I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182)

Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).

[delayed]

why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS

I got turned off to brave with all the token stuff. Just my take.

You might want to not use chromium?

Genuine question, does brave have ff's container extension? currently that's one of the thing that keeps holding me on ff. another big one is i test website on firefox so to not get carried away with features only available in chromium

Some people don't like how Brave is pushing cryptocurrency.

I do.

Why support Chrome at all?

Why would you use Brave when for many years it wouid surreptitiously install a VPN service on your Windows machine. The Brave devs took more than a year to even address it, let alone remove it.

More ideologically, Google and Chromium are awful for the internet as monopolistic tech.

Their whole thing looks sketchy, frankly. I'm not saying they're evil or have some deep secret ulterior motive. But their "vision" appears to be bunch of absolutely half-baked ideas for privacy, for which Firefox has a much more boring, and consequently better, track record.

It should be able to. Waterfox is using roughly the same integration and the maintainer has been seeing reports of YouTube issues, but cannot reproduce it. https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issueco...

One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.

I'll keep using uBlock Origin, but I don't see having a built-in content blocker as a bad thing, especially if the lists are the same (easylist, etc). It's no different from the (very old) option to block popups.

The lists are maintained same as extensions.

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt",

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt",

"https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt",

"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..."

These are the lists you say you do not want being used.

Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.