> I guess the developer of uBlock Origin knows more than you on the subject:
Fact I: This article simply cites the limitations of Chromium’s extension API. These API limitations do not apply to native ad blockers (like Brave’s) because native ad blockers are not extensions… For example, Brave unveils CNAME: https://brave.com/privacy -updates/6-cname-trickery/
> Enhanced Tracking Protection is a tracker blocker, not an ad blocker – the name should give you a clue, but yeah, let’s be dishonest
Firefox’s tracker blocking exists because they’re too scared to include an ad blocker similar to uBlock Origin, Brave etc. My argument is still valid, what you say does not refute it at all.
> Brave added an adblocker for one reason only: to be able to detect ads so that they can replace them.
Fact II: Brave does not replace advertisements on websites, Brave advertisements are system notifications. Brave’s ads are also opt-in and the browser does not display its own ads by default.
Fact III: Websites don’t lose more revenue through Brave than they would through uBlock Origin or any other ad blocker.
> Brave is, after all, owned by an ad agency, and not being able to detect ads impacts its business model
Fact IV: Mozilla receives over 80% of its annual revenue from Google, the world’s largest advertising company.
Fact V: Mozilla does not implement a local ad serving system that would hurt Google’s revenue.
> Whatever the coverage of Martin’s messages, we can expect your endless agitation against Mozilla. It gets boring. Really.
Show me Firefox’s default ad blocker which is somewhat similar to uBlock Origin or Brave’s ad blocker then. Good luck. Facts cannot be fuss.
> I won’t add much because people have already made good points but I’ll just leave that here
Fact VI: Brave does not allow Facebook/Twitter/Google trackers, and there is no kind of monetary agreement between Brave and these companies. In truth, you can’t block all scripts on these pages, because basic functionality is broken. Even Saint Gorhill understands this, which is why uBlock Origin also doesn’t block the scripts in question by default, you* [Editor: removed].
> As far as I can tell, the Firefox Tracking Protection developers don’t make such a sneaky move “for compatibility.” They just say “in strict mode websites can break” and let you choose.
Fact VII: In fact, Firefox does not set Tracking Protection to “Strict” by default for compatibility reasons.
The answers I received were full of shit, totally hypocritical and often factually wrong. As expected. Just because you are a lot of uBlock Origin/Firefox fans here doesn’t mean what you say is nearly true. Truth is not determined by majorities. I urge anyone interested to do their own research on the subject, as always.
PS: When Mozilla adopts Manifest V3, which they probably will due to cross-browser extension compatibility, you’re screwed. Native ad blockers have a purpose, manage them. For example, Brave’s in-house ad blocker used by 50 million people worldwide has hurt Google more in one year than 5 million uBO users ever will. Just say.