this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
143 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
84881 readers
4703 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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
what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?
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
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.
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.