3 ms·
+1. I prefer to use uBlock Origin Lite, even on Firefox. The ambient permissions that uBlock Origin requires on all sites is too risky.
by rodlette 3y ago
+1. I prefer to use uBlock Origin Lite, even on Firefox.
The ambient permissions that uBlock Origin requires on all sites is too risky.
- kelnos 3y agoOn the other hand, I trust uBlock Origin's developer with my privacy a hell of a lot more than I trust Google. I might even say I trust him more than I trust Mozilla these days.
- rodlette 3y agoI trust the developer too, but the developer isn't the only person you must trust when you accept wide ambient permissions. You must also trust the entire supply chain. I see it as good hygiene to remove wide ambient permissions.
- zlg_codes 3y agoWhat obvious astroturfing. The Lite version is worse than the original in every way.
- chlorion 3y agoI don't think its astroturfing, but if it is I have used it and I'm pretty sure I'm not an astroturfer! I used the lite version while using chromium for a little while and it worked ok for me. The issue I had with it wasn't that it didn't effectively block ads, it's that you can't block arbitrary elements with the zapper (afaik). I use the element zapper to block non-ad related things sometimes. For me, I'm torn on whether the extra security is worth this limitation or not, and so far I have went back to using the normal ublock, and I have went back to using firefox because chromium crashed fairly often when using the wayland renderer. There is some way you can grant ublock lite more permissions on specific sites, I'm not sure what this does, and I don't think it brings back the element zapper, but it would be cool if it did.