- cross-posted to:
- firefox@fedia.io
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@fedia.io
You must log in or # to comment.
What is the progress of Servo and Ladybird?
This can be the main reason:
Mozilla: Anthropic’s Mythos found 271 security vulnerabilities in Firefox
If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.
“Quietly™” by posting about it beforehand everywhere they could.
Its become quite a trend with headlines, huh? I guess it implies “we’re airing some dirty laundry, come look!” With the hopes of boosting click-throughs.
Yeah, I hate it bcs it’s just an intentional scam - and since the title is such an easy lie then prob everything is.
How Brave
Much fox,
very lion.
Cool.
Still sticking with uBlock and SponsorBlock (skips all the “this video was sponsored by” segments on YouTube).
I wish SponsorBlock and DeArrow were integrated into Invidious, like with Piped.
Freetube has integrated sponsor block (might have to enable it in the settings first). I’ve generally been very happy with the Freetube flatpak, although there have been times when YouTube actively fought against third parties where Freetube did not work for a month.
Add DeArrow in there as well (anti-clickbait)
SponsorBlock
I believe uBlock manages to remove all ads on yt by tickling the subscription of some list bundled in its installation already
SponsorBlock skips past the video segments which contain sponsored advertisement. There’s no overlap with what uBlock does.
SponsorBlock is not cool. This is the main revenue source of creators.
Adblock on the other hand in a cancer in youtube and has to go.
I’m never removing SponsorBlock until YouTube cracks down on scams being promoted by big yotubers.
So, never.
Are you watching vids of youtubers who promote scams?
So many yt’ers promoted honey, that weird Scottish land certificate thing and betterhelp. I would argue all of those are basically scams.
Oh yeah true I saw a few of those from mainstream people…
Honey and that one thing that said “oh you can be a Lord if you buy some land in scotland”, among suspicious VPNs and other “problem solvers”.
If they pay to be spoken off, odds are it’s worth your money.
Skipping the sponsored segment doesn’t net the creator less money. They’re paid before the video gets uploaded, or at worst by view count iirc.
Sponsors don’t see if you skipped their ad segment.
Sure they do.
Sure they do.
How, exactly, do they see that?
YouTube knows exactly where you start and stop the video, what segments you skip, etc., etc. and the channel has access to those analytics. Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors, but the mechanism IS in place.
They don’t require it as they already have metrics and data, by the unique promo code from each ad read. That tells them viewers of X will go to the website and buy something.
But I have never done that, because I don’t buy something because one person I like to watch was paid to talk about it.
Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors,
That’s my point. The sponsors of individual youtubers don’t have access to that information
I don’t know anything about sponsor agreements. Just because the sponsors don’t have direct access, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways for them to get that information.
Have you never seen this when skipping through a video? The spikes are the most watched parts. They absolutely track what individual parts of a video get the most views.
Only creators and YT know the numbers and they don’t share it.
The creators sell adventisement space and want the advertisers to know that their channel is a good investment, so the more they can prove to the advertisers that their sponsor segments arent skipped, the more they can charge for it.
What youtube interface is that?
I don’t remember seeing that.
It’s the default web interface - it doesn’t show on all videos, but in my experience it’s on nearly everything.
Do you have proof it harms them?
Unless you personally click the link and sign up using code WeAreAScam at checkout, they don’t get anything extra. They already have been paid for the ad read.
It’s like saying you’re stealing from a TV station because you took a piss during the ad break.
Youtube does provide info on which portions of videos are the most watched - while most advertisers aren’t the kind of people that do due diligence, quite a few of the big management groups have started introducing contracts that base payout for sponsor reads off of actual watch count. AFAIK it hasn’t made too much of a difference yet (though channels with high skip-counts are less likely to be given the decent sponsor deals) but if youtube makes the analytics easier to access it probably will have a pretty big impact.
a default-disabled prototype
No wonder it didn’t show up in normal/enduser release notes.
This article suggests you have to disabled Enhanced Tracking Protection to test it. Does it replace that entire system with an equivalent system?
I’ll wait until it’s stable and productive.
That’s cool, take the good part of Brave, leave behind the villainous CEO and dodgy crypto scams
I used brave for a while. Recently switched to zen browser to try some better tab management. But despite all braves issues, it’s ad/tracker blocking was always very good imo. I think it will be a good addition to Firefox.
I don’t think you can separate a product from their CEO
In the Open Source world you can always fork.
Why did they not just set ublock as a default installed plugin?
Because the performance of brave lib is a little better since it doesn’t go through the plugin API
So should you use this now? Or keep uBlock origin? Or enable both for maximum protection?
it’s up to you which one you wanna use, I’ll keep using uBlock origin (both is overkill, you only need one for blocking ads)
I guess my question is more, is the “brave” one as good as uBlock? Or does it miss some things? Sounds like performance is better.
My only thought about using both would be if the “brave” version is more performant, but less protective, it could quickly get rid of most of the ads, and let uBlock get the rest, reducing how many are filtered at greater performance cost. But I’m sure that’s based on a gross misunderstanding of how it all works.
Is it? Like YouTube is less laggy with that? Thats the only situation where i see actual delays by adblocking
I use brave as my YouTube browser and it does seem to perform better than Firefox with unlock. There’s frequently weird delays with Firefox where the ads get through a little and are then blocked(admittedly I probably only update it like once a month). I don’t get that with Brave.
I never experienced that, only youtube is lagging hard. How much ads you still get probably depends on your location. I dont see any with ublock.
Yes, it is. No, the delays on Youtube don’t come from the performance of the adblocking code, so you won’t notice many differences. But more efficient adblocking is good for everyone - noticeably more so on devices with batteries, but still helpful for everyone.
How incredible i think I’ll start using Firefox again as it’s becoming better i just wish they would create their own email service already.
Very soon ! https://www.tb.pro/en-GB/
Where it stores all the data? USA? Or some Big Tech cloud?
Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave’s ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.
Funded what ?
This doesn’t bother me. The gays have won equal rights. Their push for acceptance and parity with straight people has been wildly successful. It’s like if I found out the CEO of a company I love financially supported anti-pet lobbying groups…good luck taking away people’s cats and dogs.
The only rights gay people might have not won involves adoption, but I feel like thats anti-man more than anything else. Society doesn’t feel comfortable giving a person a child unless there is a woman involved.
ok bro
I started reading this and thought it was ironic but then i saw the pet example and that made me think… but then i realized im getting rage baited… yay so nice to use the internet nowadays
I have some pretty contrarian opinions, at least in the context of Lemmy. I used the pet example because I have a cat. I love my cat, but whether or not the people who make my products love cats doesn’t concern me. They’d need to be in a position to actively harm my cat to justify a boycott.
People when open source:
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
First I’ve heard of that. Source?
His foundation has invested in it per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
Thanks, I knew about some of Brave’s controversies but missed that.
I also wasn’t previously aware that Brave’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was a homphobic shithead, either.
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
These developers need to eat too.
Just wait till you find out who funds Firefox.
Could it be… Satan?
It’s Google. So…… yes.
Bruh everything is funded by some sort of criminal. Jeffery Epstein could have donated to the Mozilla foundation for all we know. You literally cannot tell.
That’s a very convenient position that absolves you from any responsibility to do anything. Convenient, but I don’t think correct.
As u/TBi said in the comments
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
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
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just
onetwo modules. (It’s in the “wasm” folder near the top of the list).(Edit: I was looking at outdated code; the newer version uses more, but IMO pales in comparison to the JavaScript filtering logic)
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don’t even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.
brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today
firefox support is often not a priority even today
Dunno if I can name a time it was ;)
I guess it might be a priority for Mozilla sometimes
It was 16 years ago
:’(
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
They should have built it in years ago, but called it “web security filtering” or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
that probably depends on the blocklists used, like with ublock
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.
I mean what’s wrong with buying a company to access it proprietary code. NFTs were a dumb grift, but if the specific software product they offered was sound what’s the issue?
If the code was good, nothing would be wrong with it. It would be even better if the code was free. And that’s my point.
(In Mozilla’s case, it’s actually much worse because they bought private customer data along with the technology and then canned the technology while keeping the data, but that’s a different story.)
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.
I can hate more than one of Mozilla’s decisions.
Zewm forgot to have a reason. Do you have one?
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).
I think you’re right but I’m sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?
I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.
My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don’t think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn’t stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.
A built-in ad blocker is easily the least problematic announcement coming out of Mozilla in the last year.
Lol, yes.
That’s a good thing.
Brave’s native adblock is the best.
uBlock is better
Yeah we have to second this, unlock is way better in our experience
are you plural?
Yeah lol
It’s gonna slip eventually so we stopped giving a shit on not using plural pronouns
Does that mean yall is a correct pronoun?
We do like that pronoun :3 But we’re a simple She/they 90% of the time
yet your username remains singular, curious \s
LMAO touché!
It’s actually related to a fursona (character) we use to help project emotions and self. Though because of DID there are so many different variants and versions it’s hard to keep up even though we all collectively made the character. Hell some of them aren’t even a dog but a human and others- non living (?) <idk personally, I only added the glasses hehe. -pj>
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
I don’t know how it works either but water fox is the superior browser.
DNS blocking, like with a Pihole, famously does not remove Youtube ads. So no, the mechanism is totally different.
Yeah, I confused DNS lists with block lists I’ve realized, lol. My bad
the brave one doesnt block as good as ublock origin.
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).
You could also use tools like greasemonkey to change the website more permanently
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.
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
