Title and image from alternativeto.net, to unbury the lede, but linked to the original post.
This year will see Waterfox shipping a native content blocker built on Brave’s adblock library - and it’s worth explaining what that means and why.
The blocker runs in the main browser process rather than as a web extension, which means it isn’t subject to the limitations that extension based blockers like uBlock Origin face. It’s faster, more tightly integrated, and doesn’t depend on a separate extension process or require us to constantly pull in upstream updates. Brave’s adblock library is also mature - it has paid engineers working on it, a wide filterset, and crucially it’s licensed under MPL2, the same licence as Waterfox, which makes it a natural fit. uBlock Origin, as good as it is, carries a GPLv3 licence that would’ve created real compatibility headaches.
For how it works in practice: by default, text ads will remain visible on our default search partner’s page - currently Startpage. The idea is that this is what will keep the lights on.
This mirrors the approach Brave takes with their search partner.Users who want to disable that entirely can do so with a single toggle in settings, and it has nothing to do with any of Brave’s crypto or rewards ecosystem - we’re just using the adblocking library. Everyone else gets a fast, native adblocker out of the box, no extension required.
If you already use an adblocker, don’t worry, you can carry on using it. This will be enabled for new users or users who aren’t already using an adblocker.
In the meanwhile, Waterfox’s membership of the Browser Choice Alliance alongside Google and Opera, is pushing for fair competition and actual user choice in the browser market.
Oh FFS…
Fuck Brave. I literally just switched back to Waterfox…
These were the relevant bits to me.
In practice not really any different than needing to configure a fresh copy of Firefox or whatever.
This is more secure than an extension, and in addition to that, Mozilla has a history of harassing the developer of uBlock Origin specifically. Hedging their bets against the unethical corporation seems like a wise move for Waterfox.
By relying on Brave?
That doesn’t make sense.
You can that say it makes them less reliant on the Firefox extension engine, you can say that it is faster. Those are fair points.
But you’re not hedging your bets by relying on Brave, a gang that secretly engaged in link hijacking and referral re-writing.
I am genuinely curious, how is an in-built content blocker inherently more secure than an extension? Assuming you trust both the browser developer and the extension developer.
I can see it being faster and better integrated, but how is it more secure?
The new code is a tiny fraction of the codebase, and if you are worried about them relying on anybody, the unethical Mozilla corporation should be at the top of your concerns.
It’s not a matter of the size of the codebase; this is a reputational thing.
And if it’s such a tiny fraction, why not write it themselves?
We are not discussing Mozilla, you’re just trying change the topic when you get called out. The points I made have nothing to do with Mozilla, they can be worse than the LRA or be literal representatives of the devine in earth, my point stands.
And how is a in-built blocker inherently more secure than an extension? If it’s clear, it should be easy to answer in one sentence.
If Mozilla’s malfeasance doesn’t matter and can’t matter, then are you really talking about good versus bad corporate ethics (or reputation), or are you talking about brand you like vs brand you don’t? Because over the past couple years, Mozilla has been digging a reputational hole for itself as fast as it possibly can.
One sentence and only using single-syllable words: It is more safe to trust one group than two groups.
You’re again being deceptive and even contradicting yourself. I suspect the reason for this you don’t actually know whether:
You just said that because you thought it was something easy to pitch.
Even the Waterfox team don’t use the “improved security” argument in their write-up on integrating Brave’s content blocking code.
And your “It is more safe to trust one group than two groups.” statement doesn’t even add up in terms of a count of groups in involved under different scenarios. At any rate, this is a clear tautology and not a real argument.
No, I said it because built-in functionality means you don’t have to trust extra third parties and install more stuff. “Waterfox + Mozilla Store + UBO devs” is a larger surface area than “Waterfox alone”. 3 is bigger than 1.
lol
never question your own feelings about technology
they can never be wrong
Fuck Brave.
Why are you complaining about Brave here?
I don’t get the issue either. Brave made some of the code, and it’s being used for free. If people were consistent about avoiding code written by unethical companies, we’d have to ignore all of Firefox code too. They commissioned an internal ethical audit that is apparently so bad that they didn’t want to produce it for evidence.
Come on! Brave de facto engaged in advertising re-direction, specifically capturing and re-writing referral codes for their own commercial benefit without telling the user that this was being done (until they got caught?).
You don’t see why it’s an issue to rely on code (open source or otherwise), for content blocking no less, from a gang that is comfortable with secret link hijacking for their own profit?
What do ethics have to do with this? Irrespective of your position (with respect to author vs their code or more broadly), it is reasonable to question engagement with what is essentially a criminal organization.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/
They even try to delete any threads about it until it became more widely known.
If I would avoid code by companies I see as unethical, I could throw my computer away. But that’s the beauty of open source, I don’t care who has written the code, I care about being able to look at it and change it for my personal use.
brave has links to THIEL too.
You know why.
I don’t know or I wouldn’t have asked. But since you’ve left me to speculate, I think what’s probably happening is that you have such a strong and rational hatred of the company and its founders that it drives you to a blind and irrational hatred of its valuable open source software components. But feel free to correct me.
As I said, you know why. You see it as irrational simply because you disagree.