Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
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.
Most (real world, not HN) users don't really notice any difference between MV2 and MV3 based extensions.
MV3 won't (and will not) block Youtube ads properly. There's the entire point of removing MV2.
I just tested Chromium with uBlock Origin Lite (default settings, aka "Optimal") and had no issue blocking YouTube ads.
Is that actually true? I've never looked into the API differences or how YouTube ads actually work, but I'm using a current Google Chrome version on MacOS, with uBlock Origin Lite and SponsorBlock, and I'm watching YouTube with no ads as far as I can tell (logged in, not subscribed to Premium). Is that supposed to be impossible now?
You say that like MV2 version didn't need extensive workarounds to block YT ads.
I'm still not seeing any ads. Works fine for me.
Do they block ads though? I am now only using Firefox because I can install Ublock origin and that works out for me.
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.
Yeah, I think calling the Mv3 versions "secure adblockers" would be more accurate.
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?
Browser users. Pre Mv3 extensions were a huge vector for malware. My in-laws were hit by that.
You can write malicious MV3 extensions. The changes' stated reason was performance, not security.