4 ms·

Mostly so, it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking, https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section https:

Mostly so, it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking, https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section In particular: * Cannot use all filter lists simultaneously (rule limits apply) * No cosmetic filtering in the default mode * No scriptlet injection by default * Limited dynamic filtering capabilities * Requires broader host permissions upfront But it's definitely still better than no adblockers

armadyl 2mo ago
Regarding the cosmetic filtering and scriptlet injection, are these even relevant? Most uBO users already give full access to the extension, so they'll probably do the same to uBOL to (most permissions + complete filtering mode). So basically they will have these features anyway.
GeekyBear 2mo ago
> it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking The only mainstream browser left that can still run the full version of uBlock Origin is Firefox. All the others have the same limitations imposed by Manifest V3.
- dawnerd 2mo ago
  iOS Firefox the same though.
  - stymaar 2mo ago
    Thanks Apple for inflicting the Safari monopoly to all iOS users.
    - zer0zzz 2mo ago
      Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly
      - asddubs 2mo ago
        i only wish updates weren't tied to OS version
        zer0zzz 2mo ago
        I agree with this, but on macos they are not entirely tired. On iOS because of the way iOS gets performance (as far as I understand it to be the case) through the iOS shared cache, there really isn't a way to totally decouple safari from iOS. I guess you could allow an alternate newer safari, but the one that comes with the OS would have to be linked into the blob.
        benjaminoakes 2mo ago
        If they can do it on the desktop, Apple can do it on mobile as well.
        zer0zzz 2mo ago
        No, the two are not architected the same. I believe it’s shipped as a dylib on macOS.
      - socalgal2 2mo ago
        It is not
        zer0zzz 2mo ago
        It's a really huge deferent from chromium reaching 90%+ browser share. So yes, it is in fact an anti-monopoly browser. iOS isn't even at majority market share in most places in the world.
        Brian_K_White 2mo ago
        It is not, because a random user is not able to use it. A thing only affects a monopoly when it is a choice a consumer can make. You could say that iphone is an anti-monopoly option vs android, but not that Safari is an anti-monopoly option vs Chrome. Then on top of that, even for users that do happen to "live in Canada"(1) already, Safari isn't a choice, it's the only allowed option, and full octane firefox is also not available as a choice. (firfox as a front-end to safari is essentially meaningless) (1) saying "you can use Safari, because you can switch to iphone" is the same as saying you can have something, just move to Canada", ie, invalid and likely disingenuous, because likely the speaker understood that perfectly well. So, yeah "let's be real" indeed. There is no way to paint Safari as any sort of anti-monopoly.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
  Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.
  - basch 2mo ago
    Brave also has native rust based psudo reimplementation of ublock, so it also doesnt necessarily need the functionality to accomplish what most people end up needing it for.
  - paimapi 2mo ago
    Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowledge users that's carrying it forward. I see so many 'privacy' influencers that recommend it and Chromium, and then Firefox with no mention of FOSS options like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, IronFox, etc [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-for-autocompleting-urls-to-versions-it-profits-from/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f... [2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-windows/ https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi... [3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-selling-copyrighted-data-for-ai-training https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...
    - gr_norm 2mo ago
      Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space! For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.
      - wolvoleo 2mo ago
        Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
- inkyoto 2mo ago
  Firefox has also adopted and supports Manifest v3, but Mozilla did not adopt all of Chrome/Chromium’s Manifest v3 restrictions. In Chrome/Chromium, Manifest v3 largely replaces extension-controlled network blocking with a more restrictive «declarativeNetRequest», whereas Firefox, by contrast, has deliberately kept support for blocking «webRequest» functionality. Importantly, the full uBlock Origin is a Manifest V2 extension. The Manifest v3-compatible version is uBlock Origin Lite, which has fewer capabilities.
snazz 2mo ago
What I like about uBO Lite in Safari is that I can use it without allowing it access to any of my data (it works in a purely declarative mode if you want). Even if it’s unlikely that uBO would be sold to a sketchy company, at least this provides protection against any supply chain attacks.
- hendersoon 2mo ago
  Yes, that was Google’s justification for killing MV2. It isn’t wrong, of course, but I insist on defining my own security posture and I prioritize adblocking.
kqp 2mo ago
Cosmetic filtering and script injection both work fine, they’re just off by default. Everybody works around rule count limits by making the one app register itself as like six different “Safari extensions”, it’s just clutter not a limitation. It requires no permissions up front and later permissions only granularly and rarely, for me only on YouTube, while the Firefox version does require unrestricted access to all domains. I have never seen a “dynamic filtering capability” it lacks or an ad it can’t block, do you have any examples?
- w-ll 2mo ago
  yea but also idk if its OT but i pay for apple news premium and its just all ads in safari. like whats the point, like its cheaper to bundle and share with my family. but why am i see ads withing News app when i pay this should be a given.
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    You're seeing ads while paying because you're paying. If you stop paying you won't see ads while paying anymore. Why would you reward such behavior?
    - dylan604 2mo ago
      That's one way to look at it, but in theory, you're paying to access news stories that otherwise would not be available. I've never seen a feature of paying for the "plus" to be ad free. That's like suggesting paying for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine would be ad free when paying for it just gave you the access to it. This is how it has always been, so expecting the leopard to change its spots is kind of silly
      - fluoridation 2mo ago
        It's not silly. If you're satisfied with seeing ads in a paid product then that's fine, but the other person clearly is not. Cancelling a service because it doesn't meet your expectations is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't matter how "it's always been".
Asmod4n 2mo ago
You can have virtually unlimited amount of rules, its just a limit per list, the number of lists aint really limited.
gorhill 2mo ago
Cosmetic-based filters and scriptlet injection-based filters work by default, they are enforced in _Optimal_ and _complete_ filtering modes. The default filtering mode is _optimal_.

armadyl 2mo ago

Regarding the cosmetic filtering and scriptlet injection, are these even relevant? Most uBO users already give full access to the extension, so they'll probably do the same to uBOL to (most permissions + complete filtering mode). So basically they will have these features anyway.

GeekyBear 2mo ago

> it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking The only mainstream browser left that can still run the full version of uBlock Origin is Firefox. All the others have the same limitations imposed by Manifest V3.

dawnerd 2mo ago
iOS Firefox the same though.
- stymaar 2mo ago
  Thanks Apple for inflicting the Safari monopoly to all iOS users.
  - zer0zzz 2mo ago
    Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly
    - asddubs 2mo ago
      i only wish updates weren't tied to OS version
      - zer0zzz 2mo ago
        I agree with this, but on macos they are not entirely tired. On iOS because of the way iOS gets performance (as far as I understand it to be the case) through the iOS shared cache, there really isn't a way to totally decouple safari from iOS. I guess you could allow an alternate newer safari, but the one that comes with the OS would have to be linked into the blob.
        benjaminoakes 2mo ago
        If they can do it on the desktop, Apple can do it on mobile as well.
        zer0zzz 2mo ago
        No, the two are not architected the same. I believe it’s shipped as a dylib on macOS.
    - socalgal2 2mo ago
      It is not
      - zer0zzz 2mo ago
        It's a really huge deferent from chromium reaching 90%+ browser share. So yes, it is in fact an anti-monopoly browser. iOS isn't even at majority market share in most places in the world.
        Brian_K_White 2mo ago
        It is not, because a random user is not able to use it. A thing only affects a monopoly when it is a choice a consumer can make. You could say that iphone is an anti-monopoly option vs android, but not that Safari is an anti-monopoly option vs Chrome. Then on top of that, even for users that do happen to "live in Canada"(1) already, Safari isn't a choice, it's the only allowed option, and full octane firefox is also not available as a choice. (firfox as a front-end to safari is essentially meaningless) (1) saying "you can use Safari, because you can switch to iphone" is the same as saying you can have something, just move to Canada", ie, invalid and likely disingenuous, because likely the speaker understood that perfectly well. So, yeah "let's be real" indeed. There is no way to paint Safari as any sort of anti-monopoly.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.
- basch 2mo ago
  Brave also has native rust based psudo reimplementation of ublock, so it also doesnt necessarily need the functionality to accomplish what most people end up needing it for.
- paimapi 2mo ago
  Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowledge users that's carrying it forward. I see so many 'privacy' influencers that recommend it and Chromium, and then Firefox with no mention of FOSS options like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, IronFox, etc [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-for-autocompleting-urls-to-versions-it-profits-from/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f... [2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-windows/ https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi... [3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-selling-copyrighted-data-for-ai-training https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...
  - gr_norm 2mo ago
    Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space! For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
inkyoto 2mo ago
Firefox has also adopted and supports Manifest v3, but Mozilla did not adopt all of Chrome/Chromium’s Manifest v3 restrictions. In Chrome/Chromium, Manifest v3 largely replaces extension-controlled network blocking with a more restrictive «declarativeNetRequest», whereas Firefox, by contrast, has deliberately kept support for blocking «webRequest» functionality. Importantly, the full uBlock Origin is a Manifest V2 extension. The Manifest v3-compatible version is uBlock Origin Lite, which has fewer capabilities.

snazz 2mo ago

What I like about uBO Lite in Safari is that I can use it without allowing it access to any of my data (it works in a purely declarative mode if you want). Even if it’s unlikely that uBO would be sold to a sketchy company, at least this provides protection against any supply chain attacks.

hendersoon 2mo ago
Yes, that was Google’s justification for killing MV2. It isn’t wrong, of course, but I insist on defining my own security posture and I prioritize adblocking.

kqp 2mo ago

Cosmetic filtering and script injection both work fine, they’re just off by default. Everybody works around rule count limits by making the one app register itself as like six different “Safari extensions”, it’s just clutter not a limitation. It requires no permissions up front and later permissions only granularly and rarely, for me only on YouTube, while the Firefox version does require unrestricted access to all domains. I have never seen a “dynamic filtering capability” it lacks or an ad it can’t block, do you have any examples?

w-ll 2mo ago
yea but also idk if its OT but i pay for apple news premium and its just all ads in safari. like whats the point, like its cheaper to bundle and share with my family. but why am i see ads withing News app when i pay this should be a given.
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  You're seeing ads while paying because you're paying. If you stop paying you won't see ads while paying anymore. Why would you reward such behavior?
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    That's one way to look at it, but in theory, you're paying to access news stories that otherwise would not be available. I've never seen a feature of paying for the "plus" to be ad free. That's like suggesting paying for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine would be ad free when paying for it just gave you the access to it. This is how it has always been, so expecting the leopard to change its spots is kind of silly
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      It's not silly. If you're satisfied with seeing ads in a paid product then that's fine, but the other person clearly is not. Cancelling a service because it doesn't meet your expectations is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't matter how "it's always been".

Asmod4n 2mo ago

You can have virtually unlimited amount of rules, its just a limit per list, the number of lists aint really limited.

gorhill 2mo ago

Cosmetic-based filters and scriptlet injection-based filters work by default, they are enforced in _Optimal_ and _complete_ filtering modes. The default filtering mode is _optimal_.