Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker (opens in new tab)

Why would you use Brave when for many years it wouid surreptitiously install a VPN service on your Windows machine. The Brave devs took more than a year to even address it, let alone remove it.

More ideologically, Google and Chromium are awful for the internet as monopolistic tech.

why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS

You might want to not use chromium?

Some people don't like how Brave is pushing cryptocurrency.

Brave is malware. https://www.reddit.com/user/lo________________ol/comments/1i...

Genuine question, does brave have ff's container extension? currently that's one of the thing that keeps holding me on ff. another big one is i test website on firefox so to not get carried away with features only available in chromium

I got turned off to brave with all the token stuff. Just my take.

Why support Chrome at all?

I care a good deal that I trust the people who developed my browser. It's about the most critical piece of software in my life. From banking to professionally to personal life.

The people who developed brave used brave to impersonate people and defraud their users out of money by asking for donations using other peoples names [1]. I don't trust them at all. Thus I don't use their browser.

And, unsurprisingly, this is part of a pattern of bad behavior, not a one off criminal act by otherwise trustworthy people, for some examples [2].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181221180137/https://twitter.c... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[2] https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters-ansible/issues/45#issue... and https://lobste.rs/s/iopw1d/what_s_up_with_lobste_rs_blocking...

Brave runs Sluggish and causes random temperature spikes on both Windows and Linux on my laptop like no other browser does.

Their whole thing looks sketchy, frankly. I'm not saying they're evil or have some deep secret ulterior motive. But their "vision" appears to be bunch of absolutely half-baked ideas for privacy, for which Firefox has a much more boring, and consequently better, track record.

I do.

One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.

I'll keep using uBlock Origin, but I don't see having a built-in content blocker as a bad thing, especially if the lists are the same (easylist, etc). It's no different from the (very old) option to block popups.

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt",

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt",

"https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt",

"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..."

These are the lists you say you do not want being used.

Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.

The entirety of the web browser runs in userspace afaik. Whatever goes there and within is de facto a user agent.

The lists are maintained same as extensions.

I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182)

Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).

It's memory safe

It should be able to. Waterfox is using roughly the same integration and the maintainer has been seeing reports of YouTube issues, but cannot reproduce it. https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issueco...

If it can't, plain old ublock Origin can.