5 ms·

But MV3 supports uBlock Origin Lite. Which, in my experience, blocks ads just as well, but also lets pages load significantly faster. MV3 supports uBlock.

Moldoteck 6mo ago
It supports limited ublock functionality, not all of it, which will gradually be exploited by ad corps like google unless you think those are saints
- crazygringo 6mo ago
  The point is that it supports everything that currently matters in any substantial way. Lots of people have been pointing out that ad companies will figure ways out around it. But they really haven't been. MV3 and UBOL have been in wide usage for about a year and a half now. And nothing has been changing. Adblocking continues to be great. The fact of the matter is, the ad block lists were getting so large and the JavaScript functionality was slow and it was significantly impacting page load times. UBOL uses vastly more efficient compiled code that is part of the browser and is just a far better ad blocking experience altogether. But I guess that just doesn't fit the narrative that people want to believe, where MV3 was part of a big evil plan.
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    the narrative that google, largest ad company proposed MV3 which limits current functionality of UBO so that UBO Lite can be implemented? Yeah, such a narrative... It's clear google is our buddy here who will never squeeze and exploit any option to push more intrusive and targeted ads and we should totally trust it
- lxgr 6mo ago
  It supports everything on Firefox on MV3, but not on Chrome.
brycewray 6mo ago
Just as one example: Chrome + uBOL on Reddit will show you plenty of "Sponsored" stuff. You can use Inspector to find the offending CSS classes and then use `display: none` on them with something like Stylus[0], but not everybody wants to play that whack-a-mole game on the many sites that push uBOL past its blocking capabilities. [0]: https://github.com/openstyles/stylus https://github.com/openstyles/stylus
- gorhill 6mo ago
  Reddit's sponsored posts are blocked by default in uBOL when using _optimal_ (default) or _complete_ mode.
  - brycewray 6mo ago
    I will recheck my uBOL settings, then, sir. Thank you for your work! EDIT: I did have it set to `Complete,` so perhaps I have something else going on.
    - gorhill 6mo ago
      Best is to report the issue using the "Report an issue" in the popup panel while on Reddit site. There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. Depending on which browser/os the issue occurs, we should be able to narrow down potential causes.
      - theturtletalks 6mo ago
        As the creator of UBO, what are your thoughts on uBO vs uBOL? Do you think Firefox’s MV3 will be an issue down the line?
      - brycewray 6mo ago
        > There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. Bingo. That was it. Again, thanks.
ragall 6mo ago
Most definitely not as well.
- crazygringo 6mo ago
  It most definitely is as well. In fact it's better because you don't have the slower page loading times anymore. And everyone I know who used UBO and switched to UBOL has had no complaints about ads not being blocked. Whereas people who don't actually use it love to continue to insist that it's this degraded experience that doesn't work as well. And usually when one of them comes up with an example of some ad not being blocked, it turns out because they hadn't configured UBOL to use complete blocking mode.
  - ragall 6mo ago
    > And everyone I know Everyone who you know is irrelevant. I've tested and see that ads pass through, and tracking passes through with uBo light on Chrome. I can see it in the browser trace, and I can see it in DNS logs.
    - crazygringo 6mo ago
      Your test is irrelevant. There is always going to be some tiny percentage of ads that passed through with any ad blocker. So the fact that you have seen ads passed through with it doesn't actually mean anything. The only thing that means anything is how well it operates with your average browsing on a daily basis. And it's such a popular extension because it does an amazing job at blocking ads. That's just a fact. The only people who seem to claim otherwise appear to be the ones with an ideological axe to grind. It's silly.
      - ragall 6mo ago
        Your opinion is nothingness. I've tested on the same page that uBo on Firefox blocks more than Chrome, and especially it blocks hidden tracking. That's the reality. All else is irrelevant.
ben-schaaf 6mo ago
UBO lite has a long list of all the types of filters that aren't possibly under MV3: 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... Not sure about page load, but CPU time is about the same between the two: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1 https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- lxgr 6mo ago
  This list only applies to Chrome, so it's completely irrelevant when talking about Firefox.

Moldoteck 6mo ago

It supports limited ublock functionality, not all of it, which will gradually be exploited by ad corps like google unless you think those are saints

crazygringo 6mo ago
The point is that it supports everything that currently matters in any substantial way. Lots of people have been pointing out that ad companies will figure ways out around it. But they really haven't been. MV3 and UBOL have been in wide usage for about a year and a half now. And nothing has been changing. Adblocking continues to be great. The fact of the matter is, the ad block lists were getting so large and the JavaScript functionality was slow and it was significantly impacting page load times. UBOL uses vastly more efficient compiled code that is part of the browser and is just a far better ad blocking experience altogether. But I guess that just doesn't fit the narrative that people want to believe, where MV3 was part of a big evil plan.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  the narrative that google, largest ad company proposed MV3 which limits current functionality of UBO so that UBO Lite can be implemented? Yeah, such a narrative... It's clear google is our buddy here who will never squeeze and exploit any option to push more intrusive and targeted ads and we should totally trust it
lxgr 6mo ago
It supports everything on Firefox on MV3, but not on Chrome.

brycewray 6mo ago

Just as one example: Chrome + uBOL on Reddit will show you plenty of "Sponsored" stuff. You can use Inspector to find the offending CSS classes and then use `display: none` on them with something like Stylus[0], but not everybody wants to play that whack-a-mole game on the many sites that push uBOL past its blocking capabilities. [0]: https://github.com/openstyles/stylus https://github.com/openstyles/stylus

gorhill 6mo ago
Reddit's sponsored posts are blocked by default in uBOL when using _optimal_ (default) or _complete_ mode.
- brycewray 6mo ago
  I will recheck my uBOL settings, then, sir. Thank you for your work! EDIT: I did have it set to `Complete,` so perhaps I have something else going on.
  - gorhill 6mo ago
    Best is to report the issue using the "Report an issue" in the popup panel while on Reddit site. There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. Depending on which browser/os the issue occurs, we should be able to narrow down potential causes.
    - theturtletalks 6mo ago
      As the creator of UBO, what are your thoughts on uBO vs uBOL? Do you think Firefox’s MV3 will be an issue down the line?
    - brycewray 6mo ago
      > There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. Bingo. That was it. Again, thanks.

ragall 6mo ago

Most definitely not as well.

crazygringo 6mo ago
It most definitely is as well. In fact it's better because you don't have the slower page loading times anymore. And everyone I know who used UBO and switched to UBOL has had no complaints about ads not being blocked. Whereas people who don't actually use it love to continue to insist that it's this degraded experience that doesn't work as well. And usually when one of them comes up with an example of some ad not being blocked, it turns out because they hadn't configured UBOL to use complete blocking mode.
- ragall 6mo ago
  > And everyone I know Everyone who you know is irrelevant. I've tested and see that ads pass through, and tracking passes through with uBo light on Chrome. I can see it in the browser trace, and I can see it in DNS logs.
  - crazygringo 6mo ago
    Your test is irrelevant. There is always going to be some tiny percentage of ads that passed through with any ad blocker. So the fact that you have seen ads passed through with it doesn't actually mean anything. The only thing that means anything is how well it operates with your average browsing on a daily basis. And it's such a popular extension because it does an amazing job at blocking ads. That's just a fact. The only people who seem to claim otherwise appear to be the ones with an ideological axe to grind. It's silly.
    - ragall 6mo ago
      Your opinion is nothingness. I've tested on the same page that uBo on Firefox blocks more than Chrome, and especially it blocks hidden tracking. That's the reality. All else is irrelevant.

ben-schaaf 6mo ago

UBO lite has a long list of all the types of filters that aren't possibly under MV3: 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... Not sure about page load, but CPU time is about the same between the two: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1 https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
lxgr 6mo ago
This list only applies to Chrome, so it's completely irrelevant when talking about Firefox.