12 ms·

Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

• spottedmarley 2mo ago
  Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do. I had ~7 standard extensions that I pretty much always install into chrome browser. Over the past month or so I've been using Claude code to build a single custom extension that handles all of the things I used 7 extensions for previously. One extension does everything. You can even use the existing extensions you already use as guides for Claude to make sure all of the features you want are included. One extension to rule them all!
  • ycombinatrix 2mo ago
    >Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do Yes, that's why google moved to manifest v3 and extensions can't do as much.
    • spottedmarley 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    • Madmallard 2mo ago
      Can't they just modify the browser itself with an injection into the executable surely there is a way around that
      • downrightmike 2mo ago
        Operative work there is 'just'
        • Madmallard 2mo ago
          okay and AI makes that easier than ever?
          • downrightmike 2mo ago
            Have a MVP?
        • MattTheRealOne 2mo ago
          Can't we just build a new internet
• ChrisArchitect 2mo ago
  Related: Microsoft Edge is about to lock out older ad blockers, just like Chrome did https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220392
  • Insanity 2mo ago
    Edge is just chromium under the hood. So not a surprise there, should be easy lift for them.
• hasperdi 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • pelcg 2mo ago
    I believe it is. 2% of global internet traffic.
    • 1over137 2mo ago
      How is 2% major though? (I wish FF was more used!)
      • paddim8 2mo ago
        One in every 50 people is a lot of people.
      • timetraveller26 2mo ago
        It's in the top 5. It isn't more used because one browser is promoted by the biggest search engine and thus has two thirds of the market, and the other two come pre-installed with the OS.
      • ndriscoll 2mo ago
        It's more than 2% when you condition on things like "lives in US" or "lives in EU" or "is using a desktop." e.g. among German desktop users it's apparently more like 20%. Most people probably aren't targeting global traffic and should never consider it since it can be extremely misleading.
      • layer8 2mo ago
        Firefox has 8-9% desktop market share in Europe, 16-18% in Germany. So in some important markets it’s still pretty relevant.
      • sunaookami 2mo ago
        Wasn't Opera's (the good old Presto one) marketshare also 1% back then? And it was still considered major (even though it had compatibility problems mainly caused by sites ignoring the standard)
• vovavili 2mo ago
  Thank God for the Brave browser. For those disliking their built-in adblocker, there is a Manifest v2 opt-out specifically for uBlock if you need it.
  • jollyllama 2mo ago
    It's good but I find they EOL devices/OS's earlier than Firefox.
  • odidiejdiwjd 2mo ago
    Isn’t Brave just another Chromium variant? Chromium is detestable. In whatever form it takes.
    • armadyl 2mo ago
      What’s detestable is Firefox’s lack of security and Mozilla’s priorities surrounding it compared to Chromium https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1unhtxu/initial_response_to_a_blog_post_claiming_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1unhtxu/initial...
  • AstralSerenity 2mo ago
    Peter Theil was an angel investor in Brave. That alone is all the reason privacy-minded users need to avoid it.
    • fragmede 2mo ago
      Because Peter Thiel gave them some money, there's some secret backdoor code that's sending all your information to Palantir?
      • rwz 2mo ago
        It's quite likely that Brave itself collects data on your usage and shares at least some of it with Palantir. This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.
• timetraveller26 2mo ago
  Firefox, after 20 years, once again has an advantage over the other browsers. Let's hope for new generations to get tired of so many ads to finally ditch chrome.
  • ImJamal 2mo ago
    uBlock Origin Lite works decently on Chrome so I doubt this will help migration to Firefox.
    • Andrex 2mo ago
      Exactly. The difference between the two is not qualitatively different for 99% of users.
      • sys_64738 2mo ago
        I noticed that UBO Lite doesn't cause the ad boxes to vanish like UBO does. You see this on the likes of the weather.com webpage.
        • kevin_thibedeau 2mo ago
          That's manifest V3 working as intended.
        • culi 2mo ago
          Exactly. The Lite version is basically "hiding" ads rather than blocking. The MV2 version stops the requests themselves from being made which save your bandwidth and battery. The light version lacks those benefits
          • Andrex 2mo ago
            Advertisers get to pretend their ads are being seen. Websites get paid. Users don't see ads. Sounds like a win-win-win?
• josefritzishere 2mo ago
  Ads are so invasive and prevalent now that you need an ad blocker just to use the internet.
  • hdgvhicv 2mo ago
    Yet 90% of people don’t use a browser capable of running ubo
    • tensor 2mo ago
      Because all those other browsers can still block ads. I use ubo lite for safari and it's largely fine.
      • fsflover 2mo ago
        It will be "largely fine" until the ad networks start using the methods not blocked by the Lite version. You may not even notice that they start tracking you efficiently. See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... for some examples of things Ublock Lite can't do. Related discussion: uBlock Origin Lite now available for Safari (apps.apple.com) 1156 points by Jiahang on Aug 5, 2025 | 451 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825
  • Casteil 2mo ago
    Now? Sure seems like it's been that way for well over a decade.
• GeekyBear 2mo ago
  Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension. They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options. > Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality and user experience. After receiving Recommended status, safety standards are maintained through automated checks, monitoring, and periodic technical reviews https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-program https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
  • big_toast 2mo ago
    That's pretty cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't see where it says 'on every update' unless you're referring to the automated checks? I've always wished extensions had more granular permissions though (a la phones, but more so). I think automated ai security checks sound promising soon.
    • elashri 2mo ago
      Automated checks are done for every extension on every update. But their recommend extensions they feature on the Extension store, they do other extensive checks for each update.
    • socalgal2 2mo ago
      what permissions do you suggest?
      • yjftsjthsd-h 2mo ago
        I'd like a way to easily specify exactly what sites an extension can run on. There are extensions that I'd like to run on a subset - often just one or two sites - without giving them access do anything else. For that matter, a way to only activate an extension as a one-off when I click it and on no other tabs.
• b3ing 2mo ago
  You can also run Ad Nauseum if you want to
• rasz 2mo ago
  Vivaldi 8.1 still supports it (Chromium 150) as loaded unpacked extension. Edit: and latest August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based Snapshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-and-vpn-fix-vivaldi-browser-snapshot-4133-3/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes: "[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
  • rwz 2mo ago
    I wouldn't be sure this is a long term solution. Maintaining a this into perpetuity would probably take a lot of resources that Vivaldi team might not have.
    • rasz 2mo ago
      For all possible MV2 extensions this is unsustainable for a small company. Supporting just uBO used by tens of millions of people? pretty doable as it only relies on few hooks into C functions that arent going anywhere.
    • yborg 2mo ago
      Unless upstream introduces breaking changes I don't see why not. Google was killing this functionality for policy reasons, not because changes to the renderer required it or something. And LLM analysis is going to make maintaining forks easier going forward.
• avaer 2mo ago
  What's funny is that extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do. Guess that was a bit too much freedom for Google to accept, so they had to make a store with a gate, and destroy the APIs so that they're useless. Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that and ram it through the pipeline despite everyone's objections, and the frog got boiled. Now we're back to needing an actual extension system that does what extensions were supposed to do in the first place.
  • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
    > Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good. It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only the conflicts of interest inherent in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker prevent that.
    • codedokode 2mo ago
      Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result. Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.
      • jimmydorry 2mo ago
        So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model? uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpetuity).
• inquirerGeneral 2mo ago
  [dead]
• Animats 2mo ago
  Manifest 3 is why I finally shut down Sitetruth and Ad Limiter. Removing ads from Google Search is now possible only in Firefox.
  • rasz 2mo ago
    uBO still works in newest Vivaldi.
  • TiredOfLife 2mo ago
    ? I use Chrome and uBlock Origin lite. There are no ads on google search
    • timbit42 2mo ago
      But does it also block tracking? (Hint: No, it doesn't)
      • TiredOfLife 2mo ago
        Looking at dev console the various tracking scripts are blocked
        • fsflover 2mo ago
          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464
• hn_submit 2mo ago
  Does it really make a huge difference to keep supporting Manifest Version 2? I've installed uBlock Origin Lite in my Edge browser and I don't see any ads there either.
  • downrightmike 2mo ago
    YES!!
    • hn_submit 2mo ago
      Then why haven't I see any difference in ad blocking with uBlock Origin Lite on Edge?
      • timbit42 2mo ago
        The biggest difference is it doesn't block tracking.
  • culi 2mo ago
    Yes, huge difference - MV2 version has sophisticated scripts to not only block ads but prevent tracking. With the lite version you might not be seeing most ads but you are certainly being tracked more - MV3 version might "hide" ads but the MV2 version is blocking requests from every being made. All those stats you hear about improved battery and reduced bandwidth usage with an adblocker are only true for the MV2 version - CNAME uncloaking is only done with MV2 version. That means when advertisers on sites cloak their CNAME, you won't be able to block them - filters lists on Lite can only be updated when you install an update. In MV2 version it updates the lists dynamically. Advertisers change their domains all the time
    • hn_submit 2mo ago
      Like I've said in earlier posts: tracking cannot be solved through technological means. It has to be solved through legislation. The only thing you get is an arms race which Big Tech will always win because they have infinite budgets to keep the music playing.
• stack_framer 2mo ago
  I just use Brave. I haven't seen a YouTube ad in years.
  • cykros 2mo ago
    There are ads on YouTube?
    • Imustaskforhelp 2mo ago
      Oh yes they are. Occassionally when I am on a device which doesn't have an ad-blocker. I witness it and I am always left feeling shocked at how many ads Youtube can have. We really don't know the plight of so so many Youtube users. I feel sympathy for them and want to hug them and install an ad-blocker for them. I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who didn't even ask! I just feel like Ad blocker is such a useful thing that I can do to people that I care about who don't know deeply about it. I must say that it is one of the top entries of lists of most useful/time-saving things I have done in actually saving anybody's actual time. I express gratitude towards the universe for Ublock Origin. Words can't comprehend how much I love it.
      • nottorp 2mo ago
        Last time i tried to skim through a longer video on non ad blocked youtube i got two ads every time i skipped. Ended up watching more ad than video... at least until half way through it when I gave up. And even if you watch one without skipping I'm not sure the amount of ads is even legal in my jurisdiction. Pay for Youtube premium you say? But I only use it like once per month anyway. Easier to just not try.
    • matgessel 2mo ago
      I got a Android tablet...I can't recommend it. YT has gotten pretty toxic with the dark patterns. There are the usual interstitial ads, but after you skip and go full screen there's another ad widget in the lower left of the video. You have carefully navigate a popup menu to dismiss it without triggering an ad popup. If you pause or double-tap to -10s the video it restores down and shows an ad on the right side. The Edge browser for has the best ad-free experience I've found so far on Android. It supports Widevine (DRM videos) and performance is good enough for most videos. I do get an occasional stutter with higher res videos. Firefox supports Widevine, but it didn't last week? Or I just didn't get the popup to "Enable DRM" for some reason. Edge claims to have blocked 15k YT ads in the last week with the built-in AdBlock Plus. It works with uBlock Origin as well (this week anyway).
• imagetic 2mo ago
  Support Firefox. F** Chrome.
  • nullhole 2mo ago
    Fix?
    • sixtyj 2mo ago
      Free Chrome. /s
  • imagetic 2mo ago
    +1 *
  • imglorp 2mo ago
    Seriously. The web is completely unusable without UBO+FF. Any time I have to use a clean browser, I feel assaulted and dirty, plus wonder what malware just got injected into my machine. If it were to go away, I would probably accelerate retiring to an analog, offline life.
    • iLoveOncall 2mo ago
      I mean did you try with Chrome and Ublock Original Lite? Because I have and there's literally no difference at all.
      • culi 2mo ago
        It's different under the hood. The crux of the difference is the webRequest API which is only available in Manifest v2. This allows uBlock to strip all tracking data from the requests themselves. So while Chrome w uBlock Lite is hiding almost all the same ads from you, it's not protecting you from tracking The Lite version also relies solely on filter lists that require you to update the extension itself while the MV2 version can do so dynamically. Additionally, it lacks CNAME Uncloaking which I imagine will become much more commonplace soon enough which will make it impossible to block those ads
• deweywsu 2mo ago
  It is possible to write your own extension and still use it in Chrome as long as it's not bundled. It would be a huge pain to get the source for uBlock origin and implement it locally yourself, but it might be worth the pain to block ads.
  • rwz 2mo ago
    The original uBO relies on Manifest V2, the API Chrome no longer supports. It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
    • rasz 2mo ago
      >It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome. Current version of Chrome seems to be 152.0.7977.39 released August 14, 2026. August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based vivaldis napshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-and-vpn-fix-vivaldi-browser-snapshot-4133-3/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes: "[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
      • rwz 2mo ago
        Yeah, Vivaldi specifically is keeping MV2 alive for uBO it seems. We'll see how long they can maintain it with their small team.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• ivraatiems 2mo ago
  For those who use uBlock Origin Lite, have you noticed any issues/deficiencies in what ads are blocked? I haven't.
  • jimrandomh 2mo ago
    I use Firefox with (non-lite) uBlock Origin, and occasionally fire up Chrome (with uBO Lite) for testing. The main issue that I run into is that uBO lite filters can't vary per-domain, so in order to rule out an ad-blocking-false-positive on something I'm developing, I have to turn it off for _all_ sites, not just localhost. (Actual false positives are rare, but needing to check is not so rare.)
    • tredre3 2mo ago
      That's not true, the on/off toggle is per-site in uBlock Origin Lite.
      • jimrandomh 2mo ago
        ...Huh. I just rechecked, and indeed it was. I may have been remembering a limitation that was present temporarily when the MV3 switchover happened.
  • hn_submit 2mo ago
    In the short time I've used it I haven't noticed any appreciable difference.
  • socalgal2 2mo ago
    I have not really had any issues with ads using uBlock Origin Lite. It's like the complainers live in an alternate reality or just listened to some influencer and never actually checked. I do miss the rules that let me remove stuff based like CSS like selectors. The strange thing is, even though uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support that feature it's still totally possible to make an extension that does that. Maybe the specific thing uBlock Origin was doing is not possible but making an extension that follows rules and hides/deletes elements with different rules per site is still fully possible under manifest v3
• Heidaradar 2mo ago
  I've been using Firefox for over 6 years now and I've never regretted it.
  • sixtyj 2mo ago
    20 years and counting. :) Thanks for every day that this browser works. Sometimes I had to test something in Chrome - and it’s painful experience. But it really depends on personal view - I have tried to convert my friends and they don’t feel it.
    • coldpie 2mo ago
      Sammme. Remember all the hullaballo about the AwesomeBar in Firefox 3? https://ed.agadak.net/2008/03/beyond-awesome https://ed.agadak.net/2008/03/beyond-awesome Truly amazing stuff, in 2008.
    • sevenseacat 2mo ago
      Been using Firefox as my main browser since version 1.5. The last few years I've noticed that some things have stopped working as smoothly though - mainly just little CSS glitches and things because people don't test in Firefox :(
  • talon8635 2mo ago
    I’ve never felt so old as I did reading this comment
  • TiredOfLife 2mo ago
    I have been using Firefox for 20 years and the regrets kept accumulating till I switched to Chrome 3 years ago.
    • Capricorn2481 2mo ago
      Care to share?
    • spopejoy 2mo ago
      Username checks out.
• eahm 2mo ago
  Wtf, simply not true: Brave: chrome://flags/#brave-extensions-manifest-v2 > brave://settings/extensions/v2 > Enable uBlock Origin (Brave-hosted, even better). Helium comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed. Edge even still has it https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-origin/odfafepnkmbhccpbejgmiehpchacaeak https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori... And I'm sure others ...I personally only use/test Brave, Brave Origin, Helium and Firefox.
  • LeoPanthera 2mo ago
    The title says "major browser", which none of those are.
    • Aldo_MX 2mo ago
      Brave surely is a major browser with 100+M MAU, not too distant from Firefox with 150+M MAU.
      • hackernud3s 2mo ago
        Brave blocks those ads anyway so no point in Ublock, maybe that's why it's left out. It does inject it's own ads though, and then there's all the crypto nonsense.
        • ipsum2 2mo ago
          Brave adblocking breaks some websites that uBlock Origin doesn't.
          • brewdad 2mo ago
            Lately I’ve had better luck with Brave than with FF and UBO, at least one my various banking sites.
        • EbNar 2mo ago
          Ads on Brave are opt-in (and not embedded on webpages anyway) and the "crypto nonsense" is a way for them to try to stay afloat without having to accept money from Google and the likes.
• Madmallard 2mo ago
  Do people not remember Firefox changing their terms of service last year and allowing them to sell your data to third parties? I don't get it did people forget? I switched over to LibreWolf and other browsers like that then and never looked back.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    We all just either memory-holed it or convinced ourselves that it wasn't what it was. Easy to think you just misunderstood what they said, even though they were very explicit about it.
  • ethagnawl 2mo ago
    I'm not sure why you're being downvoted; you're right. Firefox the browser is an amazingly capable tool but I wish it was shepherded by an org that prioritized its users' interests (privacy, performance, etc.) instead of ramming AI, crypto or cute marketing campaigns that NOBODY wants into its flagship offering.
    • nickthegreek 2mo ago
      what crypto was rammed into firefox?
  • culi 2mo ago
    They rewrote the terms almost immediately after the backlash. They also claimed the original terms were written in response to the overly broad legal definitions of "data sales" under laws like the CCPA. Which tbh sounds reasonable
    • Madmallard 2mo ago
      proof?
      • culi 2mo ago
        https://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+rewrites+their+terms+after+the+backlash https://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+rewrites+their+terms...
• PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
  uBO + Steven Black hosts list + firefox. Peace, for now at least.
• ytoast 2mo ago
  Are there any Chromium-based mod/plugin loaders out there? I mean something that uses the same DLL/SO hijacking or injection tricks game hackers use to build mod loaders, to expose a hooking layer for plugins.
• luggage_bazooka 2mo ago
  [dead]
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• mikeocool 2mo ago
  Guess it was a bad idea for everyone to switch to a browser made by one of the world’s biggest advertising companies.
  • MagicMoonlight 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • gilrain 2mo ago
    The other browser they pay for isn’t the first alternative I’d run to…
  • tim333 2mo ago
    uBlock lite works pretty well for me with Chrome
    • fsflover 2mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464
• DavidPiper 2mo ago
  Remember when Firefox was the first browser to have "tabbed browsing"? Obviously UBO isn't a first party feature - but if only Firefox could generate as much traction about ad blocking as they did with tabs.
  • phyzome 2mo ago
    I'm fairly sure Opera introduced it first.
    • superkuh 2mo ago
      Yes. Opera (original, not what is called Opera now) introduced tabs first. I believe in the 5.0 version with presto engine.
    • Fnoord 2mo ago
      Yes, well, kind of. Opera had Multiple Document Interface (MDI) which was actually (back then) far more flexible than tabs. But yes, Opera was first with MDI, and also I suppose the first web browser for the smartphone.
  • tomjen3 2mo ago
    Yeah, I remember. I also remember it automatically blocking popup ads. That was a huge deal.
  • paradox460 2mo ago
    No, because Opera and SimulBrowse had it years before Firefox even existed
• lxe 2mo ago
  What's preventing anyone to just spend some tokens and bring it back and fork Chrome? I think ungoogled Chromium still supports it, right?
  • fg137 2mo ago
    If you don't care about DRM content, bookmark syncing etc, sure, use a bare minimum chromium fork with the patch. But that's not what most users, including uBlock origin users, want.
• system7rocks 2mo ago
  And we must protect it at all costs. I love Firefox. We need more browsers like Firefox - more open source, more open to standards that improve the web, that can improve our browsing experience.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Then make one.
  • culi 2mo ago
    I agree. The death of Edge's Trident and Opera's Presto has been really scary for the web. I know it's really far off but I truly hope Ladybird, Servo, and Flow succeed in building mature and competitive web engines
• tech234a 2mo ago
  Haven’t tried it but apparently there is an unofficial port of the full version of uBlock Origin to work on manifest v3, the largest challenge being that, on manifest v3, the webRequestBlocking permission is only available to enterprise sideloaded extensions: https://github.com/r58Playz/uBlock-mv3 https://github.com/r58Playz/uBlock-mv3
  • culi 2mo ago
    Great but as soon as Google decides to completely strip the `webRequest` API from the codebase, it's game over. Now that it's deprecated it's only a matter of time. This also means Brave, the last Chromium-based browser to support it, will also be unable to support it
• mitchell5584dm 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• inigyou 2mo ago
  Too bad Firefox isn't a major browser. And it shouldn't be. It's now full of ads for Mozilla VPN and stuff. We need the engine, but not the browser.
  • 0dayz 2mo ago
    And who is going to finance that?
  • wookmaster 2mo ago
    The benefit of open source here is there are forked versions of it you can download.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      Exactly. I suggest Zen.
  • picofarad 2mo ago
    I've never seen an ad for Mozilla VPN, nor any other Mozilla product, in Firefox. However I have seen billions of ads on google.com and YouTube.com, and search placement, and fraud. But whatever. How's google pay? Pretty good?
• windowliker 2mo ago
  I often forget how browsing the web looks for most people. Can't understand why they put up with it, or do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
  • chr15m 2mo ago
    Yes, in the same way constant software malfunctions and errors are normal and tolerated.
    • cpeterso 2mo ago
      Open your browser’s dev tools while loading a website and there’s usually a continuous stream of HTTP and JS errors and warnings. That websites actually work surprises me sometimes, but that’s the pragmatic beauty of the web.
  • seabrookmx 2mo ago
    > every page That's a bit hyperbolic. The areas of the internet I frequent do not have egregious ads (for example, this page). Areas where I really would like good ad-blocking (youtube) are often not covered by these ad blockers. Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue. Maybe it's better these days but I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit, so I've always shied away from them (with the exception of a password manager).
    • prmoustache 2mo ago
      adblock works well with regular youtube ads (not the one inside the actual content).
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        For the latter, there is sponsorblock.
    • username923409 2mo ago
• socalgal2 2mo ago
  I'm just waiting for Apple's OS level AI that lets me block ads in all apps, including the App Store
• firefax 2mo ago
  You can have my ad blocker when you take it from my cold dead fingers. I will literally move to a shack in the woods rather than go back to late 90s level of bullshit advertising.
  • zaik 2mo ago
    > move to a shack in the woods That's what gemini:// is for.
    • 2b3a51 2mo ago
      And Dillo is the equivalent of a shepherds hut in the back garden.
      • MathMonkeyMan 2mo ago
        It's cozy!
      • antics9 2mo ago
        It’s remarkable functional. I’ve gone weeks using no other browser than Dillo. Usually also disable CSS for most sites. Built in custom CSS for all sites is also a treat.
  • yellowcakex 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • colega 2mo ago
    I wouldn't need an "ad-blocker" if we just went to 90s level of advertising. It's not really about advertising as much as it is about "bullshit" nowadays.
• thrusong 2mo ago
  I'm a web developer and I have a deep love of Firefox. I've been on it since version 3 and I'll be with it to the bitter end. I love that uBlock Origin is still available and while the news of Firefox's declining market share can be quite concerning, I hope it will be around for a long time.
• dadass 2mo ago
  Firefox is also the only browser that supports anything like userChrome.css for customizing tabs, toolbar, address bar, menus, spacing, etc.
• saghm 2mo ago
  > But Firefox is one of the few web browsers remaining that isn’t based on Chromium, and it’s now the only major browser to still support uBlock Origin. Neither Safari nor DuckDuckGo—the two other major non-Chromium browsers out there—support uBlock Origin Does anyone here use DuckDuckGo browser? I've honestly never heard of anyone using it, so I'm pretty surprised to see it categorized as a "major browser". I already basically think of Firefox users (which includes myself) as a pretty tiny minority, so I'm not sure how much smaller you can really get while still being "major".
  • davidfischer 2mo ago
    I use DDG on Android and it works pretty well there. I also saw this line in the article and it's somewhat of a stretch to call DDG either a "major" browser (as you point out) or a "non-Chromium browser". My understanding is it uses the browser engine bundled with the OS on Android/iOS/Mac/Windows and it isn't available for Linux. The wikipedia article on it says: > The core browser functionality is the WebView component provided by the operating system. This means the browser engine is Blink on Android and Windows, and WebKit on iOS and macOS.
    • saghm 2mo ago
      Interesting, thanks for the context! I hadn't realized it was mobile-only, which is probably part of why I hadn't realized it existed. And yeah, it does seem like they maybe didn't know what they were talking about if the engine is literally Blink.
• sammularczyk 2mo ago
  I just started using Zen (Firefox-based Arc clone) after Arc updated to Manifest V3. It's great! Last time I installed zen it was a battery hog, but it's much better now.
  • niutech 2mo ago
    No, Zen is still a memory hog. See numerous threads on Reddit and issues on Github about excessive RAM usage.
• zarzavat 2mo ago
  I don't know why with LLMs we can't just add MV2/blocking web request support to Chromium in a fork. The argument against was always that it's "too hard to keep a fork in sync". Now it's easier.
  • culi 2mo ago
    That's basically exactly what Brave (the only Chromium browser still supporting uBO) is doing to support uBlock Origin. But it's flimsy and likely has an expiration date.
    • zarzavat 2mo ago
      AFAIK they are using the built-in support which Google still maintains even if they don't expose it. My point is that when MV3 was announced there was an assumption that maintaining a Chromium fork to continue supporting MV2 would be too much work and too expensive. But now with LLMs that's no longer a safe assumption. The non-Chrome chromium based browsers can fork chromium and add back MV2. No need for any expiration date.
      • hgomersall 2mo ago
        Or you could just use Firefox.
        • zarzavat 2mo ago
          The only reason that Google keep Firefox around is because they find it beneficial for antitrust reasons. We should prepare for a future without Firefox, because one day it won't be there anymore.
          • nickthegreek 2mo ago
            by supporting google?
      • culi 2mo ago
• Gud 2mo ago
  I was shaking my head when my fellow developers, and some hackers, moved from Firefox to mostly Chrome. “It has better dev tools you see”, “it’s so much faster you see”, and a boatload of other excuses. But what about the remonopolization of the web? I remember how much it SUCKED when internet explorer had 95% of the web thanks to Microsoft’s illegal practices. I saw the same behaviour from Google, the ad company and they haven’t event gotten a slap on the wrist. Fuck, people fucking loves Google, despite their turn to the dark side. Well here we are, with the open web almost dead. It’s time to revive it. Start using alternatives again. Seek out and support people and organisations that are actively working to build the community web, not this corporate shit it’s morphed into. End rant
  • SoftTalker 2mo ago
    Yep. Chrome is the new IE. Zero difference. And Chrome was created to break the grip that IE had.
    • Anoian 2mo ago
      Chrome became popular in the time where firefox was already more popular than IE.
    • conradfr 2mo ago
      The big difference is that it's still updated.
• neves 2mo ago
  What about Brave?
• marssaxman 2mo ago
  Firefox is now the only major browser, because it supports uBlock Origin.
• anthropic-dario 2mo ago
  [dead]
• WhyNotHugo 2mo ago
  Qutebrowser seems to _want_ uBlock Origin-style filtering, but development on the feature has been ongoing for a long time and seems to have somewhat stalled: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/pull/7629 https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/pull/7629
• kazinator 2mo ago
  Obligatory: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/137fwhc/the_illusion_of_free_choice/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/137fwhc/the_i...
• Markoff 2mo ago
  1. Vivaldi supports uBlock Origin, if you consider Firefox a "major browser" then sure also Vivaldi and Brave are major browsers 2. while I use uBlock Origin on phone (Firefox) and desktop (Vivaldi), it's overrated, AdGuard works under MV3 AND unlike uBlock supports element picker, so if I was on browser not supporting uBO I would switch to AdGuard since I can't live without element picker
  • gorhill 2mo ago
    uBO Lite does support "element picker", it's called "Create a custom filter" in popup panel.
    • Markoff 2mo ago
      so I can click with cursor over element I don't want to remove it same way as in uBlock Origin? because without UI manually editing the filter is not an element picker. I'm unable to find any screenshot of ubol, all I found is some switch between protection levels and all answers I've found in Google to this question say there is no element picker and not going to install it since all my browser still support uBO
      • gorhill 2mo ago
        > all answers I've found in Google to this question say there is no element picker Because Google feeds on comments like yours to answer your question about whether there is an element picker, it's bound to be wrong. You can create your own custom filters using an element picker, and you can manually edit them. See <https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Quick-guide https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Quick-guide>.
        • Markoff 2mo ago
          Thanks for your great work, I didn't notice who I am talking to. Though it doesn't help even on official extension page in both Chrome web store and Microsoft edge add-ons store there is no clear screenshot showing this (tools dashboard after clicking More button few times), if there was clear screenshot of actual advanced/"More" UI with Element zapper/picker, users like me wouldn't have such stupid questions/assumptions and it would be clear from get go.
• user2722 2mo ago
  No-one referenced Firefox also has Brave's adblocking implementation baked in, even if disabled for now. Additionally, I eagerly await resource (CPU+site size) buckets to be implemented on a browser and a LocalCDN along it to shrink the web.
• alentred 2mo ago
  It is worth mentioning that there are other options like NextDNS and similar, which complement uBO(L) nicely.
• CalRobert 2mo ago
  Attestion (now via captcha) means that websites will presumably block Firefox and Google’s attempt to murder the web will be complete.
• search_facility 2mo ago
  Great, this is unique trait and helpful one - Firefox is here to stay
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• hamper653 2mo ago
  The Web needs to die.
  • timbit42 2mo ago
    The way to do that is to build a better replacement that the web can't emulate.
• hugodan 2mo ago
  Wait until google cuts their funding unless they cut the ad blockers
• self_awareness 2mo ago
  Lots of browsers have built-in adblockers that use the same lists as uBlock Origin. Why it's important to support the extension? We have adblocking anyway. But also, be Mozilla: decimate your own plugin ecosystem, kill half of plugins, force to rewrite the other 50%. But a few years later support this 1 extension, and people will remember that you're a good guy. When they've adoped Chrome plugins, they've effectively gave up their shares of relevance to Chrome and now they're paying for it.
  • defrost 2mo ago
    It's not the uBlock Origin extension that needs saving for "better" adblocking, it's the capabilities of the now discontinued by Google / Chrome extension supporting framework known as Manifest V2. The 'newer' Manifest V3 replaced the V2 webRequest API with a more limited declarativeNetRequest API. The original allowed the intercept and blocking of network requests in real-time as generated, the replacement allows a limited subset of filter blocking after requests have been sent and returned. ie: V2 allowed for less network traffic and greater amount of filtering, V3 provides slower page completes and limited filtering.
    • self_awareness 2mo ago
      Manifest V2 functionality that has been cut out was used only in adblockers, right? And we have adblockers built-in in various browsers now. So since we have built-in adblockers, we don't really need MV2 functionality anymore? Why oppose MV3? I mean why people want to oppose MV3 instead of simply asking your favorite browser to expose the browser-specific API for missing functionality, like it was done "in the old days"? If Google wants to block MV3, then let it block it, and ask browsers to expose missing API. Of course this won't happen in Chrome, but back in my days when software was limited, we simply stopped using it in favor of more complete software.
      • defrost 2mo ago
        I'd suggest you sleep on that comment and come back with fresh eyes and a clear head; as is, the logic isn't as joined up as you might think.
• malomalsky 2mo ago
  God bless Firefox!
• penchant 2mo ago
  Sounds great, but doesn't this come at a price of maintaing the whole of MV2 support which is inherently insecure? If yes, then it's not a great look.
• byra 2mo ago
  Honestly whenever I need to use a browser without AdBlock at work I'm baffled that anybody can use this for regular day-to-day use. It's borderline impossible to read some webpages. Just one more reason to stay on FF I guess. Especially since they launched extensions on mobile FF has been so much better than any of the alternatives I don't see myself going back anywhere else.
• insin 2mo ago
  It looks like Google constantly pushing "MV3 is more secure" messaging worked at the intended high level.
  • drewfax 2mo ago
    Now they are doing it to Android with mandatory developer identity verification and Play Integrity. I wonder how those engineers sleep at night.
• bambax 2mo ago
  There's a mystery here. People hate ads. Firefox is the only major browser (save Brave?) that properly blocks ads. Yet people don't use Firefox (indeed its popularity is in free-fall). Why? Is it because they don't know about it? Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS? I'm not sure. I just don't get it.
  • therealmarv 2mo ago
    I use Brave. I want Chromium under the hood. Firefox on mobile is not good, tried it many times. I also don't trust Firefox Mobile security as much as I trust Brave/Chromium on Android.
    • bambax 2mo ago
      Firefox on Android is excellent.
  • ekjhgkejhgk 2mo ago
    Most people hate ads, but they don't hate them as much as they hate having to learn how to do something for themselves. Therefore, the default almost always wins. It's a cynical view, but I'm confident that it has a great deal of truth.
  • Shank 2mo ago
    Back when I first moved off of Firefox the answer was performance. A lot of users mass-migrated to Chrome because it supported a very similar set of extensions and was significantly more stable and performant. People like me evangelized switching to Chrome for everyone. Many copies of Chrome were installed by me. Now the performance still hasn’t caught up to Chrome but it has improved, and uBlock Origin Lite does a decent job at a baseline level of blocking for most people.
    • Synaesthesia 2mo ago
      The performance and stability with lots of tabs is actually outstanding.
• armchairhacker 2mo ago
  Ladybird planned to release alpha this year. Unfortunately extensions are unsupported, but maybe soon: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/issues/976 https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/issues/976
  • yellowcakex 2mo ago
    [dead]
• murzynalbinos 2mo ago
  [dead]
• geekamongus 2mo ago
  I wrote this article about Firefox 0.9 back in 2004, when they first implemented pop-up blocking, and have been using it every day since. https://www.digital-web.com/articles/firefox_09/ https://www.digital-web.com/articles/firefox_09/
  • thisislife2 2mo ago
    Wow, have you really been maintaining that site for 20+ years now?
    • geekamongus 2mo ago
      It isn't my site. Mine is older :-D
• darepublic 2mo ago
  I fear that more and more sites increasingly serve different experiences based on things such as the presence of Adblock etc.
  • BarryMilo 2mo ago
    Not my experience at all. Ever since Google neutered ABP with this move, it feels like everyone else just gave up the arms race. Which makes sense give how little market share FF now has.
• darepublic 2mo ago
  I feel that the web via browser is in danger. Vast majority of people can be convinced to switch to walled garden apps just like vast majority are fine with tablets, phones aka non open locked down computers. I am a Firefox/ublock user, and prefer browser to mobile apps, however I see the writing on the wall
  • sva_ 2mo ago
    The Web might be better off if those offenders aren't part of the web anymore.
• gdevenyi 2mo ago
  Brave has the same style of engine built into the browser.
• ck2 2mo ago
  also Firefox is the last with widevine support which many video sites demand all those chromium clones will not have widevine (if youtube ever gets widevine, yt-dlp etc will never work anymore) Firefox for the win, it needs guaranteed survival somehow
• shevy-java 2mo ago
  We need our own browsers. Relying on corporations does not work - they constantly betray and abuse us. Evidently Google is the number #1 troublemaker here, due to the addiction to adRevenue into adChromium, but you can replace this with any other private company and the basic problem will be the same. We need a variant of the world wide web that can not be abused and controlled like Google shows right now. Firefox will not change anything anymore either.
  • yellowcakex 2mo ago
    Like this. Would you do something using their engine? Something like Ladybird? Or 1 fully from scratch like Medici on GitHub?
• TomMasz 2mo ago
  Monocultures suck.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• mindcrash 2mo ago
  Chromium still has MV2 support in the extension loader as of the current state of the Chromium repository at https://chromium.googlesource.com/ https://chromium.googlesource.com/. This means that both Microsoft and Google have elected to disable support at build time and alternative, good, Chromium based browser like Helium (https://helium.computer https://helium.computer) still support it. As a matter of fact Helium still uses it to fetch and run uBlock Origin out of the box for mitigation against trackers, malware and ads.
• dyauspitr 2mo ago
  It’s also the sole reason I use Firefox as my primary browser.
• DeusExMachina 2mo ago
  What is the definition of major? Globally, Firefox has ~2.2%. On desktop alone that's still only 6.4%. Where is the threshold?
• bossyTeacher 2mo ago
  The title misses something more important: Firefox is and has been for a very long time the only browser who wasn't made by people trying to extract profit from you. Everything follows from this. Edge people, Chrome people have been living in a fairytale for believing that the keepers of their portal to the web were offering a product as complex and expensive as a browser without asking for anything in return. Anyone knows that any company that gives you something for free will eventually want something from you. You accepted a free browser from a for-profit entity and paid nothing. Now, Faust has come to collect your soul.
  • shooly 2mo ago
    > Anyone knows that any company that gives you something for free will eventually want something from you Firefox is also free.
    • bossyTeacher 2mo ago
      Mozilla is not a company though.
      • shooly 2mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
        • bossyTeacher 2mo ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
          • shooly 2mo ago
            ... and so what? Your response was that they're not a company - Mozilla Corporation IS a private, for-profit company and one of their responsibilities is managing Firefox. Similar structure is used by OpenAI, so I guess OpenAI is also not a company?
• mancerayder 2mo ago
  Can't I get the same thing with Brave though? I'm getting what feels like built in ad blocking.
• bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
  Uhhh brave?
• frogperson 2mo ago
  Just a reminder to everyone to support weird and new browsers. we'll never get a new crop if we don't water and nurture the alternatives.
  • qweqwe14 2mo ago
    For sure everyone will start using "weird and new" browsers that waste their time by breaking websites xD Chromium is an open source project, forks such as Ungoogled Chromium exist, I literally had 0 issues with uBOL on Ungoogled Chromium. People who complain about MV3 probably spent more time complaining about it than actually trying uBOL and seeing that it works just fine.
• Candoa 2mo ago
  [dead]
• smithza 2mo ago
  running with vivaldi (chromium based), they are letting me keep running the old manifest versioned extensions. YMMV there.