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.
I agree this is bad but wouldn't stretch this as far as causing harm to minorities in general. This is some form of corporate efficiency bullshit that exists universally in any large enough company. Not defending it but putting an order in things. This not any where near:
(https://community.brave.app/t/brave-needs-to-address-brendan-eich/281044)
which does really target minorities
Multiple things wrong with this.
First, since when is disproportionately targeting minorities a normal thing?
Second, Mozilla set the bar for itself with ethics. Why would you hold them to a lowered standard?