3 ms·

Most would not consider MV3 versions as ”adblockers” anymore.

• spankalee 4mo ago
  Yeah, I think calling the Mv3 versions "secure adblockers" would be more accurate.
  • WesolyKubeczek 4mo ago
    Secure for whom?
    • spankalee 4mo ago
      Browser users. Pre Mv3 extensions were a huge vector for malware. My in-laws were hit by that.
      • jdiff 4mo ago
        You can write malicious MV3 extensions. The changes' stated reason was performance, not security.
  • curt15 4mo ago
    How about "nerfed adblockers"? Do any of the MV3 versions replicate the full power of ublock origin on Firefox? (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...)
  • pluralmonad 4mo ago
    To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.
• Legend2440 4mo ago
  I'm still not seeing any ads. Works fine for me.
• fg137 4mo ago
  Most (real world, not HN) users don't really notice any difference between MV2 and MV3 based extensions.
  • vachina 4mo ago
    MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.
    • keldaris 4mo ago
      Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
    • novafunc 4mo ago
      I just tested Chromium with uBlock Origin Lite (default settings, aka "Optimal") and had no issue blocking YouTube ads.
    • yaro330 4mo ago
      You say that like MV2 version didn't need extensive workarounds to block YT ads.
      • maleldil 4mo ago
        MV2 makes those workarounds possible in the first place, which MV3 doesn't.
    • TiredOfLife 4mo ago
      It does.
• tartoran 4mo ago
  Do they block ads though? I am now only using Firefox because I can install Ublock origin and that works out for me.
  • zdragnar 4mo ago
    uBO lite blocks between most and all of the ads, at least on the sites I browse. I honestly didn't notice a difference switching over. I'm actually more curious to hear what sites it doesn't do a good job on.
  • dunham 4mo ago
    ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off. For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox. So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons: - Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this. - Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.) - Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it). - I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.