Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free.
Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.
uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO. Why do people pretend it doesn't exist?
Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date. For simple ad blocking scenarios it’s fine, but it will actually miss some ads on some websites.
I've yet to see any ads on uBO Lite so I'll assume it's false, unless you give an example
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48474710
uBO lite struggles with dynamically inserted ads. I’m not sure if it works with YouTube midrolls, I haven’t tried it. I did try paramount plus months ago though, which uBlock handles but Lite doesn’t. That’s not really an intended use case for an adblocker though, IMO, so maybe it’s fine. And, maybe it’s improved by now.
> I did try paramount plus months ago though, which uBlock handles but Lite doesn’t. That’s not really an intended use case for an adblocker though, IMO, so maybe it’s fine.
What was not an intended use case for an ad blocker in your opinion? To block ads in video? Why?
> It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free.
Move your ad blocking to a different layer. Like say, network level.
This can be done but it’s not sophisticated enough for many ads. Websites are smart and will smuggle ads through known-good domains that you can’t block. You really need to be able to navigate the dom and use JS heuristics to identify ads and popups.
You could, but at the very least you'd need to MITM all HTTPS, and that means installing your own CA on all devices