* Cannot use all filter lists simultaneously (rule limits apply)
* No cosmetic filtering in the default mode
* No scriptlet injection by default
* Limited dynamic filtering capabilities
* Requires broader host permissions upfront
But it's definitely still better than no adblockers
armadyl 17 minutes ago [-]
Regarding the cosmetic filtering and scriptlet injection, are these even relevant? Most uBO users already give full access to the extension, so they'll probably do the same to uBOL to (most permissions + complete filtering mode). So basically they will have these features anyway.
armadyl 22 minutes ago [-]
FYI uBlock Origin Lite on iOS is inferior to AdGuard and (I think) Wipr as it's just a WebExtension, so it'll only block ads within Safari itself.
AdGuard and Wipr use both the Web Extension and Content Blocker APIs, so they'll block ads in all web views system wide on top of within Safari itself.
However as far as trustworthiness goes, uBlock is (imo) #1.
Barbing 17 minutes ago [-]
wBlock by an MIT student is open source and seems (just!) about as trustworthy as uBlock, though of course without the track record. Light & fast, especially to update.
“wBlock runs entirely within Safari's content blocking API. There's no data collection, no tracking, and no system-level extensions that can monitor your browsing.“
uBOL doesn't work in apps, it works only in Safari, it's a pure browser extension, the "app" part of uBOL is an Apple requirement just for the sake of installing the extension.
Copied from #408:
uBOL will stay a webextensions-based browser extension, I do not plan to go further than this, I do not have the time and motivation to take on more work than I already do.
What people may ask though is that Apple maybe supports webextensions in WebApp, if that is possible at all.
I hope this changes, it’s what keeps me on AdGuard :-/
odo1242 22 minutes ago [-]
Also, if you use Orion Browser, they did implement the full Manifest v2 extension spec on top of WebKit, which lets you use full uBlock origin directly.
Nextgrid 39 minutes ago [-]
This is not a true uBlock Origin. It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework, but is nowhere near as capable as actual UBO.
lapcat 9 minutes ago [-]
> It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework
Google invented this API for Chrome, and the other web browsers are adopting it. uBlock Origin Lite does not use Apple's content blocker API.
NegativeLatency 38 minutes ago [-]
Works well enough for me
Cider9986 25 minutes ago [-]
Does it work on YouTube?
armadyl 18 minutes ago [-]
Yes, in practice I have noticed no difference between uBO and uBOL. The only thing I've seen it not block are Twtich ads which the normal uBO doesn't block anyway.
There are probably additional things behind the scenes just due to the limitations of uBOL but you again in practice don't see it.
VCFundedGenYer 2 hours ago [-]
Technically, Firefox Focus (a separate browser for iOS) includes an adblocker feature that can be applied system wide via iOS's content blockers subsystem. This was released in the late 2010s.
Firefox including it is likely just reducing the steps required.
brightbeige 2 hours ago [-]
If you search the App Store and don’t find it, it’s called Firefox Klar in some markets
adityeah 2 hours ago [-]
Yes and not only that, one can enable that as a safari extension and get an ad-free experience on safari too.
Shank 2 hours ago [-]
> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers
There are many subpar adblockers available both built into browsers on iOS and as extensions. uBlock Origin Lite for Safari remains the best mobile adblocker on iOS, I suppose.
Cider9986 21 minutes ago [-]
UBlock lite extension on Safari blocks ads on YouTube? Is Brave not better?
temp0826 2 hours ago [-]
What's the current excuse for not supporting extensions on iOS? Orion on iOS does and it's the reason I dropped FF ages ago.
What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.
You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.
The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.
Nextgrid 33 minutes ago [-]
> unless you move to the EU or Japan
Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.
prinny_ 41 minutes ago [-]
Can you please expand on why what Orion does is hacky and may cause issues with other add ons?
yoavm 1 hours ago [-]
> Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.
Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.
enos_feedler 32 minutes ago [-]
It’s not the part you see, its what they see to implement the features you see.
1 hours ago [-]
Tryk 1 hours ago [-]
*EU is not one country
benoau 35 minutes ago [-]
The law that requires allowing alternative browsers, the DMA, applies to the entire EU.
But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.
wbl 2 hours ago [-]
Not all markets or manufacturers will have the same degree of vertical integration and that's ok.
Grombobulous 1 hours ago [-]
It’s okay if you’re in a healthy market with many competitive choices.
It’s not okay if you’re a duopoly where over 95% of people buy your product as a prerequisite to functioning in modern society.
dd8601fn 14 minutes ago [-]
Their approach yielded arguably the least exploitable general purpose computing devices that people ever actually wanted, without making people feel they were crippled, in a market where there are thousands of alternatives.
It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.
grepex 1 hours ago [-]
Read: not all markets and manufacturers will have the same respect for their customers.
close04 2 hours ago [-]
Until recently Apple only allowed Webkit on iOS. In the EU and Japan now they allow proprietary engines. But this means Mozilla needs to put in all the extra effort to maintain yet another branch for iOS with all the features, for an even more limited user base in those regions alone.
what's the current excuse for buying a device which doesn't allow you to control what software you use on it?
temp0826 54 minutes ago [-]
My current excuse? Android (the only current realistic alternative; I don't have the time nor care to fiddle with technical details on a device that I need to be a reliable tool. I'm not afraid of going deep on something less standard, Linux has been my daily driven OS for literally decades) is trash and untrustworthy in my experience. Browser extensions alone are not nearly enough to tip the scale for me to go back to it. As mentioned I use something that provides extension support already (from a browser that has far fewer developers working on it!), which is why I find it stupid that Mozilla won't figure out a way to do it themselves.
confusedbucket 54 minutes ago [-]
Where do I buy this device that does let me run any software I want?
Most Android phones don't even let users unlock the bootloader anymore. And if you do unlock the bootloader, now Google Pay doesn't work, among other things. I don't really feel like being in control of what software I use when the software I actually want refuses to run. F-Droid homepage is also concerning.
Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.
seba_dos1 49 minutes ago [-]
> Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.
The one I'm typing this on right now reliably handles all the functions I need and lets me run any software I want. While not everyone's needs will be met by it, let's not paint a picture that hasn't been generally true for many years now already.
confusedbucket 3 minutes ago [-]
Fair enough and good for you. My point was that currently your only options are either giving up a freedom to run the software you want, or losing utility. In neither case I feel like being in control. The war is over and the users lost.
juiceland 18 minutes ago [-]
Which phone, which OS, and what functions?
whstl 2 hours ago [-]
1. Not wanting to.
2. Caring about other aspects of the device.
I don't personally agree with Apple's decisions, but you "vote with wallet" people need to have at least some modicum of empathy before you start demanding that people have a lot for you and join your cause.
tcfhgj 1 hours ago [-]
you are reading a lot into almost nothing
> 1. Not wanting to.
obviously you DO want to if you want to use extensions but cannot use them because you actually cannot control the software on your device
whstl 1 hours ago [-]
I am not talking about myself. That's where the empathy part comes.
cogman10 51 minutes ago [-]
As a mobile device? There are like 3 of them on the market right now and you'll run into huge headaches at every turn if you try and use them.
VCFundedGenYer 2 hours ago [-]
As always, it's Apple neutering their own platform. They don't allow a lot of things on iOS. Non-WebKit browsers is one of them (Which is asinine).
The EU forced them to allow other browser engines in their regions, but it's not global, and therefore fragmented.
hosteur 58 minutes ago [-]
Why did it take so long?
michimagdesign 1 hours ago [-]
Paying for Wipr 2 + Filtr is still the gold standard on apple platforms imo. But it’s not open source and there are no custom block lists.
rrgok 2 hours ago [-]
It this still only DNS blocking or does cosmetic blocking too?
HelloUsername 2 hours ago [-]
"Firefox blocks many types of advertising at the network level. It uses a filter list based on EasyList to block many ads before they load."
I guess still all DNS it seems? For which NextDNS is much more useful.
ramijames 1 hours ago [-]
If you haven't been using Firefox, what are you even doing with your life?
hh2222 3 minutes ago [-]
Cross platform bookmark support is my favourite feature.
Cider9986 20 minutes ago [-]
Using Brave on desktop and Vanadium on my phone. They are more secure and private which is why I like them.
EbNar 48 minutes ago [-]
I've been using it for 20 years and switched 4 yearso ago to something else. My life is fine, thanks.
EDIT: so, the downvotes are because what, exactly?
ImJamal 3 hours ago [-]
> Firefox does not block:
> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers
> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page
So block ads unless it impacts their revenue sources.
pmkary 2 hours ago [-]
Ads are bad! Blocking ads on our own homepage? How do you expect us to keep the lights on?
lakkal 57 minutes ago [-]
> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page
Not ideal, but (at least on desktop) you can set the Home page to a blank page, and there is an extension called 'Blank New Tab' that I've been using for quite a while.
NicuCalcea 46 minutes ago [-]
> You can manage the sponsored content on the Firefox Home and New Tab page in your Homepage settings.
WarmWash 1 hours ago [-]
The correct way to avoid ads is to not visit pages that use them.
rvz 1 hours ago [-]
Mozilla knows not to bite Google’s hand, who is the one that actually feeds them hundreds of millions of dollars.
charcircuit 1 hours ago [-]
Mozilla is the one who is funneling billions of dollars worth of traffic to Google.
EbNar 38 minutes ago [-]
So, is Mozilla promoting a search engine monoculture? Yeah, "Google bad, but..."
rvz 33 minutes ago [-]
Google's only reason for keeping Mozilla on life support is to avoid the argument of being a total and complete browser monopoly.
Firefox's global traffic market share is less than double digits [0] and is less than 5%. Google technically doesn't need traffic from Firefox and Google is roughly paying half a billion ($585M) a year for it. [1]
It doesn't have those limitations on Windows or Android, so it must be an Apple requirement or limitation.
smallerize 2 hours ago [-]
Easylist does not block those things on any platforms.
I'm not aware of any adblockers that can block the ads on the built-in New Tab page. (You can just disable them in settings anyway.)
jamesforestwest 1 hours ago [-]
Well, not bad. But it's not uBlock, and Safari's blocker is already working fine for me. Brave's also been doing this for years. But at least it's something.
Rendered at 15:59:24 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
In particular:
* Cannot use all filter lists simultaneously (rule limits apply)
* No cosmetic filtering in the default mode
* No scriptlet injection by default
* Limited dynamic filtering capabilities
* Requires broader host permissions upfront
But it's definitely still better than no adblockers
AdGuard and Wipr use both the Web Extension and Content Blocker APIs, so they'll block ads in all web views system wide on top of within Safari itself.
However as far as trustworthiness goes, uBlock is (imo) #1.
On AdGuard: can act as your PiHole and allow you to see network requests when run in non-native mode.
uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform DeclarativeNetRequest extension API: https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtens...
Google invented this API for Chrome, and the other web browsers are adopting it. uBlock Origin Lite does not use Apple's content blocker API.
There are probably additional things behind the scenes just due to the limitations of uBOL but you again in practice don't see it.
Firefox including it is likely just reducing the steps required.
There are many subpar adblockers available both built into browsers on iOS and as extensions. uBlock Origin Lite for Safari remains the best mobile adblocker on iOS, I suppose.
Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.
What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.
You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.
The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.
Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.
Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.
But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.
It’s not okay if you’re a duopoly where over 95% of people buy your product as a prerequisite to functioning in modern society.
It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.
Most Android phones don't even let users unlock the bootloader anymore. And if you do unlock the bootloader, now Google Pay doesn't work, among other things. I don't really feel like being in control of what software I use when the software I actually want refuses to run. F-Droid homepage is also concerning.
Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.
The one I'm typing this on right now reliably handles all the functions I need and lets me run any software I want. While not everyone's needs will be met by it, let's not paint a picture that hasn't been generally true for many years now already.
2. Caring about other aspects of the device.
I don't personally agree with Apple's decisions, but you "vote with wallet" people need to have at least some modicum of empathy before you start demanding that people have a lot for you and join your cause.
> 1. Not wanting to.
obviously you DO want to if you want to use extensions but cannot use them because you actually cannot control the software on your device
The EU forced them to allow other browser engines in their regions, but it's not global, and therefore fragmented.
I guess still all DNS it seems? For which NextDNS is much more useful.
EDIT: so, the downvotes are because what, exactly?
> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers
> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page
So block ads unless it impacts their revenue sources.
Not ideal, but (at least on desktop) you can set the Home page to a blank page, and there is an extension called 'Blank New Tab' that I've been using for quite a while.
Firefox's global traffic market share is less than double digits [0] and is less than 5%. Google technically doesn't need traffic from Firefox and Google is roughly paying half a billion ($585M) a year for it. [1]
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
[1] https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla%20Fdn%202024%20-%20A...
I'm not aware of any adblockers that can block the ads on the built-in New Tab page. (You can just disable them in settings anyway.)