Comment by Nursie
1 day ago
It’s inferior AFAICT because the API is more limited, and it looks an awful lot like the world’s biggest ad company (Google) has arranged that specifically to be less effective for ad and tracker blocking.
It’s a good reason to use Firefox.
It's also inferior because the filter lists for requests must be hardcoded and can only be changed through extension updates, which Google (or whoever owns the browser's extension store) can delay or block at their discretion.
This also means users can't install their own filters, which was widely used when YouTube began aggressively bypassing adblockers.
And I also don't want to be too dependent on the browser vendor to sign a plugin.
There is a lot of talk about security but strategic security would mean to put flashing red warning signs on the manifest updates.
To neglect that is basically lying to users in my opinion.
>It's also inferior because the filter lists for requests must be hardcoded and can only be changed through extension updates, which Google (or whoever owns the browser's extension store) can delay or block at their discretion.
This thread is about safari, and its declarative ad blocking API doesn't have this issue.