3 ms·

> 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

> 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 1mo ago
iOS Firefox the same though.
- stymaar 1mo ago
  Thanks Apple for inflicting the Safari monopoly to all iOS users.
  - zer0zzz 1mo ago
    Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly
    - asddubs 1mo ago
      i only wish updates weren't tied to OS version
      - zer0zzz 1mo 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 1mo ago
        If they can do it on the desktop, Apple can do it on mobile as well.
        zer0zzz 1mo ago
        No, the two are not architected the same. I believe it’s shipped as a dylib on macOS.
    - socalgal2 1mo ago
      It is not
      - zer0zzz 1mo 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 1mo 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.
        zer0zzz 1mo ago
        This user choice argument isn’t what makes safari monopolist. It’s that for some countries iOS has majority share these days, and safari is pushed on users through it. That’s why I was kinda trying to say it is anti-monopoly monopoly. If Apple supported read+execute pages for third party applications, it might give users more choice but it would also have the consequence of ushering in the way for total browser domination by chromium. I’d argue that is an even worse scenario as far as monopoly is concerned.
        Brian_K_White 1mo ago
        That is a not entirely bs angle.
HeatrayEnjoyer 1mo ago
Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.
- basch 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.

dawnerd 1mo ago

iOS Firefox the same though.

stymaar 1mo ago
Thanks Apple for inflicting the Safari monopoly to all iOS users.
- zer0zzz 1mo ago
  Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly
  - asddubs 1mo ago
    i only wish updates weren't tied to OS version
    - zer0zzz 1mo 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 1mo ago
        If they can do it on the desktop, Apple can do it on mobile as well.
        zer0zzz 1mo ago
        No, the two are not architected the same. I believe it’s shipped as a dylib on macOS.
  - socalgal2 1mo ago
    It is not
    - zer0zzz 1mo 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 1mo 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.
        zer0zzz 1mo ago
        This user choice argument isn’t what makes safari monopolist. It’s that for some countries iOS has majority share these days, and safari is pushed on users through it. That’s why I was kinda trying to say it is anti-monopoly monopoly. If Apple supported read+execute pages for third party applications, it might give users more choice but it would also have the consequence of ushering in the way for total browser domination by chromium. I’d argue that is an even worse scenario as far as monopoly is concerned.
        Brian_K_White 1mo ago
        That is a not entirely bs angle.

HeatrayEnjoyer 1mo ago

Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.

basch 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.