714
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] XLE@piefed.social 279 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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:

  1. Rust is faster than JavaScript
  2. Native functionality is faster than an extension
  3. Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 month ago

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

[-] XLE@piefed.social 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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 ~~one~~ two 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.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 15 points 1 month ago

Rust is faster than JavaScript

isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?

The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] zewm@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago

Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.

Still doesnt excuse it IMO.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fpslem@lemmy.world 188 points 1 month ago

A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 140 points 1 month ago

As long as it doesn't interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that's fine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 129 points 1 month ago

"Quietly™" by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.

[-] bilb@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 102 points 1 month ago

Cool.

Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the "this video was sponsored by" segments on YouTube).

[-] laz@pawb.social 32 points 1 month ago

Add DeArrow in there as well (anti-clickbait)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[-] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 100 points 1 month ago

Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave's ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.

[-] const_void@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 month ago

Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 23 points 1 month ago

Just wait till you find out who funds Firefox.

[-] bilb@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 month ago
[-] osanna@lemmy.vg 28 points 1 month ago

It’s Google. So….. yes.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] sonofearth@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Bruh everything is funded by some sort of criminal. Jeffery Epstein could have donated to the Mozilla foundation for all we know. You literally cannot tell.

[-] Nalivai@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

That's a very convenient position that absolves you from any responsibility to do anything. Convenient, but I don't think correct.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Murse@slrpnk.net 73 points 1 month ago

Quietly

The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.

Shhhhhh.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 58 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] miridius@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 44 points 1 month ago

They didn't include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it's not enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 month ago

I don’t think it’s as good as uBlock Origin.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 44 points 1 month ago

It's a re-implementation of the uBlock origin engine in a faster language, and it can be used with all the same lists as uBlock origin. The only thing missing is a decent user interface, and even if Firefox isn't committed to providing one, WaterFox is.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 month ago

Good to hear, actually something worthwhile from FF (rust?) rather than AI crap. Hope it gets to Zen soon (and i can trust it as much as uBlock).

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 month ago

Fuck no. I don't want Brave stuff in my browser :(

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago

The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 month ago

Huh, right after Waterfox started to implement it themselves. Must have spooked Mozilla. I don't see how using Brave's adblock engine is all that different from uBlock Origin though since they both just enforce DNS lists, right? Could be wrong, I know nothing about how adblocking works on the backend, lol

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 month ago

DNS lists?
Fuck no brother (or sister or non-binary sibling)

Anyway. You can go as far as modifying the HTML page by overriding CSS rules.
Overrode the font on a page I am using at work because the vendor is apparantly not using their own product and the font is fucking tiny in some places.
You can override elements, dynamically remove with a selector wildcard, DNS blocks or subscribe to blocklists that can do all of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 month ago

DNS blocking, like with a Pihole, famously does not remove Youtube ads. So no, the mechanism is totally different.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 14 points 1 month ago

the brave one doesnt block as good as ublock origin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

That's a good thing.

Brave's native adblock is the best.

[-] rakeshmondal@lemmy.zip 67 points 1 month ago
[-] GarboDog@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Yeah we have to second this, unlock is way better in our experience

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Kissaki@feddit.org 26 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] polle@feddit.org 24 points 1 month ago

Why did they not just set ublock as a default installed plugin?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] melfie@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 month ago

If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gokayburucdev@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
714 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

85521 readers
436 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS