←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[] No.44545043[source]
> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that.

Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true.

Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's faster because now all the filtering is being done in C++ rather than JavaScript. Works on YouTube and everything.

I know there are some limits in place now with the max number of rules, but the limits seem to be plenty so far.

replies(4): >>44545065 #>>44546649 #>>44546946 #>>44550708 #
zwaps ◴[] No.44545065[source]
It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?
replies(2): >>44545076 #>>44545231 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.44545076[source]
> It is true though. Like, literally.

Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me?

> Why do you think it is called Lite?

Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

replies(3): >>44545145 #>>44545158 #>>44545289 #