webextension-polyfill VS uBlock

Porting this extension to Firefox should be relatively straightforward using the webextension polyfill: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

Firefox maintain a library for unified extension API https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

Their type definition for HAR request isn't exported https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/mast...

best is to use https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

The Browser Extension Working Group at W3.org proposes the web standards based on the Chrome extension manifest, which supports all web browsers. Based on that proposal, Mozilla has released the Browser Extension Polyfill library that supports the modern promise pattern instead of callback. Therefore, if you import this polyfill library, theoretically, your Chrome extension quickly turns into the browser extension that runs on multiple browser engines.

And the biggest tip that i received late. Use Typescript type by Mozilla to make your development much easier(autocomplete, inline docs etc): https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

I've written extensions before and Firefox has a very good polyfill [0] that makes it quite easy to write extensions for all browsers. It does get a bit trickier if you also want to incorporate TypeScript [1] or React however.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

[1] https://github.com/Lusito/webextension-polyfill-ts

I used WebExtension polyfill[0] when adapting my FF addon to Chrome and admittedly all the intricate differences between APIs still costed me half a day of work.

I managed to have it done with only a few places where I branch on navigator.vendor, but If I wanted to ship different versions to AMO and CWS, I'd make use of something like DefinePlugin[1] for webpack to include/exclude code based on build target.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill/

[1] https://github.com/webpack/docs/wiki/list-of-plugins#definep...

Initially I created wrapper functions to convert Chrome functions that require callback to return promise instead. The better approach, as I found out later, is probably to use webextension-polyfill from Mozilla and its types.

I mean, the browser apis are close (and Mozilla still has much better documentation) but there are a LOT of edges cases where behavior diverges.

Frankly - I'm a little peeved that Optional permissions in Firefox are STILL broken - The prompt can only be triggered in response to a user action, and Firefox blows the fuck up if you put a promise anywhere in between the user click and the call to the api. Which is hugely ironic, since Mozilla is the one pushing to move all the webext APIs to be promise based (and provides a nice helpful library for Chrome/Edge/Safari support: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill) which... doesn't work on their platform. Doubly ironic, since the result is that most FF extensions just ask for more permissions up front, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd want in the "secure/private" world Mozilla claims they're pushing towards.

Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...

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...

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.

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

> 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.

> "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)

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...