Rendered at 05:15:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
GeekyBear 7 hours ago [-]
Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options.
> Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality and user experience. After receiving Recommended status, safety standards are maintained through automated checks, monitoring, and periodic technical reviews
I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but not recommended. I wonder what is going on with that.
culi 2 hours ago [-]
Probably just resources. Mozilla has to vet each update to give them the "recommended" badge and so they probably focus on the most popular extensions
benatkin 1 hours ago [-]
They should have vetted ViolentMonkey instead of TamperMonkey the last time around.
big_toast 6 hours ago [-]
That's pretty cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't see where it says 'on every update' unless you're referring to the automated checks?
I've always wished extensions had more granular permissions though (a la phones, but more so). I think automated ai security checks sound promising soon.
elashri 6 hours ago [-]
Automated checks are done for every extension on every update. But their recommend extensions they feature on the Extension store, they do other extensive checks for each update.
socalgal2 4 hours ago [-]
what permissions do you suggest?
swed420 6 hours ago [-]
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen.
Ladybird browser is going to be awesome.
dralley 5 hours ago [-]
Websites already can barely be assed to care about supporting Firefox users, doing adblocking by default is a great way to get websites to start putting up banners that say "our website does not work with your browser, please switch to Chrome" en-masse.
And Mozilla did develop anti-fingerprinting tech, but they can't enable it by default because it breaks lots of websites and when a website doesn't work they're not going to appreciate Mozilla for protecting them, they're going to be pissed that it doesn't work.
Grom_PE 47 minutes ago [-]
Websites blocking Firefox because of ad blocking has happened before:
The level of mental gymnastics in this thread denying the extent to which companies like Google (and their puppets like Mozilla) control the internet is too damn high.
Fortunately if projects like Ladybird gain enough momentum, websites might be forced to cater to it. Time will tell.
inigyou 5 hours ago [-]
You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare?
swed420 4 hours ago [-]
> You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core
If you want to inherit all of Firefox's flaws, I suppose.
> and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare?
Considering Cloudflare is a sponsor of Ladybird, something tells me they're going to grant an exception for it.
Larrikin 3 hours ago [-]
What flaws exactly?
People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a decade ago, couldn't handle 1000 tab sessions.
I hope Firefox keeps up the fight but HN loves to crap all over them for not being perfect.
tombert 2 hours ago [-]
Can’t speak for all users, but at least as of about six months ago, there appears to be a bug in Firefox in NixOS where the shader cache doesn’t appear to be able to write properly, and as such video acceleration doesn’t work. It became most evident when I was trying to watch 360-degree videos in Immich.
Entirely possible that this is an issue specific to NixOS or my machine, but because of that issue I switched over to Brave.
I would like to go back to Firefox at some point. Maybe I’ll see if I can make a patch to fix video acceleration on NixOS.
fouc 41 minutes ago [-]
the obvious thing to do is keep using firefox as your daily driver, and load up the other browser as needed for the video etc.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek here because it seems most people just give up on safari/firefox if one thing doesn't work and go to some chromium-based browser as their default driver. That's sad.
chironjit 2 hours ago [-]
Sadly Cloudflare's browser detector is the main barrier to using Servo for most websites, so they're not the angel they seem
Plont 4 hours ago [-]
They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read.
Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.
And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.
I hope Ladybird does well, too.
swed420 4 hours ago [-]
Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent.
> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.
I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).
FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.
aaplok 4 hours ago [-]
> Do we trust them or don't we?
GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.
Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.
swed420 4 hours ago [-]
That was a rhetorical question.
Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people.
WorldMaker 4 hours ago [-]
Admiral and several other of the more obnoxious ad networks already claim that Firefox is an ad blocker simply because of its out-of-the-box blocking support for third-party cookies and those ad networks nag you to use another browser. If Firefox added actual ad blocking out of the box I can't imagine the havoc that would cause and how many more websites would claim that they don't work at all in Firefox.
glenstein 11 minutes ago [-]
A sharp point in this context because yet again, Mozilla faces contradictory demands in every direction. In today's edition, they are failing their users by not hard coding the ablocking in but also they need to give up on ad blocking because if they try they'll simply be blacklisted.
firefax 3 hours ago [-]
>since Google basically owns them
Google has been trying to kill them since they moved the Chrome team into the same building as the now defunct SF office.
(Apparently they offered people a lot of money? There are some words I could use to describe people who do things they think are unethical for cash I'll leave unsaid.)
3371 1 hours ago [-]
People believe ublock because it's reputable and not affiliated with browsers IMO.
epihelix 5 hours ago [-]
That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
What stuns me is that most people still use browsers that cannot block ads, seem genuinely annoyed by ads, but don't want to even try switching to a browser that will easily block those ads. It's amazing how much crap people are willing to wade through when the alternative is trying something new.
swed420 4 hours ago [-]
> That's like suggesting that someone using LLMs to assist coding, could save themselves the trouble by writing the code by hand.
No it's not.
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
No, quite the opposite. FF has a history of adopting extensions as baked-in functionality if they prove useful/popular enough. There are tons of examples of this from the past for various features, which is great.
But that fact makes it even more absurd that they refuse to do the same for what is likely their most popular extension of all time: uBlock Origin
oblio 2 hours ago [-]
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla.
It's been 20+ years, nobody cares about that anymore.
cuu508 50 minutes ago [-]
In one of the monthly update videos Andreas mentioned that although they are working on a basic built-in adblocker for Ladybird, long-term they want extension support and the adblocking functionality to be in an extension.
stubish 4 hours ago [-]
If Firefox baked in ad blocking, they would have to then deal with the financial incentive to make it worse. Sponsored ads, 'good' ads, government announcements, election propaganda... there is a slippery slope they are better off not getting on. A trusted 3rd party from the wider community seems a better option in many ways. The alternative is starting a web browser with a manifesto welded on that essentially states 'death to all advertising', and until that can be crowd funded I can't see that happening in today's world.
What I am surprised about is that none of the browsers or forks have created a specialist plugin API for adblocking and maybe other filtering. Provide what is needed and only that (keeping the surface tiny), and then evolve the general purpose API in the way they need. I don't think we need V2 of the API any more, except for keeping this one absolutely critical plugin working, do we?
deweywsu 6 hours ago [-]
See, this is the kind of thing that makes Firefox cool. They have not only just as good of developer console tools as Chrome, they have forward thinking, truly user-oriented policies. They have had trouble in the recent past at securing funding, but something tells me their user philosophy might save them when all the others turn completely to corporate greed as their main operating mechanism (if they already haven't).
swed420 6 hours ago [-]
Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now. But they don't, and likely never will.
bigbadfeline 4 hours ago [-]
> Your reply makes no sense. To the original point, if they had user-oriented policies, they'd have ad-blocking baked in by now.
It's not black and white, and your inability to see the larger context is disturbing.
You could, by the same logic, criticize Mozilla for not serving you coffee which is certainly a "user-oriented policy" "baked-in" or rather "brewed-in". But we must be realistic about how far UOPs can be stretched, Mozilla is better than the rest, which includes large corps with far more money than them. If you can do better than Mozilla, I'm all ears.
Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
swed420 4 hours ago [-]
> Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
One would hope that's one of the more useful things an LLM could assist with if not now, very soon. In the meantime, there's no reason they couldn't have uBlock kept as an extension but bundled by default like they've done with other functionality over the years. Wait, never mind. There's one rea$on why they wouldn't, and it's already been $tated.
ruckcbek 6 hours ago [-]
You're absolutely right.
KingMob 16 minutes ago [-]
Ladybird will never be awesome, because it's written by a guy who stans Charlie Kirk and DHH. He said he doesn't like when people call for punching nazis. I'll stop using the web before I run Ladybird.
After watching them butcher their own side tabs implementation, I don't know if we really want that, unless they're actually hiring the uBO team directly.
Beijinger 2 hours ago [-]
Also for youtube download plug-ins. yt-dpl does not work for youtube anymore.
culi 2 hours ago [-]
Still works for me. The occasional 403 has always been an issue
Beijinger 2 hours ago [-]
I recommend two more:
1. pass paywalls clean.
2. Social Fixer
armadyl 27 minutes ago [-]
Rather than introducing additional attack surface and privacy risks with yet another extension you can just use archive.is/archive.ph instead of Bypass Paywalls Clean.
Or, just pay for journalism since it’s not free to do.
culi 2 hours ago [-]
You mean Bypass Paywalls Clean? It's illegal and it's not even on the Firefox extension store. You have to download it from some Russian Github alternative and manually install it.
I will say however, it works remarkably well. I haven't seen a paywall in years!
Beijinger 1 hours ago [-]
Why should it be illegal?
_ZeD_ 26 minutes ago [-]
It's not. Op is wrong
einpoklum 5 hours ago [-]
> Firefox is also the only browser that vets uBlock's code on every update to make sure the developer hasn't inserted spyware or malware into the extension.
Why, are they worried it might interfere with the spyware they bake into Firefox themselves?
I don't like telemetry being defaulted to opt-in but relax. It's anonymized and it's far and away the least intrusive of the major browsers
avaer 7 hours ago [-]
What's funny is that extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do. Guess that was a bit too much freedom for Google to accept, so they had to make a store with a gate, and destroy the APIs so that they're useless. Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that and ram it through the pipeline despite everyone's objections, and the frog got boiled.
Now we're back to needing an actual extension system that does what extensions were supposed to do in the first place.
matheusmoreira 7 hours ago [-]
> Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that
Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only the conflicts of interest inherent in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker prevent that.
codedokode 6 hours ago [-]
Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result.
Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.
jimmydorry 2 hours ago [-]
So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model?
uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpetuity).
glenstein 3 minutes ago [-]
>So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model?
A funny argument to make because the thing that would make such a measure ridiculous as you rightly point out, is exactly what already makes the Manifest changes ridiculous in the first instance. They were making a rhetorical point and you elaborated on their point for them as if doing so expressed a disagreement.
michaelt 5 hours ago [-]
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data.
To be honest, to me it sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.
To me, directly messing with web page data and browser behaviour is the whole point of a browser extension - what else is a browser extension for?
matheusmoreira 5 hours ago [-]
The purpose of browser extensions is to build up an install base then sell out to some corporation that then promptly leverages that user base to exfiltrate data and monetize it.
No thanks. They should have to declare to the browser what it is they want done instead.
tmgldn 5 hours ago [-]
This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do.
I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
static_motion 2 hours ago [-]
And extensions do exactly that in Firefox. When installing (or updating) extensions you're notified of any and all permissions the extension is requesting from the browser and you're given the choice to proceed with the installation or not. Google goes a step further and just straight up denies user choice entirely.
a2ff6eeb0 3 hours ago [-]
I think you're confusing the extension and the browser. The browsers are generally in the business of supporting an advertising company.
jamesnorden 5 hours ago [-]
It still sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
... But they do that. The declaration is written in a language called JavaScript.
matheusmoreira 22 minutes ago [-]
Javascript is not a declarative language.
lxgr 5 hours ago [-]
Why should there not be a middle ground between “can do absolutely everything with all my data” and “is basically a glorified bookmark button” based on the level of trust I have for an extension?
mzajc 4 hours ago [-]
Because security is the pretext, not the goal here. I'm sure browsers could have better security controls for extensions, but giving users extra control over software doesn't seem to be very popular among corpos nowadays.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Because the browser already has bookmark buttons
drtgh 5 hours ago [-]
>Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable.
Sounds like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Years ago, it was standard practice for software to be designed so that users could grant permissions to access invasive methods or functions.
Google relies on users' personal data (ads), which is why they introduced a unique ID to their Chrome browser (to track).
edoceo 4 hours ago [-]
When was that standard practice? Cause years ago (like 2000) I remember even trivial and simple software (WeatherBug) being able to read/write all over the computer (Windows). And some crap I just installed on Win11 can see all over the box, just slightly less.
bo1024 6 hours ago [-]
Of course it's tempting to reply "don't install random extensions". But a bigger point here is that browsers have grown so massively complex that it's almost impossible to build one, so we don't have an ecosystem where you can choose your browser for safety and I can choose mine for freedom. Of course, Google has had a big incentive and hand in making it this way.
flomo 2 hours ago [-]
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
Agreed. And you would think most paranoid HN types would too.
> It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted
Maybe I'm foggy on the history. But isn't this like Fork #4 or #5 of some previous AdBlock extension?
Seems like the only business model for this type of extension is "selling out" for certain ads. And then the cycle repeats and forum posters tell you to install qBlock Omega or whatever. Maybe Mozilla doesn't want to get in the middle of this?
FeepingCreature 48 minutes ago [-]
"Random" is a funny thing to call an extension that you have deliberately installed.
I also don't want "random" programs accessing my home folder. That would be terrible! Who knows what programs that could be! I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily. Same for extensions.
The goal here isn't really to protect me from extensions. Extensions don't do anything on their own, they just sit there and wait for me to install them. So the goal is apparently to protect me from me (installing an extension), which really is to say protect their business (ads) from me (blocking them).
matheusmoreira 3 minutes ago [-]
"Random" is what I call pretty much every extension that is not uBlock Origin. I absolutely want them limited to the fullest extent. Maybe if they were, I would actually install some of them.
> I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily.
I don't. My standard operating practice is to virtualize them.
My security posture is considerably more lax towards free and open source software, for obvious reasons, and even then this trust only extends to the software in my Linux distribution's repositories. Stuff coming from PyPI, npm, cargo, ruby gems, and other such "developer centric" repositories get the full virtualization treatment. If it's easy for randoms to publish packages, then it's equally easy for malware to make it in.
xtracto 5 hours ago [-]
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data
This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites.
Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? .
Sign of the times I guess.
matheusmoreira 49 minutes ago [-]
> Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust.
Same reason why people download random stuff and run it with administrator permissions on Windows.
ajb 2 hours ago [-]
... the greatest danger to
us is masterless men; lacking a coercive power to tie their hands, they would
destroy society. How else but by binding to lord and master can they be held to the laws? So thought men during feudal times.
In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving such power to single monopolists. But it's not in Google's interests to build such mechanisms, any more than it was in the interests of the feudal overlords to look for alternatives to their rule.
matheusmoreira 38 minutes ago [-]
I'm supposed to be the master, actually. It's my computer, any foreign code is essentially a subject in my digital domain. It should be literally impossible for them to do something I don't want them to do. As the god of my little digital realm, I should have maximum power and freedom, while foreign developers get the absolute minimum amount of power that works, and in the ideal case this minimum is zero.
The fact someone gave developers a turing complete language inside the browser where random code is automatically downloaded and executed is a major reason why we even have uBlock Origin in the first place. The vast majority of developers heavily abuse this privilege and cannot be trusted, and that is why we block them with extreme prejudice.
radley 6 hours ago [-]
> I want my browser to prevent random extensions...
Why are you installing random extensions?
lxgr 5 hours ago [-]
Not GP, but sometimes I want my browser to do pretty random/niche things without that compromising all of my browsing data.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
How can the browser tell the difference between a random thing you want and a random thing you don't want?
matheusmoreira 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not. The only extension I trust enough to install is uBlock Origin.
FeepingCreature 43 minutes ago [-]
Well great! You are already protected from random extensions then.
matheusmoreira 1 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, by opting out of them altogether. I'd very much enjoy having useful extensions that are not dangerous instead.
behringer 2 hours ago [-]
Of course the reasons weren't unreasonable, that's what made them great excuses for specifically blocking ublock origin.
matheusmoreira 25 minutes ago [-]
They don't specifically block uBlock Origin though. I have no doubt they intended it to, and that's literally my only objection to Manifest V3: it's good but it hurts uBlock Origin therefore I don't accept it.
The right thing is to simply bypass all of that. The fact is uBlock Origin should be literallly built into the browser like the good old popup blockers once were.
If only we had a browser that was independent of ad money.
colordrops 4 hours ago [-]
Don't defend them then. Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system? If not, then it shouldn't be true of the browser either.
matheusmoreira 54 minutes ago [-]
> Do you believe the same should be true of your operating system?
Yes, and I have actually started virtualizing everything inside my computer because of that belief. I don't want random software touching my trusted host.
"Random software" is currently defined as anything outside the official repositories of my Linux distribution of choice. I don't want to share a home directory with such things. I don't want to share a user and its permissions, I don't even want to share a kernel with them.
FeepingCreature 43 minutes ago [-]
There's a difference between you virtualizing programs and your OS vendor virtualizing programs for you without giving you an opt-out. Cough snaps cough.
doctorpangloss 5 hours ago [-]
Nothing stops people from using a fork with manifest v2 support restored. In fact "VibeChrome" would probably be a successful product.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
First you'd get sued because chrome is a Google trademark
cma 6 hours ago [-]
The Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer let users search Google directly from any webpage, block pop-up ads, autofill web forms, and highlight search terms. It also displayed PageRank metrics, translated foreign languages, checked spelling, and managed web bookmarks.
matheusmoreira 6 hours ago [-]
Imagine the massive amount of data they must have harvested through it.
socalgal2 4 hours ago [-]
> Google ... had to ... destroy the APIs so that they're useless.
I see this repeated over and over and yet uBlock Origin Lite still seems to block almost all ads. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer the non-lite version. But, given I basically still don't see ads it's kind of hard to argue Google destroyed the APIs so that they're useless
what 2 hours ago [-]
There’s also ad blockers for iOS safari, which I’m pretty sure doesn’t support ublock. There’s nothing in manifest v2 that’s required for ad blocking.
armadyl 16 minutes ago [-]
uBlock Origin Lite is available on iOS/iPadOS for Safari however last time I checked it’s inferior to AdGuard/Wipr due to the API it uses (it only works in Safari but doesn’t provide ad blocking in the web views like the other two do). Otherwise it’s equivalent with the desktop version.
Gigachad 6 hours ago [-]
Browser extensions were also one of the biggest ways to distribute malware. The situation was genuinely horrific. Malware distributors would offer popular extension devs millions of dollars to buy the extension, then silently insert malware which gets auto deployed to millions of people.
underlipton 5 hours ago [-]
That sounds more like an issue with the update policies.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Why haven't they been prosecuted? And why hasn't this "cindyllm" bot account been deleted yet? Clearly a shadowban didn't send the message.
cindyllm 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Firefox extensions are already so incredibly locked down. It used to be they could edit any part of the UI anywhere. Now they each get a button at the end of the URL bar if they're lucky, otherwise it's some obscure hamburger menu item.
tredre3 2 hours ago [-]
You have full control of whether or not their button is in your toolbar.
If they are hidden for you, it's because you, the user, hid them or enabled the overflow extension menu.
tomjen3 2 hours ago [-]
There are good solid reasons why Manifest v3 is preferable for most extensions.
The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it, so an addition, or workaround should be made, but when Google has the amount of influence they have, that didn't happen.
The upshut is that people hate ads and like free stuff, so there is now a good selling point for Firefox. Hell some of us switched to Firefox because it blocked popup ads and had tabs, back in the day.
armadyl 14 minutes ago [-]
> The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it
Except this is objectively not true…
uBlock Origin Lite is nearly as good as uBO and blocks nearly everything except for mostly Twitch ads.
Manifest v3 is a big security upgrade and effectively closes off the permanent RCE pathway that v2 allowed.
windowliker 4 hours ago [-]
I often forget how browsing the web looks for most people. Can't understand why they put up with it, or do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
HaloZero 37 minutes ago [-]
I turned off my adblocker on 404 Media since I wanted to support them, I loaded one new tab in an article and it maxed my CPU at 100% for so long that I paused and had to figure out what was spiking my computer.
Immediately turned it off.
chr15m 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, in the same way constant software malfunctions and errors are normal and tolerated.
cpeterso 2 hours ago [-]
Open your browser’s dev tools while loading a website and there’s usually a continuous stream of HTTP and JS errors and warnings. That websites actually work surprises me sometimes, but that’s the pragmatic beauty of the web.
iammrpayments 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe it’s on purpose to keep people addicted to installing apps
flomo 2 hours ago [-]
You "often forget", perhaps because it's been a very long time since you've emerged from your bunker.
"Most people" are not even using the web, they are using the app, and getting very targeted ads, based on their behavior. The web is just some place where auxiliary transactions happen.
Text + Ads stopped paying the bills years ago. (long before chatgpt) If you want to read good stuff, it's mostly behind a paywall now. (I like reading stuff, so I pay for it.)
Sounds like you are landing on bottom-tier legacy webpages. And your 'slot machine' ads are how they profiled you, so you are perhaps telling on yourself.
seabrookmx 4 hours ago [-]
> every page
That's a bit hyperbolic. The areas of the internet I frequent do not have egregious ads (for example, this page). Areas where I really would like good ad-blocking (youtube) are often not covered by these ad blockers. Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
Maybe it's better these days but I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit, so I've always shied away from them (with the exception of a password manager).
beej71 37 minutes ago [-]
> Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
True, but some of us refuse to give that company money on principle. The minute I can't watch YouTube without ads is the minute I stop watching YouTube. (The creators I follow make way more money off me on Patreon than Google would ever pay them, anyway.)
> I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit
I always found that not using uBO was a pretty big performance hit. :)
abdullahkhalids 2 hours ago [-]
uBlock causes a huge performance improvement for most regular people's computers.
prmoustache 2 hours ago [-]
adblock works well with regular youtube ads (not the one inside the actual content).
Ahh so this will be what moves me off of Edge. Microsoft has almost entirely pushed me out of their ecosystem at this point.
Scoundreller 2 hours ago [-]
RIP corporate users that can't install their own browsers but can install extensions
LeoPanthera 6 hours ago [-]
The title says "major browser", which none of those are.
Aldo_MX 5 hours ago [-]
Brave surely is a major browser with 100+M MAU, not too distant from Firefox with 150+M MAU.
hackernud3s 5 hours ago [-]
Brave blocks those ads anyway so no point in Ublock, maybe that's why it's left out. It does inject it's own ads though, and then there's all the crypto nonsense.
EbNar 1 hours ago [-]
Ads on Brave are opt-in (and not embedded on webpages anyway) and the "crypto nonsense" is a way for them to try to stay afloat without having to accept money from Google and the likes.
ipsum2 5 hours ago [-]
Brave adblocking breaks some websites that uBlock Origin doesn't.
brewdad 1 hours ago [-]
Lately I’ve had better luck with Brave than with FF and UBO, at least one my various banking sites.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Firefox is less popular than some of the browsers you listed as not major, so it isn't major either
ticulatedspline 5 hours ago [-]
Technically Firefox isn't a major browser either.
mikeocool 5 hours ago [-]
Guess it was a bad idea for everyone to switch to a browser made by one of the world’s biggest advertising companies.
tech234a 5 hours ago [-]
Haven’t tried it but apparently there is an unofficial port of the full version of uBlock Origin to work on manifest v3, the largest challenge being that, on manifest v3, the webRequestBlocking permission is only available to enterprise sideloaded extensions: https://github.com/r58Playz/uBlock-mv3
ivraatiems 6 hours ago [-]
For those who use uBlock Origin Lite, have you noticed any issues/deficiencies in what ads are blocked? I haven't.
jimrandomh 5 hours ago [-]
I use Firefox with (non-lite) uBlock Origin, and occasionally fire up Chrome (with uBO Lite) for testing. The main issue that I run into is that uBO lite filters can't vary per-domain, so in order to rule out an ad-blocking-false-positive on something I'm developing, I have to turn it off for _all_ sites, not just localhost. (Actual false positives are rare, but needing to check is not so rare.)
tredre3 2 hours ago [-]
That's not true, the on/off toggle is per-site in uBlock Origin Lite.
socalgal2 4 hours ago [-]
I have not really had any issues with ads using uBlock Origin Lite. It's like the complainers live in an alternate reality or just listened to some influencer and never actually checked.
I do miss the rules that let me remove stuff based like CSS like selectors. The strange thing is, even though uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support that feature it's still totally possible to make an extension that does that. Maybe the specific thing uBlock Origin was doing is not possible but making an extension that follows rules and hides/deletes elements with different rules per site is still fully possible under manifest v3
armadyl 8 minutes ago [-]
But you can do this with uBOL? I’m not sure what you mean. I have multiple rules to hide elements on various sites. With HN I hide elements and can give it a custom CSS dark mode through uBOL. Works on both desktop and iOS.
hn_submit 4 hours ago [-]
In the short time I've used it I haven't noticed any appreciable difference.
Marsymars 3 hours ago [-]
I’ve found uBlock Origin Lite (and every other non-uBlock Origin blocker) to struggle with websites using Ad-Shield. (i.e. the entire website breaks.)
firefax 3 hours ago [-]
You can have my ad blocker when you take it from my cold dead fingers. I will literally move to a shack in the woods rather than go back to late 90s level of bullshit advertising.
zaik 3 hours ago [-]
> move to a shack in the woods
That's what gemini:// is for.
Gud 33 minutes ago [-]
I was shaking my head when my fellow developers, and some hackers, moved from Firefox to mostly Chrome. “It has better dev tools you see”, “it’s so much faster you see”, and a boatload of other excuses.
But what about the remonopolization of the web? I remember how much it SUCKED when internet explorer had 95% of the web thanks to Microsoft’s illegal practices. I saw the same behaviour from Google, the ad company and they haven’t event gotten a slap on the wrist. Fuck, people fucking loves Google, despite their turn to the dark side.
Well here we are, with the open web almost dead. It’s time to revive it. Start using alternatives again. Seek out and support people and organisations that are actively working to build the community web, not this corporate shit it’s morphed into.
End rant
Animats 7 hours ago [-]
Manifest 3 is why I finally shut down Sitetruth and Ad Limiter. Removing ads from Google Search is now possible only in Firefox.
rasz 6 hours ago [-]
uBO still works in newest Vivaldi.
imagetic 6 hours ago [-]
Support Firefox. F** Chrome.
imglorp 4 hours ago [-]
Seriously.
The web is completely unusable without UBO+FF. Any time I have to use a clean browser, I feel assaulted and dirty, plus wonder what malware just got injected into my machine.
If it were to go away, I would probably accelerate retiring to an analog, offline life.
nullhole 6 hours ago [-]
Fix?
sixtyj 6 hours ago [-]
Free Chrome. /s
imagetic 6 hours ago [-]
+1 *
saghm 1 hours ago [-]
> But Firefox is one of the few web browsers remaining that isn’t based on Chromium, and it’s now the only major browser to still support uBlock Origin. Neither Safari nor DuckDuckGo—the two other major non-Chromium browsers out there—support uBlock Origin
Does anyone here use DuckDuckGo browser? I've honestly never heard of anyone using it, so I'm pretty surprised to see it categorized as a "major browser". I already basically think of Firefox users (which includes myself) as a pretty tiny minority, so I'm not sure how much smaller you can really get while still being "major".
thrusong 2 hours ago [-]
I'm a web developer and I have a deep love of Firefox. I've been on it since version 3 and I'll be with it to the bitter end. I love that uBlock Origin is still available and while the news of Firefox's declining market share can be quite concerning, I hope it will be around for a long time.
dadass 1 hours ago [-]
Firefox is also the only browser that supports anything like userChrome.css for customizing tabs, toolbar, address bar, menus, spacing, etc.
zarzavat 53 minutes ago [-]
I don't know why with LLMs we can't just add MV2/blocking web request support to Chromium in a fork.
The argument against was always that it's "too hard to keep a fork in sync". Now it's easier.
DavidPiper 5 hours ago [-]
Remember when Firefox was the first browser to have "tabbed browsing"?
Obviously UBO isn't a first party feature - but if only Firefox could generate as much traction about ad blocking as they did with tabs.
phyzome 5 hours ago [-]
I'm fairly sure Opera introduced it first.
Fnoord 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, well, kind of. Opera had Multiple Document Interface (MDI) which was actually (back then) far more flexible than tabs. But yes, Opera was first with MDI, and also I suppose the first web browser for the smartphone.
superkuh 3 hours ago [-]
Yes. Opera (original, not what is called Opera now) introduced tabs first. I believe in the 5.0 version with presto engine.
tomjen3 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I remember.
I also remember it automatically blocking popup ads. That was a huge deal.
marssaxman 5 minutes ago [-]
Firefox is now the only major browser, because it supports uBlock Origin.
Heidaradar 6 hours ago [-]
I've been using Firefox for over 6 years now and I've never regretted it.
sixtyj 6 hours ago [-]
20 years and counting. :)
Thanks for every day that this browser works.
Sometimes I had to test something in Chrome - and it’s painful experience.
But it really depends on personal view - I have tried to convert my friends and they don’t feel it.
coldpie 5 hours ago [-]
Sammme. Remember all the hullaballo about the AwesomeBar in Firefox 3?
I’ve never felt so old as I did reading this comment
sammularczyk 58 minutes ago [-]
I just started using Zen (Firefox-based Arc clone) after Arc updated to Manifest V3. It's great! Last time I installed zen it was a battery hog, but it's much better now.
neves 13 minutes ago [-]
What about Brave?
hn_submit 6 hours ago [-]
Does it really make a huge difference to keep supporting Manifest Version 2?
I've installed uBlock Origin Lite in my Edge browser and I don't see any ads there either.
downrightmike 6 hours ago [-]
YES!!
hn_submit 4 hours ago [-]
Then why haven't I see any difference in ad blocking with uBlock Origin Lite on Edge?
stack_framer 6 hours ago [-]
I just use Brave. I haven't seen a YouTube ad in years.
lern_too_spel 15 minutes ago [-]
But you see crypto ads in the browser's own settings.
cykros 6 hours ago [-]
There are ads on YouTube?
matgessel 5 hours ago [-]
I got a Android tablet...I can't recommend it. YT has gotten pretty toxic with the dark patterns. There are the usual interstitial ads, but after you skip and go full screen there's another ad widget in the lower left of the video. You have carefully navigate a popup menu to dismiss it without triggering an ad popup. If you pause or double-tap to -10s the video it restores down and shows an ad on the right side.
The Edge browser for has the best ad-free experience I've found so far on Android. It supports Widevine (DRM videos) and performance is good enough for most videos. I do get an occasional stutter with higher res videos. Firefox supports Widevine, but it didn't last week? Or I just didn't get the popup to "Enable DRM" for some reason. Edge claims to have blocked 15k YT ads in the last week with the built-in AdBlock Plus. It works with uBlock Origin as well (this week anyway).
ndriscoll 4 hours ago [-]
Firefox works fine on Android, and supports ublock origin and playing youtube in a background tab/with screen off. Couldn't speak to DRM as I've never used it on any platform.
Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago [-]
Oh yes they are. Occassionally when I am on a device which doesn't have an ad-blocker. I witness it and I am always left feeling shocked at how many ads Youtube can have. We really don't know the plight of so so many Youtube users. I feel sympathy for them and want to hug them and install an ad-blocker for them.
I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who didn't even ask! I just feel like Ad blocker is such a useful thing that I can do to people that I care about who don't know deeply about it.
I must say that it is one of the top entries of lists of most useful/time-saving things I have done in actually saving anybody's actual time.
I express gratitude towards the universe for Ublock Origin. Words can't comprehend how much I love it.
5 hours ago [-]
deweywsu 6 hours ago [-]
It is possible to write your own extension and still use it in Chrome as long as it's not bundled. It would be a huge pain to get the source for uBlock origin and implement it locally yourself, but it might be worth the pain to block ads.
rwz 6 hours ago [-]
The original uBO relies on Manifest V2, the API Chrome no longer supports. It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
rasz 1 hours ago [-]
>It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.
Current version of Chrome seems to be 152.0.7977.39 released August 14, 2026.
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
ytoast 6 hours ago [-]
Are there any Chromium-based mod/plugin loaders out there? I mean something that uses the same DLL/SO hijacking or injection tricks game hackers use to build mod loaders, to expose a hooking layer for plugins.
vovavili 10 hours ago [-]
Thank God for the Brave browser. For those disliking their built-in adblocker, there is a Manifest v2 opt-out specifically for uBlock if you need it.
AstralSerenity 7 hours ago [-]
Peter Theil was an angel investor in Brave. That alone is all the reason privacy-minded users need to avoid it.
fragmede 6 hours ago [-]
Because Peter Thiel gave them some money, there's some secret backdoor code that's sending all your information to Palantir?
rwz 6 hours ago [-]
It's quite likely that Brave itself collects data on your usage and shares at least some of it with Palantir.
This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.
EbNar 1 hours ago [-]
There's no need to make assumptions. The source code is out there. Please, show us the relevant commits which do what you said.
tredre3 2 hours ago [-]
Telemetry can be disabled in Brave. Any kind of history/bookmark syncing is opt-in.
You're just spreading FUD unless you have evidence that Brave funnels usage data in secret.
shooly 6 hours ago [-]
Firefox also collects and sells data to no one really knows who.
I mean sure, but there's a bit of a difference between "sells data to no one really knows who" and "sells data to no one really knows who AND PALANTIR" which the original commenter seem to be flagging as a problem.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
"no one really knows who" is probably also Palantir or someone who resells to Palantir.
shooly 3 hours ago [-]
Well Thiel investing in Brave once at the beginning doesn't necessarily mean that Palantir is getting any data now (even though it's presented as if it was a fact in other comments here). It's probable, but really it's just speculation, just like anyone can speculate about who's getting data from Firefox.
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
downrightmike 6 hours ago [-]
That is their MO
6 hours ago [-]
jollyllama 9 hours ago [-]
It's good but I find they EOL devices/OS's earlier than Firefox.
ipsum2 5 hours ago [-]
Brave is great. Works across windows/mac/ios/android/linux.
matheusmoreira 7 hours ago [-]
It's certainly better than stock Chrome but Firefox becoming relevant again is still the ideal option.
odidiejdiwjd 7 hours ago [-]
Isn’t Brave just another Chromium variant?
Chromium is detestable. In whatever form it takes.
armadyl 7 hours ago [-]
What’s detestable is Firefox’s lack of security and Mozilla’s priorities surrounding it compared to Chromium
Edge is just chromium under the hood. So not a surprise there, should be easy lift for them.
socalgal2 4 hours ago [-]
I'm just waiting for Apple's OS level AI that lets me block ads in all apps, including the App Store
lxe 5 hours ago [-]
What's preventing anyone to just spend some tokens and bring it back and fork Chrome? I think ungoogled Chromium still supports it, right?
fg137 5 hours ago [-]
If you don't care about DRM content, bookmark syncing etc, sure, use a bare minimum chromium fork with the patch.
But that's not what most users, including uBlock origin users, want.
b3ing 7 hours ago [-]
You can also run Ad Nauseum if you want to
Madmallard 6 hours ago [-]
Do people not remember Firefox changing their terms of service last year and allowing them to sell your data to third parties? I don't get it did people forget?
I switched over to LibreWolf and other browsers like that then and never looked back.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
We all just either memory-holed it or convinced ourselves that it wasn't what it was. Easy to think you just misunderstood what they said, even though they were very explicit about it.
ethagnawl 5 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted; you're right. Firefox the browser is an amazingly capable tool but I wish it was shepherded by an org that prioritized its users' interests (privacy, performance, etc.) instead of ramming AI, crypto or cute marketing campaigns that NOBODY wants into its flagship offering.
rasz 7 hours ago [-]
Vivaldi 8.1 still supports it (Chromium 150) as loaded unpacked extension.
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
rwz 6 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't be sure this is a long term solution. Maintaining a this into perpetuity would probably take a lot of resources that Vivaldi team might not have.
yborg 2 hours ago [-]
Unless upstream introduces breaking changes I don't see why not. Google was killing this functionality for policy reasons, not because changes to the renderer required it or something. And LLM analysis is going to make maintaining forks easier going forward.
rasz 2 hours ago [-]
For all possible MV2 extensions this is unsustainable for a small company. Supporting just uBO used by tens of millions of people? pretty doable as it only relies on few hooks into C functions that arent going anywhere.
josefritzishere 7 hours ago [-]
Ads are so invasive and prevalent now that you need an ad blocker just to use the internet.
hdgvhicv 7 hours ago [-]
Yet 90% of people don’t use a browser capable of running ubo
tensor 7 hours ago [-]
Because all those other browsers can still block ads. I use ubo lite for safari and it's largely fine.
fsflover 7 hours ago [-]
It will be "largely fine" until the ad networks start using the methods not blocked by the Lite version. You may not even notice that they start tracking you efficiently. See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... for some examples of things Ublock Lite can't do.
Related discussion:
uBlock Origin Lite now available for Safari (apps.apple.com)
1156 points by Jiahang on Aug 5, 2025 | 451 comments
Now? Sure seems like it's been that way for well over a decade.
5 hours ago [-]
6 hours ago [-]
timetraveller26 9 hours ago [-]
Firefox, after 20 years, once again has an advantage over the other browsers.
Let's hope for new generations to get tired of so many ads to finally ditch chrome.
matheusmoreira 7 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately, new generations seem to be completely fine with this. People in general, they're just so completely captured by the dark patterns that I get the impression they cannot even imagine a world without them.
I install uBlock Origin on every browser I come across. Everybody notices. The internet just feels better, somehow. People can't quite explain what changed, but they know.
BeetleB 7 hours ago [-]
It's funny. Over 20 years ago, I got people to switch to Firefox because of the AdBlock extension.
In case people don't know, Firefox was the first major browser to even have extensions.
doubled112 7 hours ago [-]
There is only XUL!
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Long dead. Now there is no XUL, only (private user) data (that Mozilla sells for revenue)
KingMob 10 minutes ago [-]
I think they're making a Ghostbusters joke, btw
Izkata 3 hours ago [-]
Also, Firebug showed what was possible with developer tools. Inspecting elements or network requests or whatever else wasn't really a thing before that extension.
bananamogul 6 hours ago [-]
I wonder if new generations will just get better and better at visually blocking off ads when they read. So many layouts are so common that I read a lot of sites and have absolutely no idea what ads they're running because 30-odd years of browsing rendered HTML pages has trained my brain to block off and not process certain areas of the page.
I'm not an advertising apologist, just pointing out that I can remember what ads were on a freemium TV station I watched two nights ago and what ads were on a radio station I listened to this afternoon but I can't remember a single web ad since...I don't know when. This might be because the TV ads have audio and visual, and with radio my alternative at the moment was looking out the window of my car, but web ads just seem very easy to mentally filter.
ImJamal 9 hours ago [-]
uBlock Origin Lite works decently on Chrome so I doubt this will help migration to Firefox.
Andrex 6 hours ago [-]
Exactly. The difference between the two is not qualitatively different for 99% of users.
sys_64738 5 hours ago [-]
I noticed that UBO Lite doesn't cause the ad boxes to vanish like UBO does. You see this on the likes of the weather.com webpage.
kevin_thibedeau 4 hours ago [-]
That's manifest V3 working as intended.
odidiejdiwjd 7 hours ago [-]
If only they focused on making Firefox the definitive good browser instead of a platform for their AI efforts.
Firefox will never convince people to leave chrome on philosophy alone. I detest Chrome with a passion and refuse to touch it with a ten-foot pole, but cannot in good faith recommend Firefox to anyone in today’s world. “It kinda works” is about as far a compliment you can give it.
kulahan 7 hours ago [-]
What do you think doesn’t work on Firefox? Aside from Google products purposely crippled, everything works just fine in my experience. It’s fast and stable. If there’s a bunch of AI stuff in it, I’ve not seen it. Of course I believe it exists, I just don’t ever read popups anyways. To be fair, I probably use 5% of the browser’s capability (I imagine many are like me). I browse websites and I have UBO installed.
BeetleB 7 hours ago [-]
In the last few months, I've seen a huge upsurge of sites that simply won't work for me in Firefox.
Not sure if it's the FF + Linux combination. Should probably try with a fresh profile to confirm.
It sucks, but I'm in on FF all the way. If much of the web stops working for me, it just means I have more time on my hands!
Silhouette 7 hours ago [-]
Anecdotally my own experience is consistent with this with the same platform+browser combination.
It appears that there are now significant numbers of sites - or at least noticeable parts or features of sites - that rely on Google-specific APIs and haven't been tested on other browsers.
However visiting those sites from Apple devices is often similarly frustrating. I'm not sure this is an anti-Firefox thing. It seems more of a not realising there are other browsers apart from Chromium-based ones thing.
deweywsu 6 hours ago [-]
I kinda wondered myself if this was some kind of coordinated effort to make Firefox not work. It wouldn't surprise me if it was later discovered that Google paid some Linux subsystem maintainer to slip in some nefarious code somewhere that altered the way Linux implements rendering specifications ever so slightly such that Firefox appeared broken. Just the conspiracy theorist in me.
Izkata 3 hours ago [-]
Slack "huddles" (video chat) work on everything except Firefox+Linux. Haven't tried changing my user agent yet, only just got onto Slack for work.
kevin_thibedeau 4 hours ago [-]
You can change your UA and add Sec-CH-UA to match Chromium if you want to avoid the (non-ADA compliant) browser bias.
cadamsdotcom 7 hours ago [-]
"It kinda works" is factually incorrect.
I have used Firefox exclusively every day on macOS for the past year, several hours a day, and have not one single time had to open another browser. None of the customers of my B2B saas use Firefox. Not once have I needed to test in their browsers except quick smoke testing to prove to myself that the rendering and details are identical. All my other browsing is indistinguishable from before when I used Chrome, and from on mobile where I (tragically) am forced by Apple's monopoly to use Safari.
Do you have evidence to support your false claim?
jjav 6 hours ago [-]
Agreed, I can't understand where these experiences come from.
I only ever use Firefox, at work, at home, mobile. Since forever, as long as there has been a Firefox (and Mozilla before that, Netscape prior).
There was one time about 8-10 years ago that I encountered a site that didn't work in Firefox, was some weird proprietary training module at work.
So yes, I did encounter one site that didn't work in Firefox in the last ~20 years. One.
sensanaty 4 hours ago [-]
I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it was Google astroturfing every single thread relating to FF. Yes, Mozilla isn't perfect and had some questionable decisions, but we're somehow okay with the worse option out of the two? Somehow, Mozilla's decisions are enough to never use FF, but Google's infinitely many horrible ones are acceptable for.... What reason?
jasonpeacock 7 hours ago [-]
What doesn’t work? It’s my daily driver and it renders every website I visit.
rwz 6 hours ago [-]
I daily Zen (Firefox under the hood) and the only thing that I consistently need to open other browsers for is direct USB support (mouse/keyboard drivers in the browser). Other than that, I don't remember when was the last time something wasn't working in Firefox.
mitchell5584dm 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
inquirerGeneral 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
luggage_bazooka 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
hasperdi 10 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
throw-the-towel 7 hours ago [-]
"Never" is not true, it used to be a major browser. Now, though, sadly it isn't major.
pelcg 10 hours ago [-]
I believe it is. 2% of global internet traffic.
1over137 9 hours ago [-]
How is 2% major though? (I wish FF was more used!)
layer8 7 hours ago [-]
Firefox has 8-9% desktop market share in Europe, 16-18% in Germany. So in some important markets it’s still pretty relevant.
ndriscoll 9 hours ago [-]
It's more than 2% when you condition on things like "lives in US" or "lives in EU" or "is using a desktop." e.g. among German desktop users it's apparently more like 20%. Most people probably aren't targeting global traffic and should never consider it since it can be extremely misleading.
sunaookami 7 hours ago [-]
Wasn't Opera's (the good old Presto one) marketshare also 1% back then? And it was still considered major (even though it had compatibility problems mainly caused by sites ignoring the standard)
paddim8 9 hours ago [-]
One in every 50 people is a lot of people.
BeetleB 7 hours ago [-]
Over 6% on desktop (which is where I do the bulk of my browsing...).
More than Safari.
timetraveller26 9 hours ago [-]
It's in the top 5.
It isn't more used because one browser is promoted by the biggest search engine and thus has two thirds of the market, and the other two come pre-installed with the OS.
inigyou 5 hours ago [-]
Too bad Firefox isn't a major browser.
And it shouldn't be. It's now full of ads for Mozilla VPN and stuff. We need the engine, but not the browser.
wookmaster 3 hours ago [-]
The benefit of open source here is there are forked versions of it you can download.
0dayz 3 hours ago [-]
And who is going to finance that?
spottedmarley 10 hours ago [-]
Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do. I had ~7 standard extensions that I pretty much always install into chrome browser. Over the past month or so I've been using Claude code to build a single custom extension that handles all of the things I used 7 extensions for previously. One extension does everything. You can even use the existing extensions you already use as guides for Claude to make sure all of the features you want are included. One extension to rule them all!
ycombinatrix 10 hours ago [-]
>Anyone can build a custom extension to do anything an extension is allowed to do
Yes, that's why google moved to manifest v3 and extensions can't do as much.
Madmallard 6 hours ago [-]
Can't they just modify the browser itself with an injection into the executable
They don't do it for every extension, but they do so for a wide selection of popular options.
> Recommended extensions differ from other extensions that are regularly reviewed by Firefox staff in that they are curated extensions that meet the highest standards of security, functionality and user experience. After receiving Recommended status, safety standards are maintained through automated checks, monitoring, and periodic technical reviews
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=re...
Some quite informative discussion on Firefox subreddit when I discovered and posted the above list there a few months ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pyvx2v/complete_a...
The Recommended Extensions program description: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...
I've always wished extensions had more granular permissions though (a la phones, but more so). I think automated ai security checks sound promising soon.
They could save themselves the trouble if Firefox simply baked in its own ad-blocking, but since Google basically owns them, we all know that will never happen.
Ladybird browser is going to be awesome.
And Mozilla did develop anti-fingerprinting tech, but they can't enable it by default because it breaks lots of websites and when a website doesn't work they're not going to appreciate Mozilla for protecting them, they're going to be pissed that it doesn't work.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070817224229/http://whyfirefox...
Fortunately if projects like Ladybird gain enough momentum, websites might be forced to cater to it. Time will tell.
If you want to inherit all of Firefox's flaws, I suppose.
> and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare?
Considering Cloudflare is a sponsor of Ladybird, something tells me they're going to grant an exception for it.
People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a decade ago, couldn't handle 1000 tab sessions.
I hope Firefox keeps up the fight but HN loves to crap all over them for not being perfect.
Entirely possible that this is an issue specific to NixOS or my machine, but because of that issue I switched over to Brave.
I would like to go back to Firefox at some point. Maybe I’ll see if I can make a patch to fix video acceleration on NixOS.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek here because it seems most people just give up on safari/firefox if one thing doesn't work and go to some chromium-based browser as their default driver. That's sad.
Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.
And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.
I hope Ladybird does well, too.
> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.
This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?
> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.
I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).
FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.
GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.
Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.
Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people.
Google has been trying to kill them since they moved the Chrome team into the same building as the now defunct SF office.
(Apparently they offered people a lot of money? There are some words I could use to describe people who do things they think are unethical for cash I'll leave unsaid.)
Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
What stuns me is that most people still use browsers that cannot block ads, seem genuinely annoyed by ads, but don't want to even try switching to a browser that will easily block those ads. It's amazing how much crap people are willing to wade through when the alternative is trying something new.
No it's not.
> Yes, Firefox could do everything, but then it'd turn back into Mozilla. The whole point of the extensions framework is to allow modular extensibility. And it's much easier to vet for malware than to code afresh and maintain.
No, quite the opposite. FF has a history of adopting extensions as baked-in functionality if they prove useful/popular enough. There are tons of examples of this from the past for various features, which is great.
But that fact makes it even more absurd that they refuse to do the same for what is likely their most popular extension of all time: uBlock Origin
It's been 20+ years, nobody cares about that anymore.
What I am surprised about is that none of the browsers or forks have created a specialist plugin API for adblocking and maybe other filtering. Provide what is needed and only that (keeping the surface tiny), and then evolve the general purpose API in the way they need. I don't think we need V2 of the API any more, except for keeping this one absolutely critical plugin working, do we?
It's not black and white, and your inability to see the larger context is disturbing.
You could, by the same logic, criticize Mozilla for not serving you coffee which is certainly a "user-oriented policy" "baked-in" or rather "brewed-in". But we must be realistic about how far UOPs can be stretched, Mozilla is better than the rest, which includes large corps with far more money than them. If you can do better than Mozilla, I'm all ears.
Next, an ad-blocker needs continuous maintenance - someone started a good one long time ago and apparently loves to improve it and maintain the various lists it uses - why should Mozilla strain to compete with one of their best contributors? - that would be both rude and dumb, and they'd be wasting resources too. There's absolutely no upside to your proposition but you keep insisting.
One would hope that's one of the more useful things an LLM could assist with if not now, very soon. In the meantime, there's no reason they couldn't have uBlock kept as an extension but bundled by default like they've done with other functionality over the years. Wait, never mind. There's one rea$on why they wouldn't, and it's already been $tated.
Receipts:
https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1966456391146606806
https://nitter.net/awesomekling/status/1967178708852097278
https://nitter.net/awesomekling/status/1969350008538370216
1. pass paywalls clean.
2. Social Fixer
Or, just pay for journalism since it’s not free to do.
I will say however, it works remarkably well. I haven't seen a paywall in years!
Why, are they worried it might interfere with the spyware they bake into Firefox themselves?
https://www.howtogeek.com/557929/how-to-see-and-disable-the-...
Now we're back to needing an actual extension system that does what extensions were supposed to do in the first place.
Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good.
It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only the conflicts of interest inherent in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker prevent that.
Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data still leaves a lot of options for a malicious extension.
uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpetuity).
A funny argument to make because the thing that would make such a measure ridiculous as you rightly point out, is exactly what already makes the Manifest changes ridiculous in the first instance. They were making a rhetorical point and you elaborated on their point for them as if doing so expressed a disagreement.
To be honest, to me it sounds like you don't want browser extensions then.
To me, directly messing with web page data and browser behaviour is the whole point of a browser extension - what else is a browser extension for?
No thanks. They should have to declare to the browser what it is they want done instead.
I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
Sounds like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Years ago, it was standard practice for software to be designed so that users could grant permissions to access invasive methods or functions.
Google relies on users' personal data (ads), which is why they introduced a unique ID to their Chrome browser (to track).
Agreed. And you would think most paranoid HN types would too.
> It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted
Maybe I'm foggy on the history. But isn't this like Fork #4 or #5 of some previous AdBlock extension?
Seems like the only business model for this type of extension is "selling out" for certain ads. And then the cycle repeats and forum posters tell you to install qBlock Omega or whatever. Maybe Mozilla doesn't want to get in the middle of this?
I also don't want "random" programs accessing my home folder. That would be terrible! Who knows what programs that could be! I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily. Same for extensions.
The goal here isn't really to protect me from extensions. Extensions don't do anything on their own, they just sit there and wait for me to install them. So the goal is apparently to protect me from me (installing an extension), which really is to say protect their business (ads) from me (blocking them).
> I do however want the very specific programs that I have intentionally installed to be able to access my home folder easily.
I don't. My standard operating practice is to virtualize them.
My security posture is considerably more lax towards free and open source software, for obvious reasons, and even then this trust only extends to the software in my Linux distribution's repositories. Stuff coming from PyPI, npm, cargo, ruby gems, and other such "developer centric" repositories get the full virtualization treatment. If it's easy for randoms to publish packages, then it's equally easy for malware to make it in.
This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites.
Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? .
Sign of the times I guess.
Same reason why people download random stuff and run it with administrator permissions on Windows.
In fact, it is possible for people to be held to good conduct without being bound into a single hierarchy, and it should be possible for software to be held to good conduct without giving such power to single monopolists. But it's not in Google's interests to build such mechanisms, any more than it was in the interests of the feudal overlords to look for alternatives to their rule.
The fact someone gave developers a turing complete language inside the browser where random code is automatically downloaded and executed is a major reason why we even have uBlock Origin in the first place. The vast majority of developers heavily abuse this privilege and cannot be trusted, and that is why we block them with extreme prejudice.
Why are you installing random extensions?
The right thing is to simply bypass all of that. The fact is uBlock Origin should be literallly built into the browser like the good old popup blockers once were.
If only we had a browser that was independent of ad money.
Yes, and I have actually started virtualizing everything inside my computer because of that belief. I don't want random software touching my trusted host.
"Random software" is currently defined as anything outside the official repositories of my Linux distribution of choice. I don't want to share a home directory with such things. I don't want to share a user and its permissions, I don't even want to share a kernel with them.
I see this repeated over and over and yet uBlock Origin Lite still seems to block almost all ads. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer the non-lite version. But, given I basically still don't see ads it's kind of hard to argue Google destroyed the APIs so that they're useless
If they are hidden for you, it's because you, the user, hid them or enabled the overflow extension menu.
The issue is that adblocking doesn't work with it, so an addition, or workaround should be made, but when Google has the amount of influence they have, that didn't happen.
The upshut is that people hate ads and like free stuff, so there is now a good selling point for Firefox. Hell some of us switched to Firefox because it blocked popup ads and had tabs, back in the day.
Except this is objectively not true…
uBlock Origin Lite is nearly as good as uBO and blocks nearly everything except for mostly Twitch ads.
Manifest v3 is a big security upgrade and effectively closes off the permanent RCE pathway that v2 allowed.
Immediately turned it off.
"Most people" are not even using the web, they are using the app, and getting very targeted ads, based on their behavior. The web is just some place where auxiliary transactions happen.
Text + Ads stopped paying the bills years ago. (long before chatgpt) If you want to read good stuff, it's mostly behind a paywall now. (I like reading stuff, so I pay for it.)
Sounds like you are landing on bottom-tier legacy webpages. And your 'slot machine' ads are how they profiled you, so you are perhaps telling on yourself.
That's a bit hyperbolic. The areas of the internet I frequent do not have egregious ads (for example, this page). Areas where I really would like good ad-blocking (youtube) are often not covered by these ad blockers. Thankfully Youtube Premium isn't too expensive and solves that issue.
Maybe it's better these days but I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit, so I've always shied away from them (with the exception of a password manager).
True, but some of us refuse to give that company money on principle. The minute I can't watch YouTube without ads is the minute I stop watching YouTube. (The creators I follow make way more money off me on Patreon than Google would ever pay them, anyway.)
> I always found browser extensions (including uBlock) had a pretty big performance hit
I always found that not using uBO was a pretty big performance hit. :)
Brave: chrome://flags/#brave-extensions-manifest-v2 > brave://settings/extensions/v2 > Enable uBlock Origin (Brave-hosted, even better).
Helium comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed.
Edge even still has it https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori...
And I'm sure others ...I personally only use/test Brave, Brave Origin, Helium and Firefox.
I do miss the rules that let me remove stuff based like CSS like selectors. The strange thing is, even though uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support that feature it's still totally possible to make an extension that does that. Maybe the specific thing uBlock Origin was doing is not possible but making an extension that follows rules and hides/deletes elements with different rules per site is still fully possible under manifest v3
That's what gemini:// is for.
But what about the remonopolization of the web? I remember how much it SUCKED when internet explorer had 95% of the web thanks to Microsoft’s illegal practices. I saw the same behaviour from Google, the ad company and they haven’t event gotten a slap on the wrist. Fuck, people fucking loves Google, despite their turn to the dark side.
Well here we are, with the open web almost dead. It’s time to revive it. Start using alternatives again. Seek out and support people and organisations that are actively working to build the community web, not this corporate shit it’s morphed into.
End rant
The web is completely unusable without UBO+FF. Any time I have to use a clean browser, I feel assaulted and dirty, plus wonder what malware just got injected into my machine.
If it were to go away, I would probably accelerate retiring to an analog, offline life.
Does anyone here use DuckDuckGo browser? I've honestly never heard of anyone using it, so I'm pretty surprised to see it categorized as a "major browser". I already basically think of Firefox users (which includes myself) as a pretty tiny minority, so I'm not sure how much smaller you can really get while still being "major".
The argument against was always that it's "too hard to keep a fork in sync". Now it's easier.
Obviously UBO isn't a first party feature - but if only Firefox could generate as much traction about ad blocking as they did with tabs.
I also remember it automatically blocking popup ads. That was a huge deal.
Thanks for every day that this browser works.
Sometimes I had to test something in Chrome - and it’s painful experience.
But it really depends on personal view - I have tried to convert my friends and they don’t feel it.
https://ed.agadak.net/2008/03/beyond-awesome
Truly amazing stuff, in 2008.
I've installed uBlock Origin Lite in my Edge browser and I don't see any ads there either.
The Edge browser for has the best ad-free experience I've found so far on Android. It supports Widevine (DRM videos) and performance is good enough for most videos. I do get an occasional stutter with higher res videos. Firefox supports Widevine, but it didn't last week? Or I just didn't get the popup to "Enable DRM" for some reason. Edge claims to have blocked 15k YT ads in the last week with the built-in AdBlock Plus. It works with uBlock Origin as well (this week anyway).
I actually used to install Revanced for all the relatives who ever complained about Youtube and some who didn't even ask! I just feel like Ad blocker is such a useful thing that I can do to people that I care about who don't know deeply about it.
I must say that it is one of the top entries of lists of most useful/time-saving things I have done in actually saving anybody's actual time.
I express gratitude towards the universe for Ublock Origin. Words can't comprehend how much I love it.
Current version of Chrome seems to be 152.0.7977.39 released August 14, 2026.
August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based vivaldis napshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes:
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.
You're just spreading FUD unless you have evidence that Brave funnels usage data in secret.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
Chromium is detestable. In whatever form it takes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1unhtxu/initial...
I love Firefox.
We need more browsers like Firefox - more open source, more open to standards that improve the web, that can improve our browsing experience.
Microsoft Edge is about to lock out older ad blockers, just like Chrome did
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220392
But that's not what most users, including uBlock origin users, want.
I switched over to LibreWolf and other browsers like that then and never looked back.
Edit: and latest August 14, 2026 Chromium 152.0.7977.38 based Snapshot https://vivaldi.com/blog/desktop/address-field-calculator-an... has this in patch notes:
"[Extensions] Re-enable and extend Manifest V2 extension support for the time being (VB-130324)"
Related discussion:
uBlock Origin Lite now available for Safari (apps.apple.com)
1156 points by Jiahang on Aug 5, 2025 | 451 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825
Let's hope for new generations to get tired of so many ads to finally ditch chrome.
I install uBlock Origin on every browser I come across. Everybody notices. The internet just feels better, somehow. People can't quite explain what changed, but they know.
In case people don't know, Firefox was the first major browser to even have extensions.
I'm not an advertising apologist, just pointing out that I can remember what ads were on a freemium TV station I watched two nights ago and what ads were on a radio station I listened to this afternoon but I can't remember a single web ad since...I don't know when. This might be because the TV ads have audio and visual, and with radio my alternative at the moment was looking out the window of my car, but web ads just seem very easy to mentally filter.
Firefox will never convince people to leave chrome on philosophy alone. I detest Chrome with a passion and refuse to touch it with a ten-foot pole, but cannot in good faith recommend Firefox to anyone in today’s world. “It kinda works” is about as far a compliment you can give it.
Not sure if it's the FF + Linux combination. Should probably try with a fresh profile to confirm.
It sucks, but I'm in on FF all the way. If much of the web stops working for me, it just means I have more time on my hands!
It appears that there are now significant numbers of sites - or at least noticeable parts or features of sites - that rely on Google-specific APIs and haven't been tested on other browsers.
However visiting those sites from Apple devices is often similarly frustrating. I'm not sure this is an anti-Firefox thing. It seems more of a not realising there are other browsers apart from Chromium-based ones thing.
I have used Firefox exclusively every day on macOS for the past year, several hours a day, and have not one single time had to open another browser. None of the customers of my B2B saas use Firefox. Not once have I needed to test in their browsers except quick smoke testing to prove to myself that the rendering and details are identical. All my other browsing is indistinguishable from before when I used Chrome, and from on mobile where I (tragically) am forced by Apple's monopoly to use Safari.
Do you have evidence to support your false claim?
I only ever use Firefox, at work, at home, mobile. Since forever, as long as there has been a Firefox (and Mozilla before that, Netscape prior).
There was one time about 8-10 years ago that I encountered a site that didn't work in Firefox, was some weird proprietary training module at work.
So yes, I did encounter one site that didn't work in Firefox in the last ~20 years. One.
More than Safari.
It isn't more used because one browser is promoted by the biggest search engine and thus has two thirds of the market, and the other two come pre-installed with the OS.
And it shouldn't be. It's now full of ads for Mozilla VPN and stuff. We need the engine, but not the browser.
Yes, that's why google moved to manifest v3 and extensions can't do as much.
surely there is a way around that