Is there any benefit to this over ublock origin?
More generic and therefore worse for fingerprinting. Though that’s only because it’s built in and standardized.
what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?
fingerprinting can be based on detecting what resources are blocked, and sometimes also how are they blocked. but blocking will become the baseline, so nefarious companies will have less of chance to tell the difference
thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the statement. makes more sense that it makes fingerprinting harder.
Every Firefox will have this. Every Firefox doesn’t have uBlock
A better way to phrase it is “Not every Firefox install has uBlock”.
The way you worded it suggests to native English speakers that Firefox and uBlock are mutually exclusive, which isn’t the caze
Is there any value in redundancy?
no, but no harm either. they use the same lists so one of them will just be doing nothing whenever the other removes something.
no, but no harm either
Some harm, but (somewhat) minor. Installing addons for Firefox makes you more susceptible to browser fingerprinting due to fewer people having the same setup. It’s harder to fingerprint your browser if you’re just running defaults
If it’s shipping by default, it’s better for preventing fingerprinting. If it’s default on the browser, that’s one less indentifying detail
This one took me a second. You’re not the one fingerprinting, other people are. It’s worse for the fingerprinters, better for you. “Worse for fingerprinting” means it’s more difficult to use as a fingerprint
So we’re saying the same thing? That makes way more sense
it’s a lot faster since it’s not built with js. less customisable though, since there’s no ui, although i imagine they’re working on that.
To add to this: Waterfox has promised to implement a UI even if Mozilla doesn’t.
I use uBlock Origin and disable all the Firefox stuff, no need for two. And now that they are using shit from Brave, I will disable that crap from a horrid company.
it’s an open source component built on the same system as ublock. it’s good for firefox that they add stuff people actually want.
They could just have easily built in the ublock origin plugin and not gone with braves implementation, a browser that is plagued with justified scandal.
Why Firefox would tie its fate to its disgraced founder is beyond me.
Rust is faster than JavaScript.
Sure, so they should have used some of that AI cash to rebuild ublock origin in rust, or push it further along the path to web assembly its already on.
The code is literally right there for the taking. Why would they spend the time rebuilding something when they could just have it for free?
Because then they would have something better and would have improved one of the most popular extensions in their browser?
They are quite literally taking the “if you don’t like it, fork it yourself” approach. Who said they aren’t going to make changes/improvements on top of it?
I don’t see anyone else mentioning it but this is also probably because brave browser is published under the MPL license so the licenses are actually compatible between projects. They don’t want to implement completely from scratch because there is a compatible existing implementation that they can build on top of instead of starting from scratch.
…because he also founded firefox?
Hes also a bigot that was removed from leadership at Mozilla that has run multiple scams via Brave, all while taking Thiel bucks. What’s your point?
i think i misunderstood your earlier reply, i thought you were talking about eich as the founder of brave, but you meant that he was the founder of firefox.
yeah he sucks.
i don’t think he wrote the adblocker though.
i guess they receive some cash to distribute brave malware
Gave it a try, fully understanding it’s not even a released feature yet, it works alright, but on Twitch it fully breaks streams, so watch out for that if you decide to run with it.
