Cosmetic filtering and script injection both work fine, they’re just off by default. Everybody works around rule count limits by making the one app register itself as like six different “Safari extensions”, it’s just clutter not a limitation. It requires no permissions up front and later permissions only granularly and rarely, for me only on YouTube, while the Firefox version does require unrestricted access to all domains. I have never seen a “dynamic filtering capability” it lacks or an ad it can’t block, do you have any examples?

> it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking

The only mainstream browser left that can still run the full version of uBlock Origin is Firefox.

All the others have the same limitations imposed by Manifest V3.

Regarding the cosmetic filtering and scriptlet injection, are these even relevant? Most uBO users already give full access to the extension, so they'll probably do the same to uBOL to (most permissions + complete filtering mode). So basically they will have these features anyway.

What I like about uBO Lite in Safari is that I can use it without allowing it access to any of my data (it works in a purely declarative mode if you want). Even if it’s unlikely that uBO would be sold to a sketchy company, at least this provides protection against any supply chain attacks.

wBlock by an MIT student is open source and seems (just!) about as trustworthy as uBlock, though of course without the track record. Light & fast, especially to update.

  “wBlock runs entirely within Safari's content blocking API. There's no data collection, no tracking, and no system-level extensions that can monitor your browsing.“

On AdGuard: can act as your PiHole and allow you to see network requests when run in non-native mode.

I think Wipr is also very trustworthy. It’s developed by an indie dev who’s responsive over email, and gives you a lot for free. And it has a $5/yr subscription (or one time payment) that unlocks system-wide ad blocking, not just in web views.

I’ve found it to work exceptionally well after trying other free adblockers.

FWIW AdGuard dev team is in Russia. Letting them proxy all your traffic is probably not the wisest move.

uBOL bug report: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/438 , from discussion https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/discussions/408#di...

    uBOL doesn't work in apps, it works only in Safari, it's a pure browser extension, the "app" part of uBOL is an Apple requirement just for the sake of installing the extension.

    Copied from #408:

    uBOL will stay a webextensions-based browser extension, I do not plan to go further than this, I do not have the time and motivation to take on more work than I already do.
    What people may ask though is that Apple maybe supports webextensions in WebApp, if that is possible at all.

I try Orion periodically but always find it to be buggy

This is why I started using the Orion browser. It's not perfect, I've had a few freezes and occasional weird behavior but well within the "tolerable" range for me, and not noticably worse than the glitches that any ad blocker causes on some sites.

Does that really matter if virtually no one is going to develop extensions according to the Manifest v2 spec?

Developing for that spec means your extension is incompatible with idk, 98% of the browser market?

Works well enough for me

> It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework

uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform DeclarativeNetRequest extension API: https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtens...

Google invented this API for Chrome, and the other web browsers are adopting it. uBlock Origin Lite does not use Apple's content blocker API.