Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ throwaway613745 5 days ago

I have used Firefox as my default browser through thick and thin for damn near two decades.

If Mozilla killed andblocking extensions I’d switch to Helium Browser in a heartbeat since they’re maintaining manifest v2 support for uBO and even ship it OOTB.

The web is unusable without a proper Adblock.

▲9cb14c1ec0 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The web is unusable without a proper Adblock.

It's a privacy nightmare as well. Few people reason how much data they give away to a host of shady companies just by letting ads display.

▲drfolgers 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ads and page level analytics aren’t the only thing gathering data.

There is server-side now (and previously) hosted by the site owner.

It’s a lost cause to fight this. I admire you all for using FF because uBO just for the experience, but it’s only a partial data block. Serverside and thumbprinting- you can’t be anonymous even with Tor, VPN, etc.

▲xedrac 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Any privacy benefits of blocking ads are incidental compared to the usability improvements it brings. I have near zero tolerance for ads.

▲ekianjo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Blocking even part of it is a win. Not sure why we should treat this as a dichotomy

▲cons0le 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

uBo + tamper monkey is needed just to block popups. Adblock on brave is basically non existent compared to uBO

▲psychoslave 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's kind of crazy that a popup like "we and our 1244 partners want to share your data to better serve you". That's the kind of dystopian event you would think only visible as caricatural SF, but it's the kind of thing one can actually see on a daily level just browsing around.

▲Podrod 4 days ago | parent [-]

They really take the piss, even supposedly essential cookies get lumbered with hundreds of "partners" with "legitimate interests" harvesting your data.

▲ghssds 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's a privacy nightmare as well. Few people reason how much data they give away to a host of shady companies just by letting ads display.

Imagine all the data Cloudflare vacuums.

▲deepspace 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The one and only time I ever got a machine infected with malware in my 30+ years of using the internet was when I fell for Forbes.com's request to please disable my adblocker. I promptly got hit by a trojan carried in one of their unvetted ads. Browsing without an adblocker is a critical security issue, and I will drop Firefox without a second thought if they ever cripple blockers like Google did.

▲cdaringe 5 days ago | parent [-]

Tell us more about the web ad based trojan!

▲3eb7988a1663 5 days ago | parent [-]

I am also really curious how GP was able to pinpoint the event. Or was it more, "Well this is the one weird thing I did on my machine this week."

▲t23414321 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The web was usable without JavaScript once.

(JS has few good uses, but is too excessive. Less code is always better - and an art.)

▲mghackerlady 5 days ago | parent [-]

Is there an extension that limits JS to things that actually improve websites (like the bare minimum needed to render a page usable under most metrics)

▲t23414321 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

That would be (progressive??) XBL. (!)

(- it's kind of behavior extension on tag level, yet has JS - and it's orthogonal, like CSS or XSLT (BTW. see that hack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41245159), unlike JS which is.. untamed and invasive; i.e. there is video (any) tag but you could (+)DIY not touching the document - like custom playing with MPlayer or VLC as a plugin there for all AV formats or sorting filtering editing whatever, all aside custompacks? :)

- or, what about the other way, like a firewall ??

▲immibis 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

NoScript, but you can only control it per domain.

▲kirth_gersen 5 days ago | parent [-]

+1 for NoScript. It is kind of a pain for the first few days when you have to spend 10-30 seconds reloading sites to allow the minimum needed. It is also eye opening to see how much bloat is added and how fast pages load without all the extra bs.

▲mghackerlady 5 days ago | parent [-]

Thats my problem though, I don't want to have to allow the minimum for each site. I wish there was a noscript-like extension that used a public database of sorts to allow what's needed and block everything else, including things that are "needed" but suck so bad you shouldn't use the site

▲pmontra 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

uMatrix, from the same author of uBO. It's been officially unsupported for years but it still works and it's UI is better then the UI of NoScript and of course much better than the incomprehensible subsystem of uBO that should have replaced uMatrix.

▲Dwedit 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't "still work" if you're on Firefox. uMatrix has bugs that cause it to randomly delete your cookies, or occasionally fail to block a request (race condition? Looking at logger shows an incorrect domain on some requests)

There are community-made forks which fix the cookies problem, like nuTensor.

▲pmontra 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks, I'll check nuTensor. I'm using uMatrix with Firefox on both Linux and Android and I didn't notice anything strange but maybe some of those bugs were hidden under the normal hiccups of finding the right combination of rows with trial and errors.

▲jjav 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It doesn't "still work" if you're on Firefox.

Not my experience at all. I run uMatrix on every computer I have and it is awesome. Still annoyed it was replaced by uBo which is quite good, but nowhere as nice as uMatrix. Luckily uMatrix still works great.

I wish they'd just scrap the uBo interface and replace it with the uMatrix interface which is far superior.

▲pmontra 4 days ago | parent [-]

They do different things. I'm using both: uBO for ads and hiding UI elements, uMatrix for JS. I wish that the author could support both but time is limited and I'm OK with that.

By the way, I realized that most of the tabs where I'm logged into something run inside their own tab container, so that limits the damage that any bug on handling cookies can do.

▲oxzidized 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Is there a different repo for nuTensor than here: https://github.com/geekprojects/nuTensor? That one says it was archived in 2021. Or are you just saying that nuTensor is less buggy than uMatrix?

▲Sophira 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It probably won't work in new Chrome versions. I'm pretty sure it's a Manifest V2 extension (it would have to be in order to dynamically block requests in the way it does), and Chrome stopped supporting MV2 extensions this year[0].

[0] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...

▲t23414321 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Didn't one of those extensions had an option to regexp replace content of JS files ? (Now how to do that: with parsing - or with magical chains ??:)

Right, that could be nice use of AI to extract only the good parts - or, at least, to adjust the rules for https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/requestcontro... by function.

▲1vuio0pswjnm7 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"The web is unusable without a proper Adblock"

Unusable for the commenter perhaps, based on his choices, but not unusable in an absolute sense

For example, I have been using the web without an adblock for several decades.^1 I see no ads

Adblocking is only necessary when one uses a popular graphical web browser

When I use an HTTP generator and a TCP client then no "adblock" is necessary

When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary

Websites that comprise "the web" are only one half of the ad delivery system

The other half is the client <--- user choice

Firefox is controlled and distribuited by an entity that advocates for a "healthy online advertising ecosystem" and sends search query data to an online advertising services company called Google in exchange for payment. Ex-Mozilla employees left to join Google and start another browser called "Chrome"

These browsers are designed to deliver advertising. That's why an "adblock" extension is needed

When one uses a client that is not controlled and distributed by a company that profits from advertising services, that is not designed to deliver advertising, then an "adblock" may not be needed. I also control DNS and use a local forward proxy

The web is "usable" with such clients. For example, I read all HN submissions using clients that do not deliver or display ads. I am submitting this comment without using a popular graphical web browser

1. Obviously there are some exceptions, e.g., online banking, e-commerce, etc. For me, this is a small minority of web usage

The web is usuable with a variety of clients, not only the ones designed to deliver ads

▲afiori 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

For almost all purposes and users this is the same as saying "just close your eyes"/"just stay offline".

▲Teever 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do people make posts like this?

You know that your long-winded and patronizing response in no way is a solution to the problem that you claim it is for the audience you're talking about.

Why do you pawn off an obviously non-solution as a solution? What does this get you?

▲oska 5 days ago | parent [-]

The GP comment was excellent and exactly the sort of unconventional but informed thinking (about tech) that I like to see on HN

▲1vuio0pswjnm7 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use a text-only browser as an offline HTML reader

I make HTTP requests with a TCP client

There are no "false positives"

I only request the resources that I want, e.g., the HTML from the primary domain, JSON from the API domain, etc.

I also use custom filters written in C to extract the information I want from the retreived HTML or JSON and transform it into SQL or "pretty print"

There is nothing to "block" because I'm not using software that automatically tries to request resources I do not want from domains I never indicated I wanted to contact

▲wat10000 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Using a text-only browser is equivalent to using an ad blocker that has a lot of false positives.

If you’re happy with it, carry on. But you are using the equivalent of an ad blocker.

▲1vuio0pswjnm7 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Original web clients were not designed for (today's) ads. Graphics were optional. There was no Javascript

I even still use the original line mode browser and other utilties in the 1995 w3c-libwww from time to time

The "modern" protocols are handled by the local forward proxy not the client

TLS1.3, HTTP/2, QUIC, etc.

▲1vuio0pswjnm7 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In terms of majorities and minorities, HN commenters do not represent "almost all users"

There are some web users who are online 24/7

There are others who may prefer to stay offline

A wide variety of people use the web for a wide variety of purposes

HN commenters are a tiny sliver of "all users" and "all purposes"

As such, HN commenters are not qualified to opine on behalf of "almost all users" as almost all users do not comment on HN or elsewhere on the web. Almost all users prefer to express their opinions about the web, if any, offline

▲blubber 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary"

So you browser as if it were 1999? Yup, no ads back then.

▲invaliduser 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The first ad blocker was released in 1996 [1] and in 1999 we had a lot of shiny, blinking and very colorful ads already [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking#History

[2] https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/exhibitions/web-banners-in-t...

▲blubber 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but there is no song with the line: party like it's 1996. Simply doesn't work.

▲Dwedit 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

1996 is a surprise, I thought WebWasher (http local proxy ad remover) was first.

▲ 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲danudey 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I tried switching to Ungoogled Chromium lately but had to switch back because, even on 32 GB of RAM, having another chromium process running meant that all my apps were getting killed left right and centre. Do too much browsing and VS Code gets killed. Restart VS Code and do a build and Slack gets killed. Open Zoom and Chromium gets killed.

Now I'm back to Firefox again and nothing has died so far.

▲LtdJorge 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. And I’m one of those that uses Firefox sync, and prefers all the things Firefox comes with, including the developer tools. The only thing it lacks is the integrated Google Lighthouse reporting.

▲samgranieri 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

have you tried using pi-hole or adblock plus running on a raspberry pi on your network?

whenever i'm off my home wifi network, i have wireguard configured to connect home and get me that ad blocking. it's so nice.

yes, i prefer to use brave for personal stuff and i use edge for work stuff (reasons,,, don't ask)

▲timeinput 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's definitely better than nothing, and greatly improves things, but UBO is better. Try watching a youtube video in a browser with UBO, and the android app on a network with pi-hole, etc.

▲throwaway613745 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I ran AdGuard Home for a while but it was causing too many problems for everyone else at home so I stopped.

These days I’m using AdGuard on iOS and ublock origin with Firefox on everything else.

▲doubled112 5 days ago | parent [-]

It took me a long time to get the allow lists dialed in, but I think it was still worth it. My wife may disagree since she was the most common victim.

It amazes me that every link the kid's school sends is a tracking link, and not always the same tracker.

▲FuriouslyAdrift 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's also Palemoon...

▲tim333 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Though uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome actually works quite well.

▲chrisweekly 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks for referencing Helium -- it looks great!

▲SirMaster 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>The web is unusable without a proper Adblock.

And yet somehow most people in the world use it every day without an adblocker...

▲ghssds 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

How many limit themselves to a few apps owned by the GAFAM?

▲LargoLasskhyfv 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Trillions of flies eat shit...

▲socalgal2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I close any website covered in ads. Problem solved

▲kevin_thibedeau 5 days ago | parent [-]

Except by that point you've executed all their JavaScript. The FBI recommends ad blockers as a safety measure. Bouncing on the site still exposes you to risk.

▲glenstein 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>If Mozilla killed andblocking extensions

Yeah but they haven't and they're not going to, so what's the point of fantasizing about what you would do in that situation? It's like tough guy syndrome, where a person constantly fantasizes about what they would do in the imaginary situation where one of their friends or family is disrespected, or doomsday preppers who spend their life imagining what they would do in an apocalypse that never comes.

That stuff belongs on archiveofourown.com, not news.ycombinator.com.

▲matthewkayin 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Relax, man. It's perfectly reasonable to say that you would stop using a browser if they killed adblock support. Saying so is not "tough guy" syndrome because switching which browser you use is not a tough thing to do.

▲glenstein 5 days ago | parent [-]

It is tough guy syndrome, because it's projecting a hypothetical scenario to performatively declare what you would do in that hypothetical, attempting to hold a third party accountable for something they're not actually doing. Try to follow the ball instead of lecturing me to relax ;)

▲LtWorf 5 days ago | parent [-]

Did you read the post? They are clearly considering doing it.

▲stephen_g 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, otherwise it’d weird the new CEO had such a precise idea of the amount of money it could bring in. It makes it sound like Mozilla definitely had either considered offers from advertisers or done the maths themselves to work out potential revenue.

And for the record, as a Firefox user, count me in with the others who would switch and just use Safari on my Mac if they went through with it!

▲kelipso 5 days ago | parent [-]

Same. I use Safari even with the ads because it has the profiles thing. Only reason I use Firefox is the ad blocker.

▲throwaway613745 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Constantly Fantasizing? I was responding to a hypothetical based on interpretations of real statements made by the new CEO. It's a public forum for discussion. Firefox is something that is central and essential to my digital life.

I think the only person fantasizing here is you, about what random strangers on discussion forums do all day when not responding directly to topics at hand.

▲glenstein 5 days ago | parent [-]

You literally just agreed that you did the thing I'm describing and then insisted I was fantasizing. And you're right, it's a public forum for discussion, hence my criticism of attempting to hold Mozilla accountable for a fictional hypothetical that they explicitly said they're not doing.

I'm all for fanfiction, but as I noted before, it seems that these days archiveofourown.com is where people publish that stuff, not Hacker News. It's easy to sign up and if your fiction is creative people will give you positive reviews. But you might need to spice it up by implying a conspiracy to cooperate with Google or something.