JavaScript really isn't that slow. JIT compilation can wind up faster than AOT compilation. And much of the APIs called by JavaScript is natively-implemented browser code. JavaScript is faster than C# yet people implement games in C# (not the engine cores, but that's a very similar situation to JS) and don't bat an eye.

But a list of like 100 domains will get rid of most major ad services.

I also thought under MV3 you could block ads, but not the tracking that they do.

[dead]

MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.

uBO lite blocks between most and all of the ads, at least on the sites I browse. I honestly didn't notice a difference switching over.

I'm actually more curious to hear what sites it doesn't do a good job on.

ublock origin lite is blocking a bunch of stuff for me, and things are unbearable when I turn it off.

For many sites, especially news sites, I toggle javascript off. It's reasonably easy to do per site in chrome (click left of location bar and "site settings"). I don't know if there is an easy way to do this per site in firefox.

So far I've stuck with chrome for a few reasons:

- Mozilla doesn't implement desktop PWA and has cancelled the project. I use this. - Mozilla was using about twice as much memory as chrome. (I need to revisit this, Chrome seems to have gotten fatter.) - Safari is a royal pain to write your own extensions (last I checked you need to create an application and bundle the extension into it). - I like the multiple profiles in Chrome to sandbox things like my google login. There may be a firefox equivalent, however.

How about "nerfed adblockers"? Do any of the MV3 versions replicate the full power of ublock origin on Firefox? (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...)

To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.

Secure for whom?