uBOL-home
uBlock
uBOL-home | uBlock | |
---|---|---|
16 | 2,992 | |
363 | 43,617 | |
13.5% | - | |
8.4 | 9.9 | |
4 days ago | about 14 hours ago | |
JavaScript | JavaScript | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
uBOL-home
-
Brave Leo now uses Mixtral 8x7B as default
> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules
That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...
> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.
What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.
It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.
> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.
This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.
- UBlockOrigin Lite
- Current status of uBlockOrigin in Safari 17
-
Chrome's next weapon in the War on Ad Blockers: Slower extension updates
For an extension to be entirely declarative, it must package all the scripts to inject anywhere, the scripting.registerContentScript API doesn't allow injecting code as string[1], the content scripts must be part of the package.[2]
There is userScripts API which allows injecting code as string, but it's impractical as in Chromium-based browsers this requires extra steps by the user to enable the API.[3] In Firefox, the documentation for this API has the following note[4]:
> When using Manifest V3 or higher, use scripting.registerContentScripts() to register scripts
* * *
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
[2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/tree/main/chromium...
[3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/userS... ("Availability Pending")
[4] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
-
Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
AIUI it's because declarativeNetRequests requires the filters to be specified statically, see https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
Also note that the site you linked is for UBlock, which is a different extension from UBlock Origin. The UBlock Origin Lite (UBlock Origin for MV3) page has an explanation: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- UBlockOrigin Lite (partially) works on Safari
-
Browser extensions spy on you, even if its developers don't
You can also use a declarative adblocker like uBlock Origin Lite [1], which only provides the browser with a list of elements to filter, but doesn't have any permissions to read content or perform requests. Or simply use your hosts file to apply OS-wide filtering with no browser add-ons needed: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Be aware that if you use these "passive" blocking methods, there are some sites like YouTube where you will see ads, because in these cases it's necessary to actually manipulate page content to hide them. What you can do is use a traditional adblocker but enable it only for these few sites where the declarative approach is not enough, take a look at [2] for more details.
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
[2] https://seirdy.one/posts/2022/06/04/layered-content-blocking...
-
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
> The author's description even seems to praise Manifest v3 in the same way Google PR did.
No, it simply declares the goal of that add-on: to fully comply with declarative ways of MV3 and its limitations, and no uBO extended features that need workarounds to be implemented.
He's more strict to Lite than full version:
- https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/17
-
uBlock Origin 1.50.0
Obviously a project like this has already been offered 7-figure deals already: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-issues/issues/44
And he declined all.
- のーもら公認アドオン『ublock origin』収益化のご提案をまたもや相手にせず
uBlock
- Apr 24th is JavaScript Naked Day – Browse the web without JavaScript
- Mobile Ad Blocker Will No Longer Stop YouTube's Ads
-
Some notes on Firefox's media autoplay settings in practice as of Firefox 124
Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]
[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
-
Brave's AI assistant now integrates with PDFs and Google Drive
If ads, in particular on YouTube, are the problem, anything Chromium-based is probably only going to get worse and worse (see [1] and [2]). So that basically leaves you with Firefox and Safari.
I work for Mozilla (speaking for myself, of course), so I'll leave you to guess which I'd recommend :P
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...
-
X.org Server Clears Out Remnants for Supporting Old Compilers
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.
-
Mozilla thinks Apple, Google, Microsoft should play fair
What are the compelling advantages of Chrome nowadays?
Chrome is working to limit the capabilities of ad blockers:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/chrome-pushes...
Whereas a compelling advantage of Firefox is that uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
Advertising networks have often been vectors for malware. Using an ad blocker is an important security measure. Even the FBI recommends ad blockers:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising
https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
-
Brave Leo now uses Mixtral 8x7B as default
> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules
That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...
> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.
What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.
It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.
> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.
This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.
- uBlock Origin – 1.55.0
-
In 2024, please switch to Firefox
> "Its happened before"
> That's not an argument
It's a subheading to "2. Browser engine monopoly". The subsection's purpose is describing how bad things were during the IE monopoly to reinforce that it's something to be avoided.
> in fact you could counter-argue that IE left a lot of technical debt
That would be agreeing with the article, unless I understand what you mean.
> On top of that, the internet was very different back then.
In a way that now makes it harder for truly new competing engines to pop up due to increased complexity of the web.
> I'm still not convinced, why would I change my browser?
The points made in the article are:
* Increased privacy, opposed to willingly giving your data to an ad-tech company
* Helps avoid a browser engine monopoly which would effectively let Google dictate web standards
* It’s fast and has a nice user interface
Onto which I'd add:
* Content blockers work best on Firefox (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...), doubly so when Manifest V3 rolls out
* Allows more customization of interface and home page
* UX improvements, like the clutter-free reader mode, aren't vetoed to protect search revenue as with Chrome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467)
-
Ask HN: Is Firefox team too small to do serious security tests?
Advertising networks are vectors for malware:
https://www.cisecurity.org/insights/blog/malvertising
https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising
https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...
So if you're concerned about security then you want the browser with the best ad blocker.
uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
What are some alternatives?
example-chrome-extension - Example Chrome Extension - open source examples for Chrome extension APIs
VideoAdBlockForTwitch - Blocks Ads on Twitch.tv.
webextensions - Charter and administrivia for the WebExtensions Community Group (WECG)
Spotify-Ad-Blocker - EZBlocker - A Spotify Ad Blocker for Windows
little-rat - 🐀 Small chrome extension to monitor (and optionally block) other extensions' network calls
bypass-paywalls-chrome - Bypass Paywalls web browser extension for Chrome and Firefox.
AdGuardDNS - Public DNS resolver that protects you from ad trackers
duckduckgo-privacy-extension - DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials browser extension for Firefox, Chrome.
remove-youtube-suggestions - A browser extension that removes YouTube suggestions, comments, shorts, and more
ClearUrls
uBlock-issues - This is the community-maintained issue tracker for uBlock Origin
AdNauseam - AdNauseam: Fight back against advertising surveillance