- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
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
- WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
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.socialEnglish27 days
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.
- WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
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
- brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
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
27 daysRust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
- Jason2357@lemmy.caEnglish27 days
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.
- WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish27 days
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
- WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
that probably depends on the blocklists used, like with ublock
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
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.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
Does it need an excuse? It’s a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
- arrow74@lemmy.zipEnglish27 days
I mean what’s wrong with buying a company to access it proprietary code. NFTs were a dumb grift, but if the specific software product they offered was sound what’s the issue?
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish26 days
If the code was good, nothing would be wrong with it. It would be even better if the code was free. And that’s my point.
(In Mozilla’s case, it’s actually much worse because they bought private customer data along with the technology and then canned the technology while keeping the data, but that’s a different story.)
- lad@programming.devEnglish26 days
we were shocked and disappointed by the amount of fraud in crypto and NFT
That sounds so funny, somehow
- ricecake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish26 days
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.
- Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish27 days
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).
I think you’re right but I’m sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?
I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don’t think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn’t stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.
- fpslem@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
- 27 days
As long as it doesn’t interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that’s fine.
- Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.clubEnglish27 days
“Quietly™” by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.
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.
- Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.clubEnglish26 days
Yeah, I hate it bcs it’s just an intentional scam - and since the title is such an easy lie then prob everything is.
- Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
Cool.
Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the “this video was sponsored by” segments on YouTube).
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
- Echolynx@lemmy.zipEnglish26 days
I wish SponsorBlock and DeArrow were integrated into Invidious, like with Piped.
- Purebred0880@lemmy.wtfEnglish26 days
Freetube has integrated sponsor block (might have to enable it in the settings first). I’ve generally been very happy with the Freetube flatpak, although there have been times when YouTube actively fought against third parties where Freetube did not work for a month.
- Echolynx@lemmy.zipEnglish25 days
Thanks! I’ll check out Freetube, though I prefer to use my browser when possible.
- tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.mlEnglish27 days
SponsorBlock
I believe uBlock manages to remove all ads on yt by tickling the subscription of some list bundled in its installation already
- axo10tl@sopuli.xyzEnglish27 days
SponsorBlock skips past the video segments which contain sponsored advertisement. There’s no overlap with what uBlock does.
- auntieclokwise@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
Though there are a few creators that do such good ad segments that even those are worth watching. Map Men, Aging Wheels, and lazerpig all come to mind.
- Bluewing@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
With lazerpig, it’s often hard to tell the difference between the subject matter and the commercial…
Citation needed. When you hover over a video’s progress bar, there is displayed a little graph showing something resembling a probability density function for timestamps users most frequently skip to. Advertisers can use this information to determine how likely a user is to sit through a sponsorship for a given channel.
Not that that matters. Don’t feel like you need to watch ads. Advertising is bad in all its forms.
- chloroken@lemmy.mlEnglish26 days
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.
- 26 days
YouTube knows exactly where you start and stop the video, what segments you skip, etc., etc. and the channel has access to those analytics. Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors, but the mechanism IS in place.
- kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish26 days
Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors,
That’s my point. The sponsors of individual youtubers don’t have access to that information
- 26 days
I don’t know anything about sponsor agreements. Just because the sponsors don’t have direct access, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways for them to get that information.
- 26 days
They don’t require it as they already have metrics and data, by the unique promo code from each ad read. That tells them viewers of X will go to the website and buy something.
But I have never done that, because I don’t buy something because one person I like to watch was paid to talk about it.
- Warl0k3@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
It’s the default web interface - it doesn’t show on all videos, but in my experience it’s on nearly everything.
- zeca@lemmy.mlEnglish26 days
The creators sell adventisement space and want the advertisers to know that their channel is a good investment, so the more they can prove to the advertisers that their sponsor segments arent skipped, the more they can charge for it.
- 26 days
Do you have proof it harms them?
Unless you personally click the link and sign up using code WeAreAScam at checkout, they don’t get anything extra. They already have been paid for the ad read.
It’s like saying you’re stealing from a TV station because you took a piss during the ad break.
- Warl0k3@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren’t the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count. AFAIK it hasn’t made too much of a difference yet (though channels with high skip-counts are less likely to be given the decent sponsor deals) but if youtube makes the analytics easier to access it probably will have a pretty big impact.
- 26 days
Skipping the sponsored segment doesn’t net the creator less money. They’re paid before the video gets uploaded, or at worst by view count iirc.
- 26 days
I’m never removing SponsorBlock until YouTube cracks down on scams being promoted by big yotubers.
So, never.
- FlordaMan@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
So many yt’ers promoted honey, that weird Scottish land certificate thing and betterhelp. I would argue all of those are basically scams.
The Scottish thing is a scam because they aren’t even legally allowed to sell souvenir plots of land. Like obviously nobody in their right mind thinks it makes you a Lord or Lady, but they don’t even sell you the land!!!
- 26 days
Honey and that one thing that said “oh you can be a Lord if you buy some land in scotland”, among suspicious VPNs and other “problem solvers”.
If they pay to be spoken off, odds are it’s worth your money.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish26 days
most content creators starts peddling some cringe beliefs at some point, no loss there.
- AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish27 days
Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave’s ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.
- Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish26 days
Iirc google only pays Mozilla for a. Having google as the default search engine and b. Avoiding antitrust lawsuits.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
“Only” comes with a lot of implied strings attached. Can Mozilla bite the hand that feeds them? If they can, they should, especially if Google is as evil as they are. If they can’t, well, we’ve identified their master, haven’t we?
What? Seriously?? Those demons just have to finger fuck every pie that ever shows promise of subverting their datamining-advertising empire while pretending to be some force for good that cares about privacy and not being evil
Can we just destroy this hydra once and for all already
- TBi@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
These developers need to eat too.
- kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish26 days
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
First I’ve heard of that. Source?
- limer@lemmy.mlEnglish26 days
His foundation has invested in it per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
- kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish26 days
Thanks, I knew about some of Brave’s controversies but missed that.
I also wasn’t previously aware that Brave’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was a homphobic shithead, either.
- sonofearth@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
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.worldEnglish27 days
That’s a very convenient position that absolves you from any responsibility to do anything. Convenient, but I don’t think correct.
- sonofearth@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
As u/TBi said in the comments
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
- ricecake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish26 days
I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.
Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.
Lemmy is licensed under the AGPL which was created at the Free Software Foundation which was started by Richard Stallman who made controversial comments about Jeffrey Epstein in 2019. Don’t breath or you might inhale an atom once exhaled by Adolf Hitler.
- BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
This doesn’t bother me. The gays have won equal rights. Their push for acceptance and parity with straight people has been wildly successful. It’s like if I found out the CEO of a company I love financially supported anti-pet lobbying groups…good luck taking away people’s cats and dogs.
The only rights gay people might have not won involves adoption, but I feel like thats anti-man more than anything else. Society doesn’t feel comfortable giving a person a child unless there is a woman involved.
- AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish26 days
I started reading this and thought it was ironic but then i saw the pet example and that made me think… but then i realized im getting rage baited… yay so nice to use the internet nowadays
- BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I have some pretty contrarian opinions, at least in the context of Lemmy. I used the pet example because I have a cat. I love my cat, but whether or not the people who make my products love cats doesn’t concern me. They’d need to be in a position to actively harm my cat to justify a boycott.
- RichardNixos@lemmy.mlEnglish26 days
I can imagine you saying “This doesn’t bother me. The women have won reproductive rights,” in 2022 just before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and it’s sending me
Quietly
The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.
Shhhhhh.
- dubyakay@lemmy.caEnglish27 days
Despite this trope, public libraries usually don’t have a guideline or enforcement on noise levels.
But the developer was definitely using silent tactile switches.
In all of Asia? From India, Bangladesh to China and South Korea to the Phillipines? Thats quite the far reaching standard
- 27 days
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.- Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish27 days
If he can’t even install an addon for a browser, what do you think he can do with DNS?
- Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish27 days
No company that doesn’t allow you to install browser add-ons will allow you to run a pi-hole instance. Not on your machine, and much less as an actual pi plugged into their network. If you did plug an actual pi into the network it would probably reason to be just straight up fired.
It depends whether or not they left the DNS setting unlocked, which is actually highly likely.
Would have to use a public server, but it should in theory work.
- Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish27 days
I wouldn’t think so. I would also assume that direct DNS requests to external servers aren’t allowed in the firewall. But even if they are, they probably can’t use a non-company DNS server if he needs to reach internally hosted services. So it would at least require using different browser for internal and external browsing, assuming DNS requests to external servers really are allowed.
- cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish27 days
Firefox supports DNS over HTTPS. Enabling it will bypass the operating systems DNS. You can set a custom server that has ad blocking.
- scytale@piefed.zipEnglish27 days
If they locked down extensions, it’s highly likely they also locked down modifying the DNS settings.
Great.
Now you can be responsible for why group policies arent applying and the user is not able to access drive shares.- 27 days
Unless they just use Firefox’s proxy settings.
EDIT: It’s not DNS but should still work.
- miridius@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
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.
- Nalivai@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
But unless you did that, and actually don’t use the original, the possibility alone doesn’t do you any good
- 27 days
They didn’t include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?
- pdxfed@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it’s not enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
It’s still a bit odd to deploy dormant code to non-testors, isn’t it? Mozilla can withhold a Nightly or Beta feature for as long as it feels like, regardless of how many versions are released as they develop it.
- pdxfed@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
I’m not in software development so don’t have an opinion on the practice, just passing on what I read that seemed relevant.
- trem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish27 days
If there’s no reason to hold the feature code back (i.e. its integration doesn’t break anything), then it’s much easier for development to ship the feature and disable it with a feature flag. Otherwise, you have two versions of the code, which means changes need to be integrated in both versions, which is largely just pointless busywork.
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
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.- Buddahriffic@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff? Because FF already has debug tools built in that lets you edit the HTML or CSS of the page however you want, but it’s only for the current session. I’d occasionally use that before realizing I could just use reader mode for sites that did client side html5 bs for access control. Just go in and delete nodes using the picker tool. Until the annoying thing is gone.
I’ve never really played around with ublock’s capabilities, though did know that it must have been more sophisticated than just dns lists to stay in the arms race vs youtube (as well as why google was pushing “security features” that would kill it).
- Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish27 days
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff?
Yes.
uBlock at its core is really just a scripting system for replacing CSS content using certain rules.
The most common usage is to remove content you don’t like, but really it can manipulate things in a zillion different ways, many of the more advanced features are only available to the user and not larger block lists for security reasons.
You could also use tools like greasemonkey to change the website more permanently
- Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish27 days
DNS blocking, like with a Pihole, famously does not remove Youtube ads. So no, the mechanism is totally different.
Yeah, I confused DNS lists with block lists I’ve realized, lol. My bad
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
Firefox actually started developing it first, and Waterfox caught on and decided to piggyback off of it in a relatively small announcement at the bottom of a retrospective. The Waterfox announcement just got reported on first.
- mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I don’t know how it works either but water fox is the superior browser.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
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.
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).
- scytale@piefed.zipEnglish27 days
Is there a risk of negative conflicts if you also have uBO? Like having two antivirus apps being counterproductive.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish27 days
I think that’s true for adjacent extensions, but because this is at the browser level instead of the extension level, it’s two separate layers of filtering.
Firefox already filters some trackers by default, and they’ve been doing it for a while.
it can be used with all the same lists as uBlock origin
Can it really? I mean, you already mentioned there’s “no decent UI”, which I take it to mean there’s no way to customize the lists in Firefox, but can it be customized in Brave? Also, can it handle the blocking of Youtube Ads as effectively as uBO does?
It’s been ages since I’ve last tried Brave, so I really want to know. I may actually try and use it as backup chromium-based browser if that’s the case.
That’s why it’s been “quietly added”, it’s not ready for use. You can add lists in about:config, but this is just a super early implementation.
Yes, you can adjust filter lists in Brave, including custom ones.
can it be customized in Brave?
Yes, Brave has all the same functionality as uBO. There are pre-enabled lists. You can use custom lists. You can block custom domains. etc.
- Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish27 days
Forgive me, I’m not a Brave power user, so I don’t recall. Does Brave have anything resembling uBlock’s “Element picker mode” and “User rules” to make it easier to build and test blocking rules?
I maintain my own block list on codeberg and it would be a pain in the ass to have to work outside the browser, push to git, and force sync the browser just to refresh and find out if something worked.
It’s been ages since I’ve last tried Brave, so I really want to know. I may actually try and use it as backup chromium-based browser if that’s the case
It’s good if you don’t mind the CEO being an evil idiot, he is anti-lgbtq+
I’m aware of that, and it’s part of the reason I haven’t gone far in using Brave as a main browser last time.
But I figure that nowadays pretty much all tech bros have skeletons in their closet, so I guess it’s back to picking products on its merits.
Btw, you may be interessed in that: some people are developing a new open source web browser from scratch, it’s called LadyBird, it didn’t released yet tho
- 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish27 days
Source on this? Are you saying brave’s adblock is reimplementation of ublock. I have never heard of that. Maybe inspiration?
It’s not but for non tech everyday normal users this is better than nothing.
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.
- loics2@sh.itjust.worksEnglish27 days
Because the performance of brave lib is a little better since it doesn’t go through the plugin API
- b34k@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
So should you use this now? Or keep uBlock origin? Or enable both for maximum protection?
- 26 days
it’s up to you which one you wanna use, I’ll keep using uBlock origin (both is overkill, you only need one for blocking ads)
- b34k@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I guess my question is more, is the “brave” one as good as uBlock? Or does it miss some things? Sounds like performance is better.
My only thought about using both would be if the “brave” version is more performant, but less protective, it could quickly get rid of most of the ads, and let uBlock get the rest, reducing how many are filtered at greater performance cost. But I’m sure that’s based on a gross misunderstanding of how it all works.
- polle@feddit.orgEnglish26 days
Is it? Like YouTube is less laggy with that? Thats the only situation where i see actual delays by adblocking
- FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
Yes, it is. No, the delays on Youtube don’t come from the performance of the adblocking code, so you won’t notice many differences. But more efficient adblocking is good for everyone - noticeably more so on devices with batteries, but still helpful for everyone.
- lightnsfw@reddthat.comEnglish26 days
I use brave as my YouTube browser and it does seem to perform better than Firefox with unlock. There’s frequently weird delays with Firefox where the ads get through a little and are then blocked(admittedly I probably only update it like once a month). I don’t get that with Brave.
- polle@feddit.orgEnglish26 days
I never experienced that, only youtube is lagging hard. How much ads you still get probably depends on your location. I dont see any with ublock.
- nforminvasion@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
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.
- ILikeBoobies@lemmy.caEnglish27 days
The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.
- 27 days
Long live the hard fork!
Although I expect there are limits.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish27 days
i noticed it allowed one to evade reddits fingerprinting filters temporarily. so it was useful for a month when i was using that browser.
- nforminvasion@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I like using libreddit front ends. I don’t think they’re all called libreddit, but it’s a privacy front end that is really nice to use when I need to look at reddit for something.
