this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
720 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

84900 readers
4069 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] XLE@piefed.social 276 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

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:

  1. Rust is faster than JavaScript
  2. Native functionality is faster than an extension
  3. Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 month ago (6 children)

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.social 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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~~ two 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.works 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 15 points 1 month ago

Rust is faster than JavaScript

isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly?

The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 195 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 24 points 1 month ago
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 144 points 1 month ago (4 children)

As long as it doesn't interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that's fine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 133 points 1 month ago (3 children)

"Quietly™" by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.

[–] bilb@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 106 points 1 month ago (41 children)

Cool.

Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the "this video was sponsored by" segments on YouTube).

[–] laz@pawb.social 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Add DeArrow in there as well (anti-clickbait)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 90 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave's ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just wait till you find out who funds Firefox.

[–] bilb@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s Google. So….. yes.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Murse@slrpnk.net 73 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Quietly

The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.

Shhhhhh.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 59 points 1 month ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] miridius@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

That's cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 44 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They didn't include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it's not enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don’t think it’s as good as uBlock Origin.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 43 points 1 month ago (12 children)

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.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 month ago

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).

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 28 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DNS blocking, like with a Pihole, famously does not remove Youtube ads. So no, the mechanism is totally different.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 14 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] polle@feddit.org 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why did they not just set ublock as a default installed plugin?

[–] loics2@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Because the performance of brave lib is a little better since it doesn't go through the plugin API

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck no. I don't want Brave stuff in my browser :(

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] viov@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

What is the progress of Servo and Ladybird?

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a good thing.

Brave's native adblock is the best.

[–] rakeshmondal@lemmy.zip 65 points 1 month ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›