←back to thread

552 points freedomben | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
blakesterz ◴[] No.41809847[source]
Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?
replies(8): >>41809855 #>>41809863 #>>41809873 #>>41809987 #>>41810060 #>>41810246 #>>41810440 #>>41812912 #
kccqzy ◴[] No.41809855[source]
I have been using the Firefox version of it for more than a year by now, basically as soon as it came out. I commented on HN that I was going to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37219071

There's no difference whatsoever.

And it's not surprising because on my iOS device I've been using similarly architected content blockers since 2015. There's no issue with declarative ad blocking.

Of course this differs with the kind of sites you visit. So you need to try it on your own. I can believe that perhaps for some people this is a downgrade, but don't automatically assume uBlock Origin Lite won't work well for you.

replies(3): >>41810031 #>>41810168 #>>41810257 #
drivebycomment ◴[] No.41810031[source]
Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago, finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard. The reduction in adblocking is so miniscule in aggregate - since declarative approach will always cover all the major advertisers - that it's not even a meaningful "trade-off".
replies(3): >>41810082 #>>41810142 #>>41810156 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.41810142[source]
> Anyone jumping up and down about MV3 while using Mac or iOS are hypocrites, since MV3 is essentially doing the same thing Safari did years ago,

iOS I'll give you, but macOS can in fact run ex. Firefox.

> finally matching the security and the privacy in that regard.

"Matching" inferior security+privacy is not a good thing. The only way this is an improvement if you think the blockers are malicious; otherwise a useful tool in the users interest has been made less powerful.

replies(2): >>41810438 #>>41810448 #
drivebycomment ◴[] No.41810438{3}[source]
One of the most common API malware extensions use is what MV3 blocks, and adblock extension is one of the common malware vectors:

https://helpcenter.getadblock.com/hc/en-us/articles/97384768...

https://www.wired.com/story/fake-chrome-extensions-malware/

This has been never ending.

replies(1): >>41810918 #
1. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.41810918{4}[source]
Okay, if you absolutely must then make that specific API require extra audit approval from the extension store, but breaking it outright is throwing out the baby with the bathwater; in a world where the FBI outright recommends an adblocker because ads are such a strong malware vector ( https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/ ), it's irresponsible to undermine uBo.
replies(1): >>41811409 #
2. kccqzy ◴[] No.41811409[source]
Nobody likes extra audit approvals. The platform doesn't want to spend resources doing the audit. The developers don't want to be audited.

The Firefox version of uBlock Origin Lite was pulled due to unsatisfactory audit process: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707418

replies(1): >>41815890 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.41815890[source]
> The Firefox version of uBlock Origin Lite was pulled due to unsatisfactory audit process

So make one that isn't incompetent? That's not really a counterargument to the general idea.