← Back to context

Comment by rickette

8 hours ago

I'm fairly happy with uBlock Origin Lite. Sure the original was better but this one does the job as well. uBlock Origin Lite is a MV3 extension, by the same author.

15 comments

rickette

Reply
judge2020  6 hours ago

Yeah I don’t seem to feel any performance or functionality degradation myself. What <X> ad blocking related feature has been made impossible with MV3?

  • zamadatix  6 hours ago

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... has a few of the more practical concrete examples. Namely content can load without the blocker being ready to filter, CNAME cloaking can't be handled properly (in Chrom* at least), and the filter rules aren't as flexible.

    Interestingly, the rule count limits themselves do not (currently) seem to be much an issue despite it being one of the more common concerns on the original MV3 announcement.

    • taviso  5 hours ago

      > content can load without the blocker being ready to filter

      This isn't an MV3 issue, it's a Chromium design decision that extensions cannot block browser initialization. It was also true with MV2. In fact, MV3 has improved the situation because DNR rules are enforced immediately.

      You could certainly argue that Chrome should allow extensions to block browser initialization, or that it should be user configurable - but it seems like an entirely defensible Chrome decision. Regardless, it's nothing to do with MV3.

      > the filter rules aren't as flexible.

      That's true, but they are still very flexible, and DNR makes some very nice features possible in uBO lite that were not possible in uBO.

      For example, did you know that you can change your User-Agent with uBO lite? Go to the Custom DNR rules tab, and enter something like this to pretend to be Lynx on whatever.com:

           id: 5
     priority: 100
     action:
       type: modifyHeaders
       requestHeaders:
         - header: User-Agent
           operation: set
           value: Lynx/2.9.2 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/3.5.7
     condition:
       requestDomains:
         - whatever.com
       resourceTypes:
         - main_frame

      I don't think that's possible in uBO, so clearly there are some benefits to switching. I have a ton of custom dnr rules, and love this feature.

      4 replies →

  • vamsipk  5 hours ago

    Maybe or maybe not. But Youtube ads are now freely flowing through with MV3. That was the entire ruse.

  • tyingq  5 hours ago

    The companies that don't want you using the lite version are waiting for full version to completely go away before blocking the lite one. No sense driving you to that. So, check back in a couple months and see if it's all still good.

  • HaloZero  6 hours ago

    I've seen some ads slip through the cracks nowadays, like I think Wikia ads for some TV shows I go to now have ads on them. They gave up on blocking Meta.

  • novafunc  6 hours ago

    I believe the main things are that block lists have to be updated through the Chrome Web Store and there is an upper limit for things that can be blocked.

  • dartharva  1 hour ago

    Severe limits on additional filters, which is bad for people who want it to add more annoyances than it does by default.

Walf  1 hour ago

The main reason uBlock on Firefox works better is because of CNAME de-cloaking. All the tracking shit that appears to load as first-party, but isn't, can be correctly detected and blocked on Firefox. On Chrome it cannot, and with Google, Facebook, et al. encouraging site owners to move to these fake first-party conversion tracking solutions, your exposure to profiling has increased dramatically. You may see fewer ads but it does not do the same job.

skizm  4 hours ago

Isn’t the idea that over time chrome will limit what ubo lite blocks? It will phase out all of its own ad networks so they’re not blocked first, but it’s possible they also start allowing third party ads through for a price.