4 ms·

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

by zwaps 1y ago

crazygringo 1y ago
> It is true though. Like, literally. Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me? > Why do you think it is called Lite? Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.
- fsflover 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873
- rstat1 1y ago
  Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice. Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now. And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally wanted it to minimize resources. You can install a dedicated zapper extension if you want that. I genuinely don't understand where this narrative of "adblockers don't work anymore on Chrome" is coming from. Again, it's just not true, but keeps getting repeated like it is.
    - rstat1 1y ago
      >>It's not "tons of missing functionality" https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... Okay. Sure.
    - tech234a 1y ago
      Element zapper functionality is returning: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/325 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/325
    - rustcleaner 1y ago
      I think the ultimate fix is to make it a felony to pay someone to say a message as if it's his own (meaning an actor Ford pays to be in an ad needs to say "Ford paid me to say ..." at the start of every sentence uttered which states an opinion, if that is not the true opinion of the actor). It must also be a felony for someone to accept money in exchange for stating provided opinions as if they were his own. Customers in ads giving true testimonial reviews must state they are being paid (if so) at the beginning of their statements in the ad. Only quantitative and qualitative content about the product or service advertised should be allowed, anything which sets tone, vibe, or otherwise emotionally communicates to the viewer needs to be banned. This also goes for food product boxes, with the additional rule that 75% of the non-barcode front label area must be nutrition and ingredients, while logo/brand work and propaganda is limited to the remaining 25%. Back label is an exact (maybe B&W) copy of the front. Ads should also mostly be found in directories where people go looking for services or things, and NOT plastered everywhere ready to rape brains for quick nickels. We need an advertising censorship board that keeps records on both ad makers and client businesses, so that chronic offenders get smacked down hard. Once advertising is dead, you will see a much more free and level internet.
    - xnx 1y ago
      I hate ads with a passion and would stop using Chrome immediately if I started seeing ads. I agree on all counts. uBlock Origin Lite has been a totally satisfactory substitute. I honestly couldn't tell you when the switchover even happened.
    - pixxel 1y ago
      [dead]
- rpdillon 1y ago
  One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2. > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO can be converted to MV3 DNR rules, some websites may not be filtered as with uBO. A specific example in following tweet. You can read about the specific differences in the FAQ: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... My personal take is if you're a pretty unsophisticated user and you mostly don't actually interact with the add-ons at all, Manifest V3 will probably be fine. If you understand how ads and tracking work and you are using advanced features of the extension to manage that, then Manifest V2 will be much, much better. Dynamic filters alone are a huge win.
  - ufmace 1y ago
    I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit. I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot of those things. Or vague assertions that it's not doing something which is allegedly important, where it's never actually explained what that thing it's not doing is and why it's important. I have yet to see anybody show a specific example of a website where Lite doesn't actually work well enough. Or of any other specific thing it's not doing. I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing. If it can't be explained simply and clearly what it's not doing that's so important, maybe it's not actually missing anything important at all. I suppose I am a unsophisticated user of web browsers. I never got around to understanding or interacting with all the details of what "proper" uBO can do. Yet I still seem to browse the web just fine, and even build webapps sometimes, and I don't see any ads. So what's this great thing that I'm missing?
tredre3 1y ago
The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. " This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it. Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.
- stavros 1y ago
  So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3, it means that ad blockers function properly in MV3? Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    > Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"? Of course it doesn't, if MV2 provided a bunch of edge case stuff that doesn't matter for normal adblocking. > So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3 That's a silly thing to say. No, it's that if it's blocking 99.9+% of ads it should definitely be considered to be functioning properly. Which uBOL definitely is. Quibbling over whether it blocks 99.999% or 99.99999% is not relevant to whether it functions "properly". It clearly does.
    - asadotzler 1y ago
      You're making up numbers as bad as the person's you're responding to. My made up numbers are more like 98% for uBlock Origin and 95% for Lite, and Origin is maintaining that number while Lite is losing about a point ever couple of months. My expectation is that in a few years, Lite will be not only deficient, but entirely failing to meet expectations of the full version users. For me, it's already getting close.
- jwrallie 1y ago
  > Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking. It can be relevant depending of how you define properly. If it depends on any of those functionalities that are missing, then it’s relevant.

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

by zwaps 1y ago

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

> It is true though. Like, literally. Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me? > Why do you think it is called Lite? Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

fsflover 1y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873
rstat1 1y ago
Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice. Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now. And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally wanted it to minimize resources. You can install a dedicated zapper extension if you want that. I genuinely don't understand where this narrative of "adblockers don't work anymore on Chrome" is coming from. Again, it's just not true, but keeps getting repeated like it is.
  - rstat1 1y ago
    >>It's not "tons of missing functionality" https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... Okay. Sure.
  - tech234a 1y ago
    Element zapper functionality is returning: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/325 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/325
  - rustcleaner 1y ago
    I think the ultimate fix is to make it a felony to pay someone to say a message as if it's his own (meaning an actor Ford pays to be in an ad needs to say "Ford paid me to say ..." at the start of every sentence uttered which states an opinion, if that is not the true opinion of the actor). It must also be a felony for someone to accept money in exchange for stating provided opinions as if they were his own. Customers in ads giving true testimonial reviews must state they are being paid (if so) at the beginning of their statements in the ad. Only quantitative and qualitative content about the product or service advertised should be allowed, anything which sets tone, vibe, or otherwise emotionally communicates to the viewer needs to be banned. This also goes for food product boxes, with the additional rule that 75% of the non-barcode front label area must be nutrition and ingredients, while logo/brand work and propaganda is limited to the remaining 25%. Back label is an exact (maybe B&W) copy of the front. Ads should also mostly be found in directories where people go looking for services or things, and NOT plastered everywhere ready to rape brains for quick nickels. We need an advertising censorship board that keeps records on both ad makers and client businesses, so that chronic offenders get smacked down hard. Once advertising is dead, you will see a much more free and level internet.
  - xnx 1y ago
    I hate ads with a passion and would stop using Chrome immediately if I started seeing ads. I agree on all counts. uBlock Origin Lite has been a totally satisfactory substitute. I honestly couldn't tell you when the switchover even happened.
  - pixxel 1y ago
    [dead]
rpdillon 1y ago
One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that it-works-on-my-machine effect. Anecdotal evidence is easily surpassed by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that are changing. Here's what the author of uBlock Origin says about its capabilities in Manifest V3 versus Manifest V2. > About "uBO Lite should be fine": It actually depends on the websites you visit. Not all filters supported by uBO can be converted to MV3 DNR rules, some websites may not be filtered as with uBO. A specific example in following tweet. You can read about the specific differences in the FAQ: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... My personal take is if you're a pretty unsophisticated user and you mostly don't actually interact with the add-ons at all, Manifest V3 will probably be fine. If you understand how ads and tracking work and you are using advanced features of the extension to manage that, then Manifest V2 will be much, much better. Dynamic filters alone are a huge win.
- ufmace 1y ago
  I agree with crazygringo that uBlock Origin Lite seems to work fine for me as far as blocking ads on the websites I visit. I also agree that these discussions can be frustrating. In my opinion, that's because people claiming that Lite isn't good enough only seem to post super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details about what it can't do, when I don't understand the practical upshot of those things. Or vague assertions that it's not doing something which is allegedly important, where it's never actually explained what that thing it's not doing is and why it's important. I have yet to see anybody show a specific example of a website where Lite doesn't actually work well enough. Or of any other specific thing it's not doing. I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing. If it can't be explained simply and clearly what it's not doing that's so important, maybe it's not actually missing anything important at all. I suppose I am a unsophisticated user of web browsers. I never got around to understanding or interacting with all the details of what "proper" uBO can do. Yet I still seem to browse the web just fine, and even build webapps sometimes, and I don't see any ads. So what's this great thing that I'm missing?

tredre3 1y ago

The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. " This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it. Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

stavros 1y ago
So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3, it means that ad blockers function properly in MV3? Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"?
- crazygringo 1y ago
  > Do you not agree that "properly" means "having all the functionality they had with MV2"? Of course it doesn't, if MV2 provided a bunch of edge case stuff that doesn't matter for normal adblocking. > So your argument is that if an extension could block even a single ad with MV3 That's a silly thing to say. No, it's that if it's blocking 99.9+% of ads it should definitely be considered to be functioning properly. Which uBOL definitely is. Quibbling over whether it blocks 99.999% or 99.99999% is not relevant to whether it functions "properly". It clearly does.
  - asadotzler 1y ago
    You're making up numbers as bad as the person's you're responding to. My made up numbers are more like 98% for uBlock Origin and 95% for Lite, and Origin is maintaining that number while Lite is losing about a point ever couple of months. My expectation is that in a few years, Lite will be not only deficient, but entirely failing to meet expectations of the full version users. For me, it's already getting close.
jwrallie 1y ago
> Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking. It can be relevant depending of how you define properly. If it depends on any of those functionalities that are missing, then it’s relevant.