“Quietly™” by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.
How Brave
Its become quite a trend with headlines, huh? I guess it implies “we’re airing some dirty laundry, come look!” With the hopes of boosting click-throughs.
Yeah, I hate it bcs it’s just an intentional scam - and since the title is such an easy lie then prob everything is.
A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
Lol, yes.
Cool.
Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the “this video was sponsored by” segments on YouTube).
Oh, cool. I didn’t know about SponsorBlock!
Doesn’t work with really new videos, but it helps.
deleted by creator
most content creators starts peddling some cringe beliefs at some point, no loss there.
I meant ADS… not adblock! Fucking autocorrector xD
Sponsors don’t see if you skipped their ad segment.
Sure they do.
Edit: I have a YouTube channel. The metrics are exportable. This is not a debate — advertisers often ask for these metrics. They absolutely can see when big channels have high SponsorBlock rates.
SponsorBlock
I believe uBlock manages to remove all ads on yt by tickling the subscription of some list bundled in its installation already
SponsorBlock skips past the video segments which contain sponsored advertisement. There’s no overlap with what uBlock does.
ah gotcha, that’s neat
Add DeArrow in there as well (anti-clickbait)
I’d love to be able to use it but it completely grinds the website to a halt with large playlists and the creator doesn’t wanna fix it
I said it for Waterfox and I’m gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it’s just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
The biggest difference between Firefox and Waterfox in implementation is the WaterFox developers noticed this FF change early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news for users.
A few more reasons this is good:
- Rust is faster than JavaScript
- Native functionality is faster than an extension
- Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Using entirely unrelated ad blocking technology is bad for what reason?
You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that’s not the only skeleton in their closet.
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doesnt excuse it IMO.
Does it need an excuse? It’s a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
Why?
I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.
It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just
onetwo modules. (It’s in the “wasm” folder near the top of the list).(Edit: I was looking at outdated code; the newer version uses more, but IMO pales in comparison to the JavaScript filtering logic)
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don’t even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.
brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today
firefox support is often not a priority even today
Dunno if I can name a time it was ;)
I guess it might be a priority for Mozilla sometimes
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
They should have built it in years ago, but called it “web security filtering” or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
that probably depends on the blocklists used, like with ublock
a default-disabled prototype
No wonder it didn’t show up in normal/enduser release notes.
This article suggests you have to disabled Enhanced Tracking Protection to test it. Does it replace that entire system with an equivalent system?
I’ll wait until it’s stable and productive.
deleted by creator
That’s cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams
I used brave for a while. Recently switched to zen browser to try some better tab management. But despite all braves issues, it’s ad/tracker blocking was always very good imo. I think it will be a good addition to Firefox.
I don’t think you can separate a product from their CEO
In the Open Source world you can always fork.
As someone whose employer blocks the installation of browser extensions, I am more than excited to hear that!
Using the web sucks since that policy has been implemented a year or so ago.
Integrated adblock engine would rectify that again.As long as it doesn’t interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that’s fine.
It’s not enabled by default.
So… no news
Until they enable it
So… no news
If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.
Why did they not just set ublock as a default installed plugin?
Because the performance of brave lib is a little better since it doesn’t go through the plugin API
“Quietly” I saw the article announcing it weeks ago
A built-in ad blocker is better. Hopely Mozilla doesn’t do something stupid with it.
Noice. Hope it doesn’t mean.they want to drop manifest v2 or something.
It would be really nice too if they implemented Brave’s fingerprint randomization, which is obviously not perfect and I’m never going to expect Tor like anonymity, but is far better than most other browsers. Where Mullvad and Tor try to make everyone look the same, Brave randomizes nearly every important fingerprint.
And I know Firefox does this pretty well already, but from the research I did, Brave’s fingerprint vector randomization is another level.
Fuck no. I don’t want Brave stuff in my browser :(
The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.
Long live the hard fork!
Although I expect there are limits.
