• webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This seems to be a bit of a miscommunication. But an extension is not native. And all versions of Ubo are extensions, something else doesnt exist.

    You can define native a few different ways in english language so i get how it might be confusing if its not your first, but its similar to how a mod for a game is not native to the game.

    When you mentioned “native adblock in chromium” That does exists and it requires no extension. But they are never as fully featured as the full Ubo extension which only works on firefox. Which is what this comparison is about.

    I hope that helps.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      When you mentioned “native adblock in chromium” That does exists and it requires no extension.

      Yes. That’s what I’m referring to when I said 3 times that it’s not an extension.

      But they are never as fully featured as the full Ubo extension

      But it is. It’s the exact same functionality, built into the browser, natively.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I am going to do my best to explain the technical side in simple terms.

        Chromium browsers use something called manifest V3.

        V3 is a google designed “upgrade” to manifest V2 and it blocks certain advanced features provided by comprehensive adblocker like Ubo.

        Wether an adblock is native or an extension does nothing to circumvent the native limitations of V3 that exists on all chromium browsers. If you have proof such hack exists that would actually be a technews worthy event.

        The only (mainstream) browser that still supports V2 is firefox. Which is therefor the only browser that allows all the features of the full ublock origin. Firefox has no inbuild adblocker to compare to a chromium one.

        I can believe that the features that work on V3 encompass your personal needs and that of many other people. But they are literaly not the same.

        Some examples of features included in comprehensive v2 adblockers that are limited on v3 are:

        (Not a full list)

        • per site dynamic filtering
        • per site disabling of javascript
        • more detailed logger
        • filters relying on runtime logic
        • more comprehensive element picker

        I (and the Ubo developers) would be happy to see any proof that shows otherwise.

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Wether an adblock is native or an extension does nothing to circumvent the native limitations of V3 that exists on all chromium browsers

          As I’ve already stated several times, that’s simply not true. MV3 literally only applies to extensions. But thanks for dumbing it down for me.

          I can believe that the features that work on V3 encompass your personal needs

          This has nothing to do with my “personal needs”, this is a technical discussion.

          • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Apparently you’re right that MV3 only restricts extensions, not native blockers. I stand corrected on that part.

            However, uBO on MV2 still has features that no known native ad blocker on a Chromium-based browser offers.

            The closest match I could find is Brave Shields, but it still lags behind on per-site control, mainly because it has no dynamic filtering matrix, and it has no logger comparable to uBO’s. That most of the list i already mentioned multiple times.

            To date, nothing matches or beats Firefox + uBO, so the original point still stands. The burden of proof that shows the contrary is on you for that.