4 ms·
In one of the monthly update videos Andreas mentioned that although they are working on a basic built-in adblocker for Ladybird, long-term they want extension s
by cuu508 2mo ago
In one of the monthly update videos Andreas mentioned that although they are working on a basic built-in adblocker for Ladybird, long-term they want extension support and the adblocking functionality to be in an extension.
- ryandrake 2mo agoWhy does ad blocking always have to be relegated to an extension? Browsers build in so many things. Why do they all draw the line at a feature like ad blocking that every user wants?
- happymellon 2mo agoBecause they want a level of plausible deniability.
- ta8903 2mo agoThe way uBO works already provides a layer of plausible deniability. It's just a content blocker that loads filter lists maintained by other people.
- happymellon 2mo agoI'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but the gpp was suggesting building it in by default. If Firefox included it by default then it would remove a layer of deniability.
- ryandrake 2mo agoWhat do they need to deny? Ad blocking is clearly a feature many users want. It’s often the only extension people install. If I were Firefox, I’d build it right into the core of the engine. Turn it on with a checkbox and/or custom blocklist sources.
- nickthegreek 2mo agogoogle money could dry up right quick. extension route gives them some deniability.
- ta8903 2mo agoYes, I meant building it in by default won't remove any deniability, because it will just be a content blocker where users can load their own filters (with maybe some adblocking filters suggested by default).
- inigyou 2mo agoBecause modular architectures are good? I don't know what to say here. Even if it was built in it should be a built-in extension.