5 ms·

Nyxt seems amazing, but it's hard for me to imagine using a browser without Ublock Origin. I understand that it doesn't really make sense for everyone to suppor

Nyxt seems amazing, but it's hard for me to imagine using a browser without Ublock Origin. I understand that it doesn't really make sense for everyone to support webextensions, and it's a huge amount of extra work, but it's just a huge barrier to adoption. It's hard to trust the smaller browsers to keep me private online if there isn't something that gives me that same level of control over blocking. And there's a huge adblocking community built around this software that maintains lists, fixes websites, and it's just a bunch of privacy-focused community effort that is hard for any small team to replicate. But aside from webextension support, Nyxt looks really exciting, and I'm glad that people are building browsers that are actually innovating in this space.

christophilus 6y ago
As scriptable as Nyxt looks, I imagine you could pretty easily wire it up to block a list of domains.
- danShumway 6y ago
  The problem is that UBlock Origin goes way beyond just blocking a list of domains, it's not just a Piihole. It's also doing CNAME uncloaking, request rewriting, stubbing functions in pages, it has syntax to handle CSS changes, it has rules that allow requests to only go through in certain contexts or if they're originating from certain domains. And most importantly, there's a giant community of people basically standardized on Ublock Origin who maintain all of these lists and who are constantly identifying new threats and proposing new features. So a competitor to Ublock Origin would need to be constantly competing with it, it would need to be pulling in new features as they got released, and it would need to be consuming the same lists that Ublock Origin uses. It's just really hard to keep pace with that. If Mozilla came out tomorrow and said they were going to do native adblocking, I would trust them less than Ublock Origin. I don't think even they would be able to keep pace if they were trying to build a community from scratch.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    I would however be interested in Mozilla folding UBO into Firefox officially though. Sadly, I doubt that'll ever happen with the amount of funding they get from Google.
  - dudik 6y ago
    What about blockit[0]? It does implement some of the features you need. It's still a WIP, but I'm actively working on it and it uses the adblock-rust library from Brave, which is already able to compete with uBlock Origin. [0] https://github.com/dudik/blockit https://github.com/dudik/blockit
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Looks very promising! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like adblock-rust also handles CNAME resolution? That's pretty good. And I also like that it directly consumes adblock rules, it doesn't require them to be converted into a new format. That being said: > it has rules that allow requests to only go through in certain contexts or if they're originating from certain domains I haven't personally seen a proposal for server-based blocking outside of the browser that could begin to tackle this problem, and contextual blocking is a huge part of what makes browser adblockers work so well. As far as I can tell, adblock-rust isn't an exception to that. It's a very difficult problem. In order for you to have a rule like "block 3rd-party requests on a-bank-website.com", you need more information than just the request itself. Maybe this is something where sites could piggyback off of CORS requests? But browsers don't always send CORS requests. I'm not sure what the solution would be, but regardless I don't think that blockit would be a replacement in its current state. Still looks like a promising project as a network-based blocker though.
samename 6y ago
Have you considered blocking on the DNS level with a hosts file or NextDNS?
- danShumway 6y ago
  DNS blocks are good, but not really comparable to what a modern browser adblocker does. The state of adblocking on the web has gotten a lot more involved as both websites and adblockers have evolved in the kind of cat-and-mouse game they play with each other.
boogies 6y ago
WebExtension support is ‘on their roadmap’ (thanks dang for the discussion and so much else): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972374
- danShumway 6y ago
  That is fantastic to hear! It's a really compelling project, with webextension support I could easily see myself moving over to a scriptable browser built on something like Servo.
- Cloudef 6y ago
  WebExtension support might make me consider this over qutebrowser.
netflixandkill 6y ago
This is primarily why I use Brave, particularly on phones. I've had some form of ublock and js whitelisting since 2002 or so and don't even recognize most sites without them. I assume a lot of the potential "early adopters" for any new browser are privacy/security focused and as neat as it is conceptually that's going to be a steep climb for any new project.
bbeesley 6y ago
It makes a lot more sense to ad block system wide than to expect every bit of software you use to implement extensions to allow you to do it. There are plenty of services like AdGuard and Lockdown, they can use the same lists that ublock uses, and you protect not just your browser but your email and everything else you use. Some routers will let you do something similar, and you can add a pihole to your network if your router won’t help.
- rovr138 6y ago
  Host based lists help to a point but they are also easy to bypass. Get everyone to add a cname or rotate the domains. If they use the main domain and proxy the requests, you can’t block the domain without breaking the site. That’s why there are lists that operate on selectors and the content on the pages too.
- danShumway 6y ago
  It would be great to move adblocking to an OS/network level, but DNS blocking just isn't comparable to what a browser-level adblocker does. To get to the point where I would feel comfortable having my OS handle browser blocking, a reasonable chunk web browser functionality would need to be moved out of the browser and onto the OS. I just don't see that happening any time soon, and I'm not sure that's the direction we would want to move with browsers anyway. Ublock Origin will do things like stub Javascript methods on the page. A Piihole can't do that. And even for simple things like blocking requests based on the current domain -- the movement towards DoH and SNI are going to make that harder and harder as time progresses. You really need an interface that has insight into not just what requests you're making, but where/why you're making them. Not to say that system wide blockers don't have value, but they're really there for the apps that can't handle their own adblocking. They're a defense in depth for the requests that slip through other parts of your setup, but they're not a good replacement for a browser extension.
  - rnhmjoj 6y ago
    All you're asking is already possible with Privoxy[1], which is even stronger than a browser adblocker. It's a very old software: it used to be unmaintained and lacking some essential features, but thankfully the development resumed and is now fully fuctional again with the modern web. It can be used as an adblocker based on domain, request path, HTTP headers, etc, but it can do much more. It can redirect requests (for example, replacing assets from a CDN with a local cache), modify headers (stripping or making cookies temporary, changing user agent, etc.) and even rewrite the content of web pages using regular expressions or any external program. By default, it has only a basic configuration that blocks tracking and ads, but there are tools[2] that convert adblock rules to the Privoxy format, so it will be functionally equivalent to adblock. It acts as a CONNECT proxy, so you can run it locally or on a router and if combined with a NAT rule, it can also work transparently (obviously, you need to manually trust a CA certificate for https). [1]: https://www.privoxy.org/ https://www.privoxy.org/ [2]: https://github.com/essandess/adblock2privoxy https://github.com/essandess/adblock2privoxy
CyberRabbi 6y ago
Actually I would invert the problem: I wish nyxt itself were a webextension. IME Using a WebKit forks (or whatever) will always eventually be insufficient.
- dvdkon 6y ago
  Unfortunately, it can't. Even something as simple as catching all keypresses globally is impossible with WebExtensions. Having to insert UI elements into pages is also pretty limiting and not a great user-experience with resource-hogging sites.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    Seems like a missed opportunity
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aasutossh 6y ago
smh uBlock makes life so easier on web.
amagumori 6y ago
this is why i think Gemini is the most interesting thing happening in the web space today. the browser itself can't overcome the fundamental bloat and decay of the web as we know it today; the heavier and heavier js load, the ridiculous ad load that necessitates entire extensions just to escape from it; etc, etc. Gemini is a project that actually attacks the root of the problem by presenting an extremely stripped-down hypertext format and giving an alternative at the protocol level. i highly recommend checking out Gemini https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi and the Lagrange Browser https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange if you find this interesting. at least for my circle, there's a consensus that the web has calcified and become such a walled garden that we've reached a time where it makes sense to "start over" at a pretty base level; rather than trying to build on top of a platform that, by its nature, inevitably tends towards centralization and capitalization.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  > the browser itself can't overcome the fundamental bloat and decay of the web as we know it today There's nothing "fundamental" about web bloat. Here's a simple litmus test for Gemini: take a look at a few of the personal websites for people who've spoken highly of Gemini. How many of them have exercised restraint and eschewed with all the sorts of things that Gemini disallows? How many of them have embraced features of the Web that are not permitted in Gemini? > rather than trying to build on top of a platform that, by its nature, inevitably tends towards centralization and capitalization If we take it for granted that it's true of the Web (and that's being generous), why is Gemini going to fare better? These all seem like a bunch of vague and empty talking points for a piece of tech who's main catalyst for coming into interest and capturing attention comes down to NIH, and not actually any fundamental correctness about its nature.

christophilus 6y ago

As scriptable as Nyxt looks, I imagine you could pretty easily wire it up to block a list of domains.

danShumway 6y ago
The problem is that UBlock Origin goes way beyond just blocking a list of domains, it's not just a Piihole. It's also doing CNAME uncloaking, request rewriting, stubbing functions in pages, it has syntax to handle CSS changes, it has rules that allow requests to only go through in certain contexts or if they're originating from certain domains. And most importantly, there's a giant community of people basically standardized on Ublock Origin who maintain all of these lists and who are constantly identifying new threats and proposing new features. So a competitor to Ublock Origin would need to be constantly competing with it, it would need to be pulling in new features as they got released, and it would need to be consuming the same lists that Ublock Origin uses. It's just really hard to keep pace with that. If Mozilla came out tomorrow and said they were going to do native adblocking, I would trust them less than Ublock Origin. I don't think even they would be able to keep pace if they were trying to build a community from scratch.
- Shared404 6y ago
  I would however be interested in Mozilla folding UBO into Firefox officially though. Sadly, I doubt that'll ever happen with the amount of funding they get from Google.
- dudik 6y ago
  What about blockit[0]? It does implement some of the features you need. It's still a WIP, but I'm actively working on it and it uses the adblock-rust library from Brave, which is already able to compete with uBlock Origin. [0] https://github.com/dudik/blockit https://github.com/dudik/blockit
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Looks very promising! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like adblock-rust also handles CNAME resolution? That's pretty good. And I also like that it directly consumes adblock rules, it doesn't require them to be converted into a new format. That being said: > it has rules that allow requests to only go through in certain contexts or if they're originating from certain domains I haven't personally seen a proposal for server-based blocking outside of the browser that could begin to tackle this problem, and contextual blocking is a huge part of what makes browser adblockers work so well. As far as I can tell, adblock-rust isn't an exception to that. It's a very difficult problem. In order for you to have a rule like "block 3rd-party requests on a-bank-website.com", you need more information than just the request itself. Maybe this is something where sites could piggyback off of CORS requests? But browsers don't always send CORS requests. I'm not sure what the solution would be, but regardless I don't think that blockit would be a replacement in its current state. Still looks like a promising project as a network-based blocker though.

samename 6y ago

Have you considered blocking on the DNS level with a hosts file or NextDNS?

danShumway 6y ago
DNS blocks are good, but not really comparable to what a modern browser adblocker does. The state of adblocking on the web has gotten a lot more involved as both websites and adblockers have evolved in the kind of cat-and-mouse game they play with each other.

boogies 6y ago

WebExtension support is ‘on their roadmap’ (thanks dang for the discussion and so much else): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972374

danShumway 6y ago
That is fantastic to hear! It's a really compelling project, with webextension support I could easily see myself moving over to a scriptable browser built on something like Servo.
Cloudef 6y ago
WebExtension support might make me consider this over qutebrowser.

netflixandkill 6y ago

This is primarily why I use Brave, particularly on phones. I've had some form of ublock and js whitelisting since 2002 or so and don't even recognize most sites without them. I assume a lot of the potential "early adopters" for any new browser are privacy/security focused and as neat as it is conceptually that's going to be a steep climb for any new project.

bbeesley 6y ago

It makes a lot more sense to ad block system wide than to expect every bit of software you use to implement extensions to allow you to do it. There are plenty of services like AdGuard and Lockdown, they can use the same lists that ublock uses, and you protect not just your browser but your email and everything else you use. Some routers will let you do something similar, and you can add a pihole to your network if your router won’t help.

rovr138 6y ago
Host based lists help to a point but they are also easy to bypass. Get everyone to add a cname or rotate the domains. If they use the main domain and proxy the requests, you can’t block the domain without breaking the site. That’s why there are lists that operate on selectors and the content on the pages too.
danShumway 6y ago
It would be great to move adblocking to an OS/network level, but DNS blocking just isn't comparable to what a browser-level adblocker does. To get to the point where I would feel comfortable having my OS handle browser blocking, a reasonable chunk web browser functionality would need to be moved out of the browser and onto the OS. I just don't see that happening any time soon, and I'm not sure that's the direction we would want to move with browsers anyway. Ublock Origin will do things like stub Javascript methods on the page. A Piihole can't do that. And even for simple things like blocking requests based on the current domain -- the movement towards DoH and SNI are going to make that harder and harder as time progresses. You really need an interface that has insight into not just what requests you're making, but where/why you're making them. Not to say that system wide blockers don't have value, but they're really there for the apps that can't handle their own adblocking. They're a defense in depth for the requests that slip through other parts of your setup, but they're not a good replacement for a browser extension.
- rnhmjoj 6y ago
  All you're asking is already possible with Privoxy[1], which is even stronger than a browser adblocker. It's a very old software: it used to be unmaintained and lacking some essential features, but thankfully the development resumed and is now fully fuctional again with the modern web. It can be used as an adblocker based on domain, request path, HTTP headers, etc, but it can do much more. It can redirect requests (for example, replacing assets from a CDN with a local cache), modify headers (stripping or making cookies temporary, changing user agent, etc.) and even rewrite the content of web pages using regular expressions or any external program. By default, it has only a basic configuration that blocks tracking and ads, but there are tools[2] that convert adblock rules to the Privoxy format, so it will be functionally equivalent to adblock. It acts as a CONNECT proxy, so you can run it locally or on a router and if combined with a NAT rule, it can also work transparently (obviously, you need to manually trust a CA certificate for https). [1]: https://www.privoxy.org/ https://www.privoxy.org/ [2]: https://github.com/essandess/adblock2privoxy https://github.com/essandess/adblock2privoxy

CyberRabbi 6y ago

Actually I would invert the problem: I wish nyxt itself were a webextension. IME Using a WebKit forks (or whatever) will always eventually be insufficient.

dvdkon 6y ago
Unfortunately, it can't. Even something as simple as catching all keypresses globally is impossible with WebExtensions. Having to insert UI elements into pages is also pretty limiting and not a great user-experience with resource-hogging sites.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Seems like a missed opportunity

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aasutossh 6y ago

smh uBlock makes life so easier on web.

amagumori 6y ago

this is why i think Gemini is the most interesting thing happening in the web space today. the browser itself can't overcome the fundamental bloat and decay of the web as we know it today; the heavier and heavier js load, the ridiculous ad load that necessitates entire extensions just to escape from it; etc, etc. Gemini is a project that actually attacks the root of the problem by presenting an extremely stripped-down hypertext format and giving an alternative at the protocol level. i highly recommend checking out Gemini https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi and the Lagrange Browser https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange if you find this interesting. at least for my circle, there's a consensus that the web has calcified and become such a walled garden that we've reached a time where it makes sense to "start over" at a pretty base level; rather than trying to build on top of a platform that, by its nature, inevitably tends towards centralization and capitalization.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
> the browser itself can't overcome the fundamental bloat and decay of the web as we know it today There's nothing "fundamental" about web bloat. Here's a simple litmus test for Gemini: take a look at a few of the personal websites for people who've spoken highly of Gemini. How many of them have exercised restraint and eschewed with all the sorts of things that Gemini disallows? How many of them have embraced features of the Web that are not permitted in Gemini? > rather than trying to build on top of a platform that, by its nature, inevitably tends towards centralization and capitalization If we take it for granted that it's true of the Web (and that's being generous), why is Gemini going to fare better? These all seem like a bunch of vague and empty talking points for a piece of tech who's main catalyst for coming into interest and capturing attention comes down to NIH, and not actually any fundamental correctness about its nature.