129
Why would anyone want to be remotely associated with Brave is beyond me. When I think of brave my mind conjures images of homophobic, cryptoscammer tech bros.
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
129 points (97.1% liked)
Opensource
5898 readers
29 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Mozilla and Google are equally unethical. What is your alternative?
Also why does this matter at all? It's just a browser. I don't care who manufactures my screwdriver either as long as it's good.
Trying/planning to move away as much from google as possible. Wouldn't put brave no where nearly in the same place as Mozilla in terms of shady practices.
Why does it matter? For the same reasons JKR funnels the money she gains from Harry Potter books into transphobic organizations.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Oh FFS...
Fuck Brave. I literally just switched back to Waterfox...
by default, text ads will remain visible on our default search partner’s page - currently Startpage
Users who want to disable that entirely can do so with a single toggle in settings
it has nothing to do with any of Brave’s crypto or rewards ecosystem - we’re just using the adblocking library.
These were the relevant bits to me.
In practice not really any different than needing to configure a fresh copy of Firefox or whatever.
This is more secure than an extension, and in addition to that, Mozilla has a history of harassing the developer of uBlock Origin specifically. Hedging their bets against the unethical corporation seems like a wise move for Waterfox.
By relying on Brave?
That doesn't make sense.
You can that say it makes them less reliant on the Firefox extension engine, you can say that it is faster. Those are fair points.
But you're not hedging your bets by relying on Brave, a gang that secretly engaged in link hijacking and referral re-writing.
I am genuinely curious, how is an in-built content blocker inherently more secure than an extension? Assuming you trust both the browser developer and the extension developer.
I can see it being faster and better integrated, but how is it more secure?
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
The title is misleading. It's using Brave's open library without any of Brave's nonsense.
This is fine. It's like how Cromite lifted ABP, or Helium ships UBO themselves.
"With search ads enabled by default" just means it's whitelisting StartPage's minimal text-only ads. That kind of whitelisting is what I try to configure anyway.
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.
Waterfox is a fork of Firefox though, why would it face the limitations that chrome has?
Firefox (probably?) also has process isolation - so it's no different to Chrome in that aspect. Which is probably good for a security feature like this.
https://mozilla.github.io/firefox-browser-architecture/text/0012-process-isolation-in-firefox.html
Its directly integrated with the browser, plugin requires monitoring network requests and such to block through api, this is an extra abstraction so plugins would be slightly slower in comparison. It's not the limitations you are thinking about where chromium browsers have a more restricted API.
I think they was noting that because current blockers are extension-based, so Mozilla could break them or de-list them from their extension site at any time. By integrating this post-fork, Mozilla has no "kill switch" if they continue the enshittification route Google is taking, and break/remove these types of extensions for "security".
Adding to what others said:
Mobile browsers are very performance sensitive, compared to desktop. Adblocking extensions (in my experience) slurp battery, but native implementations use much less, hence other mobile-focused browsers (like Orion and Cromite) already tend to use native adblockers.
But it probably doesn't matter as much on desktop.
load more comments
(2 replies)
just use the proper ublock origin, brave doesnt seem to block everything the ublock origin can.
My god how many times will I have to fucking hop browsers this damn year.
No AdBlocker has beaten uBlock. uBlock also has element Zapper, which this wouldn't, and it's very customizable, which this isn't.
I originally tried out Brave because UBO was breaking one website I regularly used and Brave's adblock just worked without any configuring. This was over a decade ago and I've since switched back to firefox, but there's certainly been use cases at times where other blockers have done better.
I could see the value in a browser like Edge having a basic adblocker without all the extra features integrated into the browser. Strange seeing a fork of firefox doing such given their users tend towards powerusers though unless there's a significant performance hit for extensions for mobile.
Librewolf
Brave also has "element zapper" so I see no reason this wouldn't.
One thing AdBlock Plus has that I wish uBlock Origin had is a way to disable filters on one page of a website without disabling filters for that website as a whole.
I think uBO does have that.
Open popup -> Ctrl-click ⏻
Good to know, thanks!
Ublock Origin is more than an adblocker, you can inject custom CSS into any websites can pick and remove any element in a website ie cookies banners reminder banners in some case you can even remove paywall banners.
Why would anyone want this when Ublock exists? Brave, the ai slop loving “browser” making an adblocker and being forced into “used to be ad slop” Firefox fork waterfox isn’t appealing.
I will continue to enjoy LibreWolf
Librewolf is terrible. They don't even support proper PWAs, the most basic festure you'd expect from a browser.
Why would I need a PWA on a PC? I think that’s a feature no one off of phones wants It’s quite not terrible, it’s pretty much just hardened firefox
I used to use StartPage in the late 2010s, it was a good Google search proxy.
They got bought out by an online marketing company called System1 (that recently went public), I dropped StartPage and switched back to mainline Google.
They say that the StartPage team is seperate, which is almost certainly true, but that's not a guarantee of anything. They do use contextual ads, but that's a massive step up compared to behavioural advertising.
StartPage even states that:
"Startpage submits your query anonymously, then returns the results to you privately. Google and our results providers never see you and do not know who made the request, seeing only Startpage."
However, they don't provide specifics; what does "never see you and do not know who made the request" mean? Does Google not get the IP of the query? How do they manage Google security requirements?
I am now on Ecosia for a few years for Google proxy search. They unfortunately send Google your IP with your queries.
I think it's fine that Waterfox has this deal with StartPage and their in-built blockers has the ads whitelisted. This is not that big of deal.
IMO, you should never use in-built blockers made by the browser, it's simply better to have this feature managed by a separate extension. A browser maker shouldn't make the call around what and how you block, there is a fundamental conflict of incentives and even goals in this area.
I.e. Only use UBO! UBO is well respected, last time that I checked the UBO project doesn't even accept donations.
Wym ecosia sends to Google? They use bing, no?
I believe it depends on how you use Ecosia.
For French and German languages, they have been experimenting with their own search index. I wish someone would do an in-depth article on how this is going. I know for a fact that Google can be less competitive in other languages compared to their dominance in the English language internet.
For English, it seems to be a combination of Google and Bing, with the main source being Google (this is true for me, but Wikipedia states that this was true as of 2023 in general).
The article below suggests some countries (languages) are mostly serviced by Bing:
https://support.ecosia.org/article/579-search-results-providers
I am assuming if you get Bing results, Bing gets the IP associated with the query. But Google does get IPs tied to a given query via Ecosia.
This means that when you search through Ecosia, we work with either Microsoft Bing or Google to provide you with search results and ads. In order to do this, we automatically collect data required by search partners to prevent bot attacks and ad fraud - which includes your IP address and search terms.
Yeah, Bing also gets IPs associated with a query.
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.
Cool.
Saw something like this coming, so I never even bothered trying Waterfox. Stick with Librewolf.
I don't get all the negativity here. WaterFox is integrating something that will block more ads out of the box by default than it did before. So there is an exception. You can disable it with a switch.
Firefox has shipped with similar tracker blockers enabled for years. They don't do all the blocking either, but nobody's gotten mad at Mozilla about offering partial protections.
AFAIK Mozilla never shipped an adblocker with preferential treatment carved out for themselves.
They've never shipped an ad blocker, period. Sucks to be an iOS user...
But Mozilla Firefox's default search engines, plural, are sponsored - ie advertisement to the sites that pay them. The homepage stories? Ads. Top sites? Ads. Weather widget? An ad. Search suggestions? Ads.
Mozilla baked an ad network data collector into their browser. But somehow people are mad because a fork is going to... Remove the ads. All the ads, if you flip a switch.
They've been putting ads in Firefox for so long that's hardly news. Not saying it is good.
Adblockers though.
Chrome recently killed theirs with Manifest v3.
Brave has always been shady.
I dont want an adblocker controlled by the browser and depend on them including a switch.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It will be interesting to see if they will be able to improve on what Brave already uses by adding certain features. The biggest problem I have with Brave's implementation is that they don't offer a panel that allows you to enable or disable individual domains while you're on a web page. If the page is broken due to ad blocking, you either have to turn it off or turn it on. You don't really have an easy choice otherwise.
If I wanted to do that, I would just stick with Brave Browser. That said, I hope that they'll be able to succeed in implementing it and in adding such a panel like ublock origin offers, because having it built-in to the browser engine would be ideal.
view more: next ›