this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
2018 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

87337 readers
4117 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
2018
Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin (www.pcworld.com)
submitted 4 days ago by mesamunefire@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
418 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Firefox says it will keep supporting uBlock Origin even as Microsoft Edge and other Chromium browsers phase it out under Manifest V3.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

OK, sure, but what are the actual, real-life consequences of that?

uBlock Origin and any other effective content blocker had that as its most important weapon, without exaggeration. it has many other techniques for specific circumstances, but preventing to load the ad scripts, and preventing network requests that send back data to the advertising company, are universally a powerful tool.

I don't see any ads online. So ad-blocking still works. What doesn't work?

you don't see them because addons can still insert unlimited cosmetic tweaks. CSS snippets that make specific elements hidden. but the ads are still loaded, consuming network and CPU resources, and the ad framework still collects usage, interaction and device data.

also, the addons now can't regularly update the lists even for what cosmetic tweaks to apply. google has decided it does not allow addons in their addon store that fetch filterlists from the network. this means these addons need to embed the lists in themselves. list updates are released much less frequently, and can have several days delay while google decides whether the updated version contains something malicious or otherwise unacceptable to their policies. compared to that, uBlock Origin on Firefox updates the lists every day by default, with no delay, as it fetches the lists directly from their websites.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

uBlock Origin and any other effective content blocker had that as its most important weapon, without exaggeration. it has many other techniques for specific circumstances, but preventing to load the ad scripts, and preventing network requests that send back data to the advertising company, are universally a powerful tool.

You're just repeating what you already said.

My question is: since there are (and always have been) other privacy-oriented extensions (e.g. Privacy Badger, Ghostery) and they still work just as they always have, what is the advantage of specifically using uBO with Mv2?

you don’t see them because addons can still insert unlimited cosmetic tweaks. CSS snippets that make specific elements hidden. but the ads are still loaded, consuming network and CPU resources, and the ad framework still collects usage, interaction and device data.

I just loaded up YouTube and didn't see a single call to a known ad server, so this seems to be false.

Also: the CPU usage of loading even a couple MB-worth of ads is negligible compared to the overall resource hungriness of Chromium.

(...) list updates are released much less frequently (...)

I did notice that every now and again YouTube would block me from using it due to detecting the adblocker, but is that an inherent disadvantage of Mv3? And why wouldn't the extension developers then embed the updated filter lists and just release them as extension updates? Does Google limit the frequency of those?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just loaded up YouTube and didn't see a single call to a known ad server, so this seems to be false.

of course you didn't. on youtube ads are not served from different domains. have you ever heard about pihole not being able to block youtube ads? that's why. every ad is literally a video uploaded to youtube, it is even possible to watch them as videos, with their own video page.

Also: the CPU usage of loading even a couple MB-worth of ads is negligible compared to the overall resource hungriness of Chromium.

not always the case, differs by ad and ad framework, but the memory savings are still significant. and the difference matters more on weak computers, old computers, battery powered computers and when you are on a metered network.

I did notice that every now and again YouTube would block me from using it due to detecting the adblocker, but is that an inherent disadvantage of Mv3?

I don't know if that's what causes that. but not being able to update filterlists independently means that nobody can react quickly to when a website starts detecting a content blocker, or when ads start reappearing. the needs to wait for the next addon update, which may take multiple days.

And why wouldn't the extension developers then embed the updated filter lists and just release them as extension updates? Does Google limit the frequency of those?

because all addon updates go through a review. the effectiveness of it is largely debatable, but it delays updates significantly.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 54 minutes ago

of course you didn’t. on youtube ads are not served from different domains. have you ever heard about pihole not being able to block youtube ads? that’s why. every ad is literally a video uploaded to youtube, it is even possible to watch them as videos, with their own video page.

So it's not a privacy issue, it's an ad issue. Which doesn't show, it's blocked.

What does uBO do different here?

or when ads start reappearing. the needs to wait for the next addon update, which may take multiple days.

Just FYI - that only happens to me on YouTube every once in a while. Like, three times this year for a day or two.