are not dangerous instead.
You can't trust a code that you didn't audit before. End of story.
What you are asking for is simply impossible, even without any permissions rogue extensions can still do a lot. It's what some developers spend their entire time working on.
If Google couldn't fix it with Android, which has granular permission per applications, why do you think it's going to be even remotely effective on the web browser ?
The amount of replies this has gotten regarding the use of “random” is a fine example of the garbage state of discussion on HN and the internet in general.
Clearly “random” was used as a means of saying “any”, to describe extensions the author hasn’t thought of. That will be obvious to anyone arguing in good faith and steel manning the argument.
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
I was under the impression that manifest v3 still allowed extensions to read anything, just not modify. Is that not the case? (Random link because this is hard to search for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303446 )
No worries. Reading the rest of your comments shows, that your defense is paper thin .
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data
This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites.
Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? .
Sign of the times I guess.
> Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust.
An extension that you trust today can be sold to an unscrupulous third-party tomorrow. That has happened many many times and will continue to.
> Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust.
Same reason why people download random stuff and run it with administrator permissions on Windows.
Then don't install them. I want my extensions in my browser on my computer to do whatever I allow them to do and not what's allowed by Google.
... the greatest danger to us is masterless men; lacking a coercive power to tie their hands, they would destroy society. How else but by binding to lord and master can they be held to the laws? So thought men during feudal times.
In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving such power to single monopolists. But it's not in Google's interests to build such mechanisms, any more than it was in the interests of the feudal overlords to look for alternatives to their rule.
I'm supposed to be the master, actually. It's my computer, any foreign code is essentially a subject in my digital domain. It should be literally impossible for them to do something I don't want them to do. As the god of my little digital realm, I should have maximum power and freedom, while foreign developers get the absolute minimum amount of power that works, and in the ideal case this minimum is zero.
The fact someone gave developers a turing complete language inside the browser where random code is automatically downloaded and executed is a major reason why we even have uBlock Origin in the first place. The vast majority of developers heavily abuse this privilege and cannot be trusted, and that is why we block them with extreme prejudice.
This is the way. The owner of the computer should be the ultimate authority over what gets run and not run on that computer. Not Microsoft. Not Apple. Not Google. Not Mozilla. Not some web site developer.
Of course the reasons weren't unreasonable, that's what made them great excuses for specifically blocking ublock origin.
They don't specifically block uBlock Origin though. I have no doubt they intended it to, and that's literally my only objection to Manifest V3: it's good but it hurts uBlock Origin therefore I don't accept it.
The right thing is to simply bypass all of that. The fact is uBlock Origin should be literallly built into the browser like the good old popup blockers once were.
If only we had a browser that was independent of ad money.
"Random" is a funny thing to call an extension that you have deliberately installed.
I also don't want "random" programs accessing my home folder. That would be terrible! Who knows what programs that could be! I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily. Same for extensions.
The goal here isn't really to protect me from extensions. Extensions don't do anything on their own, they just sit there and wait for me to install them. So the goal is apparently to protect me from me (installing an extension), which really is to say protect their business (ads) from me (blocking them).
"Random" is what I call pretty much every extension that is not uBlock Origin. I absolutely want them limited to the fullest extent. Maybe if they were, I would actually install some of them.
> I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily.
I don't. My standard operating practice is to virtualize them.
My security posture is considerably more lax towards free and open source software, for obvious reasons, and even then this trust only extends to the software in my Linux distribution's repositories. Stuff coming from PyPI, npm, cargo, ruby gems, and other such "developer centric" repositories get the full virtualization treatment. If it's easy for randoms to publish packages, then it's equally easy for malware to make it in.
What do you use for virtualization for tools from developer repositories? Run them in a VM or sandboxing like bubblewrap?
QEMU virtual machines. Sandboxes like firejail and bubblewrap share a kernel: attacker is one exploit away from root. Hypervisors present an infinitely smaller attack surface, and if they're ever defeated the entire industry is done, not just me.
I have a base system image that gets forked off into delta qcow2 images for every project I'm working on or whatever ephemeral execution context I need.
I started a side project to build software just to manage those VMs. I'm daily driving this thing even though it's my first "vibecoded" project, it's just way too useful and has saved me quite a few times from accidents.
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/virtdev
The firewall works but it's pretty clunky. I'm working on a custom Rust network stack to replace it.
You'd probably prefer something that isn't literally made by one guy and his AIs though. Docker sandboxes seem to be a good solution that also employs virtualization.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49239751
Before I made all this, I used to use firejail.
Don't defend them then. Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system? If not, then it shouldn't be true of the browser either.
> Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system?
Yes, and I have actually started virtualizing everything inside my computer because of that belief. I don't want random software touching my trusted host.
"Random software" is currently defined as anything outside the official repositories of my Linux distribution of choice. I don't want to share a home directory with such things. I don't want to share a user and its permissions, I don't even want to share a kernel with them.
There's a difference between you virtualizing programs and your OS vendor virtualizing programs for you without giving you an opt-out. Cough snaps cough.
Agreed, and I do think it's unfortunate that our browsers are funded by ad tech. I want that to change.
Nothing stops people from using a fork with manifest v2 support restored. In fact "VibeChrome" would probably be a successful product.
First you'd get sued because chrome is a Google trademark
The Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer let users search Google directly from any webpage, block pop-up ads, autofill web forms, and highlight search terms. It also displayed PageRank metrics, translated foreign languages, checked spelling, and managed web bookmarks.
Imagine the massive amount of data they must have harvested through it.
> Google ... had to ... destroy the APIs so that they're useless.
I see this repeated over and over and yet uBlock Origin Lite still seems to block almost all ads. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer the non-lite version. But, given I basically still don't see ads it's kind of hard to argue Google destroyed the APIs so that they're useless
The crux of the difference is the webRequest API which is only available in Manifest v2. This allows uBlock to strip all tracking data from the requests themselves. So while Chrome w uBlock Lite is hiding almost all the same ads from you, it's not protecting you from tracking
The Lite version also relies solely on filter lists that require you to update the extension itself while the MV2 version can do so dynamically. Additionally, it lacks CNAME Uncloaking which I imagine will become much more commonplace soon enough which will make it impossible to block those ads.
> uBlock Origin Lite still seems to block almost all ads
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464
There’s also ad blockers for iOS safari, which I’m pretty sure doesn’t support ublock. There’s nothing in manifest v2 that’s required for ad blocking.
uBlock Origin Lite is available on iOS/iPadOS for Safari however last time I checked it’s inferior to AdGuard/Wipr due to the API it uses (it only works in Safari but doesn’t provide ad blocking in the web views like the other two do). Otherwise it’s equivalent with the desktop version.
Browser extensions were also one of the biggest ways to distribute malware. The situation was genuinely horrific. Malware distributors would offer popular extension devs millions of dollars to buy the extension, then silently insert malware which gets auto deployed to millions of people.
That sounds more like an issue with the update policies.
Why haven't they been prosecuted? And why hasn't this "cindyllm" bot account been deleted yet? Clearly a shadowban didn't send the message.
Firefox extensions are already so incredibly locked down. It used to be they could edit any part of the UI anywhere. Now they each get a button at the end of the URL bar if they're lucky, otherwise it's some obscure hamburger menu item.
You have full control of whether or not their button is in your toolbar.
If they are hidden for you, it's because you, the user, hid them or enabled the overflow extension menu.
> extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do.
If that would have been the case, extensions wouldn’t exist.
Extension are a way to make the browser do what the browser manufacturer didn’t think or care about.
There are good solid reasons why Manifest v3 is preferable for most extensions.
The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it, so an addition, or workaround should be made, but when Google has the amount of influence they have, that didn't happen.
The upshut is that people hate ads and like free stuff, so there is now a good selling point for Firefox. Hell some of us switched to Firefox because it blocked popup ads and had tabs, back in the day.
> The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it
Except this is objectively not true…
uBlock Origin Lite is nearly as good as uBO and blocks nearly everything except for mostly Twitch ads.
Manifest v3 is a big security upgrade and effectively closes off the permanent RCE pathway that v2 allowed.
I often forget how browsing the web looks for most people. Can't understand why they put up with it, or do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
I currently don’t use ad blockers. The only time I used ad blockers was when a previous employer specifically asked me to, when using a company machine.
> Can't understand why they put up with it
To see which (rare) sites don’t put up a million ads and actually care about the reading experience.
A lot of the top-listed sites on HN are small blogs without ads (or in the case of danluu.com or lwn.net - without almost any formatting).
daringfireball.net is notable for actually having small, non-intrusive ads that I wouldn’t ever feel the need to block (unless you consider the entire site an ad for Apple but that’s a seperate concern).
> do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
It is integral to the business models of the sites putting up those ads. And if those sites don’t make money then they’ll also be unable to pay writers. Much like herd immunity or financial speculation there will always be “somebody else” to watch the ads and essentially subsidize the ad-blocking audience, but I’d rather not be one of those people, I want my usage to be worth the while for the writers.
I am sometimes (rarely) willing to pay for an ad-free experience if I’m a repeat visitor. But more often I’d rather not visit at all if a site is too annoying. Another unfortunate situation is that even if you pay for a subscription, some sites have no ad-free option, such as the New York Times.
The big exception is YouTube, where I visit often, am bombarded with ads but also don’t want to pay Google.
I turned off my adblocker on 404 Media since I wanted to support them, I loaded one new tab in an article and it maxed my CPU at 100% for so long that I paused and had to figure out what was spiking my computer.
Immediately turned it off.
Yes, in the same way constant software malfunctions and errors are normal and tolerated.
Open your browser’s dev tools while loading a website and there’s usually a continuous stream of HTTP and JS errors and warnings. That websites actually work surprises me sometimes, but that’s the pragmatic beauty of the web.
Maybe it’s on purpose to keep people addicted to installing apps
Chome with uBlock Lite looks, uh, pretty similar to Firefox with uBO.
Try visiting YouTube.
You try.
uBO Lite blocks ads on YouTube just as well as uBO did.
Also on YouTube
> every page
That's a bit hyperbolic. The areas of the internet I frequent do not have egregious ads (for example, this page). Areas where I really would like good ad-blocking (youtube) are often not covered by these ad blockers. Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
Maybe it's better these days but I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit, so I've always shied away from them (with the exception of a password manager).
> Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
True, but some of us refuse to give that company money on principle. The minute I can't watch YouTube without ads is the minute I stop watching YouTube. (The creators I follow make way more money off me on Patreon than Google would ever pay them, anyway.)
> I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit
I always found that not using uBO was a pretty big performance hit. :)
uBlock causes a huge performance improvement for most regular people's computers.
adblock works well with regular youtube ads (not the one inside the actual content).
Wtf, simply not true:
Brave: chrome://flags/#brave-extensions-manifest-v2 > brave://settings/extensions/v2 > Enable uBlock Origin (Brave-hosted, even better).
Helium comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed.
Edge even still has it https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori...
And I'm sure others ...I personally only use/test Brave, Brave Origin, Helium and Firefox.
Edge is dropping support. Helium is not a major browser.
Brave is the only one that might be considered a valid point. However, because of Chromium dropping support they've had to implement a custom bypass to support Manifest v2 and they are also hosting a version of uBlock Origin for Chromium on their own servers.
It's really questionable how long this state of affairs can go on for. Brave has said they will support it "as long as they are able" but Google could easily just remove the `webRequest` API from Chromium or the engineering burden to keep it alive might just get to be too much
Unfortunately, I think it has an expiration date on any Chromium-based browser.
Agree on the last part, let’s see for how long.. but for now it’s simply not true.
Edge will lose it within the next few months: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2026/08/07/moving-the-mi...
RIP corporate users that can't install their own browsers but can install extensions
Ahh so this will be what moves me off of Edge. Microsoft has almost entirely pushed me out of their ecosystem at this point.
The title says "major browser", which none of those are.
Brave surely is a major browser with 100+M MAU, not too distant from Firefox with 150+M MAU.
Brave blocks those ads anyway so no point in Ublock, maybe that's why it's left out. It does inject it's own ads though, and then there's all the crypto nonsense.
Ads on Brave are opt-in (and not embedded on webpages anyway) and the "crypto nonsense" is a way for them to try to stay afloat without having to accept money from Google and the likes.
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
Brave adblocking breaks some websites that uBlock Origin doesn't.
Lately I’ve had better luck with Brave than with FF and UBO, at least one my various banking sites.
Firefox is less popular than some of the browsers you listed as not major, so it isn't major either
Technically Firefox isn't a major browser either.
Well, Edge probably counts. I agree about the others.
Edge is a major browser but is dropping support
I use Vivaldi and I recently installed an update that disabled my v2 extensions. Had to downgrade and disable update checking.
Guess it was a bad idea for everyone to switch to a browser made by one of the world’s biggest advertising companies.
Qutebrowser seems to _want_ uBlock Origin-style filtering, but development on the feature has been ongoing for a long time and seems to have somewhat stalled: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/pull/7629
No-one referenced Firefox also has Brave's adblocking implementation baked in, even if disabled for now.
Additionally, I eagerly await resource (CPU+site size) buckets to be implemented on a browser and a LocalCDN along it to shrink the web.
Great, this is unique trait and helpful one - Firefox is here to stay
For those who use uBlock Origin Lite, have you noticed any issues/deficiencies in what ads are blocked? I haven't.
I use Firefox with (non-lite) uBlock Origin, and occasionally fire up Chrome (with uBO Lite) for testing. The main issue that I run into is that uBO lite filters can't vary per-domain, so in order to rule out an ad-blocking-false-positive on something I'm developing, I have to turn it off for _all_ sites, not just localhost. (Actual false positives are rare, but needing to check is not so rare.)
That's not true, the on/off toggle is per-site in uBlock Origin Lite.
I have not really had any issues with ads using uBlock Origin Lite. It's like the complainers live in an alternate reality or just listened to some influencer and never actually checked.
I do miss the rules that let me remove stuff based like CSS like selectors. The strange thing is, even though uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support that feature it's still totally possible to make an extension that does that. Maybe the specific thing uBlock Origin was doing is not possible but making an extension that follows rules and hides/deletes elements with different rules per site is still fully possible under manifest v3
But you can do this with uBOL? I’m not sure what you mean. I have multiple rules to hide elements on various sites. With HN I hide elements and can give it a custom CSS dark mode through uBOL. Works on both desktop and iOS.
In the short time I've used it I haven't noticed any appreciable difference.
I’ve found uBlock Origin Lite (and every other non-uBlock Origin blocker) to struggle with websites using Ad-Shield. (i.e. the entire website breaks.)
Haven’t tried it but apparently there is an unofficial port of the full version of uBlock Origin to work on manifest v3, the largest challenge being that, on manifest v3, the webRequestBlocking permission is only available to enterprise sideloaded extensions: https://github.com/r58Playz/uBlock-mv3
Great but as soon as Google decides to completely strip the `webRequest` API from the codebase, it's game over. Now that it's deprecated it's only a matter of time. This also means Brave, the last Chromium-based browser to support it, will also be unable to support it
You can have my ad blocker when you take it from my cold dead fingers. I will literally move to a shack in the woods rather than go back to late 90s level of bullshit advertising.
> move to a shack in the woods
That's what gemini:// is for.
And Dillo is the equivalent of a shepherds hut in the back garden.
It is worth mentioning that there are other options like NextDNS and similar, which complement uBO(L) nicely.
Support Firefox. F** Chrome.
Seriously.
The web is completely unusable without UBO+FF. Any time I have to use a clean browser, I feel assaulted and dirty, plus wonder what malware just got injected into my machine.
If it were to go away, I would probably accelerate retiring to an analog, offline life.
I mean did you try with Chrome and Ublock Original Lite? Because I have and there's literally no difference at all.
It's different under the hood. The crux of the difference is the webRequest API which is only available in Manifest v2. This allows uBlock to strip all tracking data from the requests themselves. So while Chrome w uBlock Lite is hiding almost all the same ads from you, it's not protecting you from tracking
The Lite version also relies solely on filter lists that require you to update the extension itself while the MV2 version can do so dynamically. Additionally, it lacks CNAME Uncloaking which I imagine will become much more commonplace soon enough which will make it impossible to block those ads
Fix?
Free Chrome. /s
+1 *
I'm a web developer and I have a deep love of Firefox. I've been on it since version 3 and I'll be with it to the bitter end. I love that uBlock Origin is still available and while the news of Firefox's declining market share can be quite concerning, I hope it will be around for a long time.
Manifest 3 is why I finally shut down Sitetruth and Ad Limiter. Removing ads from Google Search is now possible only in Firefox.
uBO still works in newest Vivaldi.
? I use Chrome and uBlock Origin lite. There are no ads on google search
I've been using Firefox for over 6 years now and I've never regretted it.
20 years and counting. :)
Thanks for every day that this browser works.
Sometimes I had to test something in Chrome - and it’s painful experience.
But it really depends on personal view - I have tried to convert my friends and they don’t feel it.
Sammme. Remember all the hullaballo about the AwesomeBar in Firefox 3?
https://ed.agadak.net/2008/03/beyond-awesome
Truly amazing stuff, in 2008.
I’ve never felt so old as I did reading this comment
I have been using Firefox for 20 years and the regrets kept accumulating till I switched to Chrome 3 years ago.
Care to share?
Remember when Firefox was the first browser to have "tabbed browsing"?
Obviously UBO isn't a first party feature - but if only Firefox could generate as much traction about ad blocking as they did with tabs.
I'm fairly sure Opera introduced it first.
Yes, well, kind of. Opera had Multiple Document Interface (MDI) which was actually (back then) far more flexible than tabs. But yes, Opera was first with MDI, and also I suppose the first web browser for the smartphone.
Yes. Opera (original, not what is called Opera now) introduced tabs first. I believe in the 5.0 version with presto engine.
No, because Opera and SimulBrowse had it years before Firefox even existed
Yeah, I remember.
I also remember it automatically blocking popup ads. That was a huge deal.
Does it really make a huge difference to keep supporting Manifest Version 2?
I've installed uBlock Origin Lite in my Edge browser and I don't see any ads there either.
Yes, huge difference
- MV2 version has sophisticated scripts to not only block ads but prevent tracking. With the lite version you might not be seeing most ads but you are certainly being tracked more
- MV3 version might "hide" ads but the MV2 version is blocking requests from every being made. All those stats you hear about improved battery and reduced bandwidth usage with an adblocker are only true for the MV2 version
- CNAME uncloaking is only done with MV2 version. That means when advertisers on sites cloak their CNAME, you won't be able to block them
- filters lists on Lite can only be updated when you install an update. In MV2 version it updates the lists dynamically. Advertisers change their domains all the time
YES!!
Then why haven't I see any difference in ad blocking with uBlock Origin Lite on Edge?
I was shaking my head when my fellow developers, and some hackers, moved from Firefox to mostly Chrome. “It has better dev tools you see”, “it’s so much faster you see”, and a boatload of other excuses.
But what about the remonopolization of the web? I remember how much it SUCKED when internet explorer had 95% of the web thanks to Microsoft’s illegal practices. I saw the same behaviour from Google, the ad company and they haven’t event gotten a slap on the wrist. Fuck, people fucking loves Google, despite their turn to the dark side.
Well here we are, with the open web almost dead. It’s time to revive it. Start using alternatives again. Seek out and support people and organisations that are actively working to build the community web, not this corporate shit it’s morphed into.
End rant
Yep. Chrome is the new IE. Zero difference. And Chrome was created to break the grip that IE had.
The big difference is that it's still updated.
Chrome became popular in the time where firefox was already more popular than IE.
Attestion (now via captcha) means that websites will presumably block Firefox and Google’s attempt to murder the web will be complete.
> But Firefox is one of the few web browsers remaining that isn’t based on Chromium, and it’s now the only major browser to still support uBlock Origin. Neither Safari nor DuckDuckGo—the two other major non-Chromium browsers out there—support uBlock Origin
Does anyone here use DuckDuckGo browser? I've honestly never heard of anyone using it, so I'm pretty surprised to see it categorized as a "major browser". I already basically think of Firefox users (which includes myself) as a pretty tiny minority, so I'm not sure how much smaller you can really get while still being "major".
I just use Brave. I haven't seen a YouTube ad in years.
There are ads on YouTube?
I got a Android tablet...I can't recommend it. YT has gotten pretty toxic with the dark patterns. There are the usual interstitial ads, but after you skip and go full screen there's another ad widget in the lower left of the video. You have carefully navigate a popup menu to dismiss it without triggering an ad popup. If you pause or double-tap to -10s the video it restores down and shows an ad on the right side.
The Edge browser for has the best ad-free experience I've found so far on Android. It supports Widevine (DRM videos) and performance is good enough for most videos. I do get an occasional stutter with higher res videos. Firefox supports Widevine, but it didn't last week? Or I just didn't get the popup to "Enable DRM" for some reason. Edge claims to have blocked 15k YT ads in the last week with the built-in AdBlock Plus. It works with uBlock Origin as well (this week anyway).
NewPipe is a YT frontend that blocks ads, allows downloading, can run in the background and is generally great. It's a killer app for Android in my opinion.
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
Firefox works fine on Android, and supports ublock origin and playing youtube in a background tab/with screen off. Couldn't speak to DRM as I've never used it on any platform.
On Android you can still patch the YouTube apk with Revanced and get rid of ads (and you can enable sponsorblock, etc).
Oh yes they are. Occassionally when I am on a device which doesn't have an ad-blocker. I witness it and I am always left feeling shocked at how many ads Youtube can have. We really don't know the plight of so so many Youtube users. I feel sympathy for them and want to hug them and install an ad-blocker for them.
I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who didn't even ask! I just feel like Ad blocker is such a useful thing that I can do to people that I care about who don't know deeply about it.
I must say that it is one of the top entries of lists of most useful/time-saving things I have done in actually saving anybody's actual time.
I express gratitude towards the universe for Ublock Origin. Words can't comprehend how much I love it.
But you see crypto ads in the browser's own settings.
Nope. I made the one-time payment for Brave Origin.
Firefox is also the only browser that supports anything like userChrome.css for customizing tabs, toolbar, address bar, menus, spacing, etc.
Thank 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.
It's on a time limit. Chromium deprecated MV2 but still keeps the webRequest API in the codebase. Google could at any time decide to strip it entirely. Or it could just stop working due to lack of maintenance as Chromium grows.
Brave is relying on a fork that takes advantage of the fact that the webRequest API is still technically there
Peter Theil was an angel investor in Brave. That alone is all the reason privacy-minded users need to avoid it.
As someone who lives in a country bordering russia, I will certainly switch to Brave now.
Because Peter Thiel gave them some money, there's some secret backdoor code that's sending all your information to Palantir?
It's quite likely that Brave itself collects data on your usage and shares at least some of it with Palantir.
This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.
There's no need to make assumptions. The source code is out there. Please, show us the relevant commits which do what you said.
Telemetry can be disabled in Brave. Any kind of history/bookmark syncing is opt-in.
You're just spreading FUD unless you have evidence that Brave funnels usage data in secret.
Firefox also collects and sells data to no one really knows who.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
I mean sure, but there's a bit of a difference between "sells data to no one really knows who" and "sells data to no one really knows who AND PALANTIR" which the original commenter seem to be flagging as a problem.
"no one really knows who" is probably also Palantir or someone who resells to Palantir.
Well Thiel investing in Brave once at the beginning doesn't necessarily mean that Palantir is getting any data now (even though it's presented as if it was a fact in other comments here). It's probable, but really it's just speculation, just like anyone can speculate about who's getting data from Firefox.
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
That is their MO
It's good but I find they EOL devices/OS's earlier than Firefox.
It's certainly better than stock Chrome but Firefox becoming relevant again is still the ideal option.
I think it's necessary for the future of the web. Ever since Opera gave up on Presto and Edge gave up on Trident, we've seen a massive and sudden consolidation towards Chromium. It's sad how quickly we forgot the lessons we learned from the days of IE's dominance
Sad indeed. What trully pisses me off though is the fact Mozilla has like hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, possibly a billion dollars, and yet they continue to neglect Firefox.
Brave is great. Works across windows/mac/ios/android/linux.
Isn’t Brave just another Chromium variant?
Chromium is detestable. In whatever form it takes.
What’s detestable is Firefox’s lack of security and Mozilla’s priorities surrounding it compared to Chromium
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1unhtxu/initial...
Brave is malware, I don't understand how anyone on HN can use it, baffles me every time.
They've literally been caught MITMing web pages for their own financial gains.
In that case Firefox is also out. They have been caught auto installing random hidden extensions with full read/write access to all websites and blocking uBlock Origin from working on, for example, the Firefox extension site.
I don't know why with LLMs we can't just add MV2/blocking web request support to Chromium in a fork.
The argument against was always that it's "too hard to keep a fork in sync". Now it's easier.
That's basically exactly what Brave (the only Chromium browser still supporting uBO) is doing to support uBlock Origin. But it's flimsy and likely has an expiration date.
AFAIK they are using the built-in support which Google still maintains even if they don't expose it.
My point is that when MV3 was announced there was an assumption that maintaining a Chromium fork to continue supporting MV2 would be too much work and too expensive. But now with LLMs that's no longer a safe assumption. The non-Chrome chromium based browsers can fork chromium and add back MV2. No need for any expiration date.
I just started using Zen (Firefox-based Arc clone) after Arc updated to Manifest V3. It's great! Last time I installed zen it was a battery hog, but it's much better now.
Obligatory:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/137fwhc/the_i...
1. Vivaldi supports uBlock Origin, if you consider Firefox a "major browser" then sure also Vivaldi and Brave are major browsers
2. while I use uBlock Origin on phone (Firefox) and desktop (Vivaldi), it's overrated, AdGuard works under MV3 AND unlike uBlock supports element picker, so if I was on browser not supporting uBO I would switch to AdGuard since I can't live without element picker
And we must protect it at all costs.
I love Firefox.
We need more browsers like Firefox - more open source, more open to standards that improve the web, that can improve our browsing experience.
I agree. The death of Edge's Trident and Opera's Presto has been really scary for the web. I know it's really far off but I truly hope Ladybird, Servo, and Flow succeed in building mature and competitive web engines
Then make one.
It is possible to write your own extension and still use it in Chrome as long as it's not bundled. It would be a huge pain to get the source for uBlock origin and implement it locally yourself, but it might be worth the pain to block ads.
The original uBO relies on Manifest V2, the API Chrome no longer supports. It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
>It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
Current version of Chrome seems to be 152.0.7977.39 released August 14, 2026.
August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based vivaldis napshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes:
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
Are there any Chromium-based mod/plugin loaders out there? I mean something that uses the same DLL/SO hijacking or injection tricks game hackers use to build mod loaders, to expose a hooking layer for plugins.
Firefox is now the only major browser, because it supports uBlock Origin.
Do people not remember Firefox changing their terms of service last year and allowing them to sell your data to third parties? I don't get it did people forget?
I switched over to LibreWolf and other browsers like that then and never looked back.
They rewrote the terms almost immediately after the backlash. They also claimed the original terms were written in response to the overly broad legal definitions of "data sales" under laws like the CCPA. Which tbh sounds reasonable
We all just either memory-holed it or convinced ourselves that it wasn't what it was. Easy to think you just misunderstood what they said, even though they were very explicit about it.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted; you're right. Firefox the browser is an amazingly capable tool but I wish it was shepherded by an org that prioritized its users' interests (privacy, performance, etc.) instead of ramming AI, crypto or cute marketing campaigns that NOBODY wants into its flagship offering.
Related:
Microsoft Edge is about to lock out older ad blockers, just like Chrome did
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220392
Edge is just chromium under the hood. So not a surprise there, should be easy lift for them.
Ads are so invasive and prevalent now that you need an ad blocker just to use the internet.
Yet 90% of people don’t use a browser capable of running ubo
Because all those other browsers can still block ads. I use ubo lite for safari and it's largely fine.
It will be "largely fine" until the ad networks start using the methods not blocked by the Lite version. You may not even notice that they start tracking you efficiently. See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... for some examples of things Ublock Lite can't do.
Related discussion:
uBlock Origin Lite now available for Safari (apps.apple.com)
1156 points by Jiahang on Aug 5, 2025 | 451 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825
Now? Sure seems like it's been that way for well over a decade.
uBO + Steven Black hosts list + firefox. Peace, for now at least.
What about Brave?
You can also run Ad Nauseum if you want to
Vivaldi 8.1 still supports it (Chromium 150) as loaded unpacked extension.
Edit: and latest August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based Snapshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes:
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
I wouldn't be sure this is a long term solution. Maintaining a this into perpetuity would probably take a lot of resources that Vivaldi team might not have.
Unless upstream introduces breaking changes I don't see why not. Google was killing this functionality for policy reasons, not because changes to the renderer required it or something. And LLM analysis is going to make maintaining forks easier going forward.
For all possible MV2 extensions this is unsustainable for a small company. Supporting just uBO used by tens of millions of people? pretty doable as it only relies on few hooks into C functions that arent going anywhere.
Firefox, after 20 years, once again has an advantage over the other browsers.
Let's hope for new generations to get tired of so many ads to finally ditch chrome.
Unfortunately, new generations seem to be completely fine with this. People in general, they're just so completely captured by the dark patterns that I get the impression they cannot even imagine a world without them.
I install uBlock Origin on every browser I come across. Everybody notices. The internet just feels better, somehow. People can't quite explain what changed, but they know.
And now you'll no longer be able to wake people up and show them the real world.
It's funny. Over 20 years ago, I got people to switch to Firefox because of the AdBlock extension.
In case people don't know, Firefox was the first major browser to even have extensions.
There is only XUL!
Long dead. Now there is no XUL, only (private user) data (that Mozilla sells for revenue)
I think they're making a Ghostbusters joke, btw
Also, Firebug showed what was possible with developer tools. Inspecting elements or network requests or whatever else wasn't really a thing before that extension.
I wonder if new generations will just get better and better at visually blocking off ads when they read. So many layouts are so common that I read a lot of sites and have absolutely no idea what ads they're running because 30-odd years of browsing rendered HTML pages has trained my brain to block off and not process certain areas of the page.
I'm not an advertising apologist, just pointing out that I can remember what ads were on a freemium TV station I watched two nights ago and what ads were on a radio station I listened to this afternoon but I can't remember a single web ad since...I don't know when. This might be because the TV ads have audio and visual, and with radio my alternative at the moment was looking out the window of my car, but web ads just seem very easy to mentally filter.
uBlock Origin Lite works decently on Chrome so I doubt this will help migration to Firefox.
Exactly. The difference between the two is not qualitatively different for 99% of users.
I noticed that UBO Lite doesn't cause the ad boxes to vanish like UBO does. You see this on the likes of the weather.com webpage.
Exactly. The Lite version is basically "hiding" ads rather than blocking. The MV2 version stops the requests themselves from being made which save your bandwidth and battery. The light version lacks those benefits
That's manifest V3 working as intended.
If only they focused on making Firefox the definitive good browser instead of a platform for their AI efforts.
Firefox will never convince people to leave chrome on philosophy alone. I detest Chrome with a passion and refuse to touch it with a ten-foot pole, but cannot in good faith recommend Firefox to anyone in today’s world. “It kinda works” is about as far a compliment you can give it.
"It kinda works" is factually incorrect.
I have used Firefox exclusively every day on macOS for the past year, several hours a day, and have not one single time had to open another browser. None of the customers of my B2B saas use Firefox. Not once have I needed to test in their browsers except quick smoke testing to prove to myself that the rendering and details are identical. All my other browsing is indistinguishable from before when I used Chrome, and from on mobile where I (tragically) am forced by Apple's monopoly to use Safari.
Do you have evidence to support your false claim?
Agreed, I can't understand where these experiences come from.
I only ever use Firefox, at work, at home, mobile. Since forever, as long as there has been a Firefox (and Mozilla before that, Netscape prior).
There was one time about 8-10 years ago that I encountered a site that didn't work in Firefox, was some weird proprietary training module at work.
So yes, I did encounter one site that didn't work in Firefox in the last ~20 years. One.
I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it was Google astroturfing every single thread relating to FF. Yes, Mozilla isn't perfect and had some questionable decisions, but we're somehow okay with the worse option out of the two? Somehow, Mozilla's decisions are enough to never use FF, but Google's infinitely many horrible ones are acceptable for.... What reason?
> Somehow, Mozilla's decisions are enough to never use FF, but Google's infinitely many horrible ones are acceptable for.... What reason?
I think these people are real and predate AI. I think it comes down to a fundamental psychology in how the two browsers are marketed online. Firefox users would say "Firefox is better than Chrome." Chrome users would say "Chrome is good." Firefox is touted as a better browser on the principle of the freedom it gives its users, and paradoxically, that draws heavy scrutiny.
I don't think I am doing a Goomba fallacy here. People that claim to care about privacy and browser freedom will express disgust with Mozilla then, in the same breath, say they are opting into Chrome out of spite, which is 100x worse.
> say they are opting into Chrome out of spite, which is 100x worse.
That is what is frustrating, indeed.
Firefox is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. There have been changes in Firefox over the years that I don't like. (I'm still hurting from it moving the tabs to the top, so annoying.)
In a scale of 1 (100% user-hostile) to 10 (absolutely perfect user-centered browser), Firefox only scores a, let's say, eight.
But chrome scores a solid 2, so obviously I'm not going to use it, ever, no matter if Firefox makes the occasional mis-step.
What do you think doesn’t work on Firefox? Aside from Google products purposely crippled, everything works just fine in my experience. It’s fast and stable. If there’s a bunch of AI stuff in it, I’ve not seen it. Of course I believe it exists, I just don’t ever read popups anyways. To be fair, I probably use 5% of the browser’s capability (I imagine many are like me). I browse websites and I have UBO installed.
In the last few months, I've seen a huge upsurge of sites that simply won't work for me in Firefox.
Not sure if it's the FF + Linux combination. Should probably try with a fresh profile to confirm.
It sucks, but I'm in on FF all the way. If much of the web stops working for me, it just means I have more time on my hands!
Anecdotally my own experience is consistent with this with the same platform+browser combination.
It appears that there are now significant numbers of sites - or at least noticeable parts or features of sites - that rely on Google-specific APIs and haven't been tested on other browsers.
However visiting those sites from Apple devices is often similarly frustrating. I'm not sure this is an anti-Firefox thing. It seems more of a not realising there are other browsers apart from Chromium-based ones thing.
I kinda wondered myself if this was some kind of coordinated effort to make Firefox not work. It wouldn't surprise me if it was later discovered that Google paid some Linux subsystem maintainer to slip in some nefarious code somewhere that altered the way Linux implements rendering specifications ever so slightly such that Firefox appeared broken. Just the conspiracy theorist in me.
Slack "huddles" (video chat) work on everything except Firefox+Linux. Haven't tried changing my user agent yet, only just got onto Slack for work.
You can change your UA and add Sec-CH-UA to match Chromium if you want to avoid the (non-ADA compliant) browser bias.
What doesn’t work? It’s my daily driver and it renders every website I visit.
I daily Zen (Firefox under the hood) and the only thing that I consistently need to open other browsers for is direct USB support (mouse/keyboard drivers in the browser). Other than that, I don't remember when was the last time something wasn't working in Firefox.
I'm just waiting for Apple's OS level AI that lets me block ads in all apps, including the App Store
What's preventing anyone to just spend some tokens and bring it back and fork Chrome? I think ungoogled Chromium still supports it, right?
If you don't care about DRM content, bookmark syncing etc, sure, use a bare minimum chromium fork with the patch.
But that's not what most users, including uBlock origin users, want.
Too bad Firefox isn't a major browser.
And it shouldn't be. It's now full of ads for Mozilla VPN and stuff. We need the engine, but not the browser.
The benefit of open source here is there are forked versions of it you can download.
And who is going to finance that?
Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do. I had ~7 standard extensions that I pretty much always install into chrome browser. Over the past month or so I've been using Claude code to build a single custom extension that handles all of the things I used 7 extensions for previously. One extension does everything. You can even use the existing extensions you already use as guides for Claude to make sure all of the features you want are included. One extension to rule them all!
>Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do
Yes, that's why google moved to manifest v3 and extensions can't do as much.
Can't they just modify the browser itself with an injection into the executable
surely there is a way around that
Operative work there is 'just'
okay and AI makes that easier than ever?
Have a MVP?