this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
114 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

84074 readers
3215 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 22 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Is there any benefit to this over ublock origin?

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 24 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

More generic and therefore worse for fingerprinting. Though that’s only because it’s built in and standardized.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If it's shipping by default, it's better for preventing fingerprinting. If it's default on the browser, that's one less indentifying detail

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This one took me a second. You’re not the one fingerprinting, other people are. It’s worse for the fingerprinters, better for you. “Worse for fingerprinting” means it’s more difficult to use as a fingerprint

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

So we're saying the same thing? That makes way more sense

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

fingerprinting can be based on detecting what resources are blocked, and sometimes also how are they blocked. but blocking will become the baseline, so nefarious companies will have less of chance to tell the difference

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Every Firefox will have this. Every Firefox doesn't have uBlock

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

A better way to phrase it is "Not every Firefox install has uBlock".

The way you worded it suggests to native English speakers that Firefox and uBlock are mutually exclusive, which isn't the caze

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Is there any value in redundancy?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

no, but no harm either. they use the same lists so one of them will just be doing nothing whenever the other removes something.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

no, but no harm either

Some harm, but (somewhat) minor. Installing addons for Firefox makes you more susceptible to browser fingerprinting due to fewer people having the same setup. It's harder to fingerprint your browser if you're just running defaults

[–] lime@feddit.nu 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

it's a lot faster since it's not built with js. less customisable though, since there's no ui, although i imagine they're working on that.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 6 points 11 hours ago

To add to this: Waterfox has promised to implement a UI even if Mozilla doesn't.

[–] czarcasm@kbin.earth 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I use uBlock Origin and disable all the Firefox stuff, no need for two. And now that they are using shit from Brave, I will disable that crap from a horrid company.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 24 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

it's an open source component built on the same system as ublock. it's good for firefox that they add stuff people actually want.

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 17 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

They could just have easily built in the ublock origin plugin and not gone with braves implementation, a browser that is plagued with justified scandal.

Why Firefox would tie its fate to its disgraced founder is beyond me.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Rust is faster than JavaScript.

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, so they should have used some of that AI cash to rebuild ublock origin in rust, or push it further along the path to web assembly its already on.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The code is literally right there for the taking. Why would they spend the time rebuilding something when they could just have it for free?

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

Because then they would have something better and would have improved one of the most popular extensions in their browser?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

...because he also founded firefox?

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Hes also a bigot that was removed from leadership at Mozilla that has run multiple scams via Brave, all while taking Thiel bucks. What's your point?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 9 hours ago

i think i misunderstood your earlier reply, i thought you were talking about eich as the founder of brave, but you meant that he was the founder of firefox.

yeah he sucks.

i don't think he wrote the adblocker though.

[–] winni@piefed.social -1 points 13 hours ago

i guess they receive some cash to distribute brave malware

[–] alakey@piefed.social 3 points 9 hours ago

Gave it a try, fully understanding it's not even a released feature yet, it works alright, but on Twitch it fully breaks streams, so watch out for that if you decide to run with it.