5 ms·

So Chrome doesn’t support the API that uBlock Origin could use to block such ads whereas Firefox does (with the user’s permission). [1] One more reason why Chro

So Chrome doesn’t support the API that uBlock Origin could use to block such ads whereas Firefox does (with the user’s permission). [1] One more reason why Chrome will soon be seen as mostly useless for users of ad blocking extensions. Hope Firefox keeps alive the things that make uBlock Origin a necessity for a decent browsing experience. [1]: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/780#issuecomment-552477648 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/780#iss...

pythux 7y ago
Once Manifestv3 is rolled-out, Chrome will not support uBlock Origin at all.
- arthurfm 7y ago
  The developer of Nano Adblocker (which is a fork of uBlock Origin) may continue working on a manifest v3 compatible adblocking extension for Chromium-based browsers. https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/238 https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/238
- jackdh 7y ago
  I look it up but I can't see a clear answer of why?
  - newscracker 7y ago
    Manifest V3 doesn’t allow requests to be intercepted and modified by extensions, which is something uBlock Origin requires to block ads and elements on a page. The proposed way for content blocking in Manifest V3 is how Safari on iOS implemented it a few years ago — a declarative list of URLs to be blocked is provided by the extension and the browser engine looks that up and blocks them. The extension doesn’t see the actual page URLs or requests, leave alone block them. This is a positive for privacy since the browsing behavior of the user is not exposed to malicious extensions. But uBlock Origin is not some-random-extension-that-wants-to-steal-information. Treating uBlock Origin like any other extension isn’t good. Since Google makes money by selling ads, there will likely not be any concessions on this front.
    - dannyw 7y ago
      Manifest v3 still allows browser extensions to observe web requests. It just stops web extensions from blocking them. There is no win for privacy here.
tnorthcutt 7y ago
I switched to Firefox recently, partly because of this issue. I used it for 2-3 months, but eventually went back to Chrome because of poor performance; Firefox frequently lagged on typing input, hung, etc. in situations where Chrome does not. I hope things improve. Caveat: I was using Firefox Developer Edition... I wonder if "normal" FF would be better.
- Fiveplus 7y ago
  The stable release of Firefox hasn't lagged or given me any troubles. Neither on my work PC nor on my personal 5 year old laptop with mere 4 Gigs of RAM and no SSD. Disclaimer : I use about 6 privacy focused addons in total.
  - idonotknowwhy 7y ago
    Which addons? I'm currently using Vimium-FF and Ublock Origin.
    - sk5t 7y ago
      Not OP but EFF's Privacy Badger is pretty great.
      - newscracker 7y ago
        Privacy Possum is a better fork of Privacy Badger.
    - chopin 7y ago
      PrivacyBadger, Ublock Origin, UMatrix and lately Toggle Resist Fingerprinting.
- Justsignedup 7y ago
  Been on FF for a year now. I can say I like it better than chrome. And use it on mobile.
- mcdevilkiller 7y ago
scrumbledober 7y ago
Is there any way to use firefox with chrome dev tools? I can't bother using a different browser for personal use and work use and can't imagine using anything else for work.
- rhizome 7y ago
  What does Chrome Devtools have that Firefox's doesn't?
burtonator 7y ago
Is anyone working on keeping this functionality within chromium directly, or a fork? Seems like it would be a good way to push back on this. Try to use Youtube without an ad blocker. It's insane.
- dijit 7y ago
  I've been using qutebrowser (which has a very barebones ad-blocker) for some time. So I can confirm that Youtube is awful without an adblocker; It's very common to see: "Ad 1 of 2", the first of which is unskippable, the second of which needs 5 seconds to be skipped (if it's skippable at all). Then you get the content which is almost always sponsored and opens with an ad of its own "this video sponsored by squarespace" etc; A deluge of marketing, and somehow "not profitable". I don't get it.

pythux 7y ago

Once Manifestv3 is rolled-out, Chrome will not support uBlock Origin at all.

arthurfm 7y ago
The developer of Nano Adblocker (which is a fork of uBlock Origin) may continue working on a manifest v3 compatible adblocking extension for Chromium-based browsers. https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/238 https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/238
jackdh 7y ago
I look it up but I can't see a clear answer of why?
- newscracker 7y ago
  Manifest V3 doesn’t allow requests to be intercepted and modified by extensions, which is something uBlock Origin requires to block ads and elements on a page. The proposed way for content blocking in Manifest V3 is how Safari on iOS implemented it a few years ago — a declarative list of URLs to be blocked is provided by the extension and the browser engine looks that up and blocks them. The extension doesn’t see the actual page URLs or requests, leave alone block them. This is a positive for privacy since the browsing behavior of the user is not exposed to malicious extensions. But uBlock Origin is not some-random-extension-that-wants-to-steal-information. Treating uBlock Origin like any other extension isn’t good. Since Google makes money by selling ads, there will likely not be any concessions on this front.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    Manifest v3 still allows browser extensions to observe web requests. It just stops web extensions from blocking them. There is no win for privacy here.

tnorthcutt 7y ago

I switched to Firefox recently, partly because of this issue. I used it for 2-3 months, but eventually went back to Chrome because of poor performance; Firefox frequently lagged on typing input, hung, etc. in situations where Chrome does not. I hope things improve. Caveat: I was using Firefox Developer Edition... I wonder if "normal" FF would be better.

Fiveplus 7y ago
The stable release of Firefox hasn't lagged or given me any troubles. Neither on my work PC nor on my personal 5 year old laptop with mere 4 Gigs of RAM and no SSD. Disclaimer : I use about 6 privacy focused addons in total.
- idonotknowwhy 7y ago
  Which addons? I'm currently using Vimium-FF and Ublock Origin.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    Not OP but EFF's Privacy Badger is pretty great.
    - newscracker 7y ago
      Privacy Possum is a better fork of Privacy Badger.
  - chopin 7y ago
    PrivacyBadger, Ublock Origin, UMatrix and lately Toggle Resist Fingerprinting.
Justsignedup 7y ago
Been on FF for a year now. I can say I like it better than chrome. And use it on mobile.
mcdevilkiller 7y ago

scrumbledober 7y ago

Is there any way to use firefox with chrome dev tools? I can't bother using a different browser for personal use and work use and can't imagine using anything else for work.

rhizome 7y ago
What does Chrome Devtools have that Firefox's doesn't?

burtonator 7y ago

Is anyone working on keeping this functionality within chromium directly, or a fork? Seems like it would be a good way to push back on this. Try to use Youtube without an ad blocker. It's insane.

dijit 7y ago
I've been using qutebrowser (which has a very barebones ad-blocker) for some time. So I can confirm that Youtube is awful without an adblocker; It's very common to see: "Ad 1 of 2", the first of which is unskippable, the second of which needs 5 seconds to be skipped (if it's skippable at all). Then you get the content which is almost always sponsored and opens with an ad of its own "this video sponsored by squarespace" etc; A deluge of marketing, and somehow "not profitable". I don't get it.