A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
Lol, yes.
I said it for Waterfox and I’m gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it’s just fine.
The biggest difference right now is that the WaterFox developers noticed this early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news.
Rust is faster than JavaScript, native functionality is faster than an extension, and this is something Firefox users have been asking for for a long time.
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
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
that probably depends on the blocklists used, like with ublock
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.
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
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 module. (It’s in the “wasm” folder near the top of the list).
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.
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
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
It was 16 years ago
:’(
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Using ad blocking technology, unrelated to your complaint, 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.
I can hate more than one of Mozilla’s decisions.
Zewm forgot to have a reason. Do you have one?
we were shocked and disappointed by the amount of fraud in crypto and NFT
That sounds so funny, somehow
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doeant excuse it IMO.
Does it need an excuse? It’s a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
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?
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.)
@Solaris1220@lemmy.world any comment?
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.
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.
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.
They didn’t include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?
From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it’s. It enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.
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.
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.
I’m not in software development so don’t have an opinion on the practice, just passing on what I read that seemed relevant.
I don’t think it’s as good as uBlock Origin.
It’s not but for non tech everyday normal users this is better than nothing.
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.
Is there a risk of negative conflicts if you also have uBO? Like having two antivirus apps being counterproductive.
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.
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).
Source on this? Are you saying brave’s adblock is reimplementation of ublock. I have never heard of that. Maybe inspiration?
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.
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
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.
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.
Yes
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.Try DNS sinkholing
If he can’t even install an addon for a browser, what do you think he can do with DNS?
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.
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.
Great.
Now you can be responsible for why group policies arent applying and the user is not able to access drive shares.Ask IT to make their DCs public facing /s
Unless they just use Firefox’s proxy settings.
EDIT: It’s not DNS but should still work.
Firefox supports DNS over HTTPS. Enabling it will bypass the operating systems DNS. You can set a custom server that has ad blocking.
If they locked down extensions, it’s highly likely they also locked down modifying the DNS settings.
I think I should have just said pi hole
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 would probably reason to be just straight up fired.
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.
As long as it doesn’t interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that’s fine.
It’s not enabled by default.
So… no news
Until they enable it
If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.
Everyone has their own line, and I don’t begrudge people theirs.
But at the end of the day we all have to function somehow. Nobody’s hands are completely clean.
“Quietly™” by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.
How Brave
Much fox,
very lion.
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.
Yeah, I hate it bcs it’s just an intentional scam - and since the title is such an easy lie then prob everything is.
This can be the main reason:
Mozilla: Anthropic’s Mythos found 271 security vulnerabilities in Firefox
How incredible i think I’ll start using Firefox again as it’s becoming better i just wish they would create their own email service already.
Very soon ! https://www.tb.pro/en-GB/
Where it stores all the data? USA? Or some Big Tech cloud?
google likely
What is the progress of Servo and Ladybird?
Oh if it end up in the iOS app I’ll be thrilled, I use brave for YouTube only on iOS for Adblock
You can block YouTube ads in Safari with uBlock.
That’s cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams
I don’t think you can separate a product from their CEO
In the Open Source world you can always fork.
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.
Quietly
The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.
Shhhhhh.
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.
Maybe not in Canada but every library in Asia has
In all of Asia? From India, Bangladesh to China and South Korea to the Phillipines? Thats quite the far reaching standard
