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.
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.