Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave's ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
562 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
84069 readers
3261 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
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.
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff? Because FF already has debug tools built in that lets you edit the HTML or CSS of the page however you want, but it's only for the current session. I'd occasionally use that before realizing I could just use reader mode for sites that did client side html5 bs for access control. Just go in and delete nodes using the picker tool. Until the annoying thing is gone.
I've never really played around with ublock's capabilities, though did know that it must have been more sophisticated than just dns lists to stay in the arms race vs youtube (as well as why google was pushing "security features" that would kill it).
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff?
Yes.
uBlock at its core is really just a scripting system for replacing CSS content using certain rules.
The most common usage is to remove content you don't like, but really it can manipulate things in a zillion different ways, many of the more advanced features are only available to the user and not larger block lists for security reasons.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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:
- Rust is faster than JavaScript
- Native functionality is faster than an extension
- Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
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
load more comments
(10 replies)
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Using entirely unrelated ad blocking technology is bad for what reason?
You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that's not the only skeleton in their closet.
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doeant excuse it IMO.
Does it need an excuse? It's a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
As long as it doesn't interfere with Ublock Origin I guess that's fine.
It's not enabled by default.
So... no news
Until they enable it
Quietly
The developer made this change from a personal laptop at their local public library.
Shhhhhh.
Despite this trope, public libraries usually don't have a guideline or enforcement on noise levels.
But the developer was definitely using silent tactile switches.
Maybe not in Canada but every library in Asia has
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.
Fuck no. I don't want Brave stuff in my browser :(
The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.
load more comments
(1 replies)
i noticed it allowed one to evade reddits fingerprinting filters temporarily. so it was useful for a month when i was using that browser.
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)
too little, too late