13 comments

  • MarkWayneNewton41 minutes ago
    If this thread is indicative of the sort of browser discourse in &lt;current year&gt; it&#x27;s no wonder Google won.<p>Nerds used to know how to computer, is what i&#x27;m saying.
  • anaisbetts2 hours ago
    Welp, the biggest reason that I use Edge just got thrown out, time to switch to Firefox.
    • gruez53 minutes ago
      The telemetry and ads (on start page) didn&#x27;t bother you? I&#x27;m surprised there&#x27;s seemingly a contingent of people who are too lazy to install any other chrome fork (eg. Brave), but are motivated enough to up sticks and switch to firefox the moment ublock is removed.
      • HPsquared44 minutes ago
        Ad blocking is a big deal.
  • DarkmSparks13 minutes ago
    Vivaldi for the win.
  • est36 minutes ago
    Why do browser vendors have such a control over browsers? Can anyone make a dll injection and bring back manifest v2 ?
    • terminalbraid33 minutes ago
      They have control over what they distribute. Chromium and Firefox are both open source and people can (and should) use derivatives they find acceptable.
  • NeutralWanted55 minutes ago
    Running Unbound on my gateway with a curated adblock list. Easy setup, network-wide ad blocking on every device &#x2F; browser.
    • gruez51 minutes ago
      DNS based adblockers have strictly worse adblocking capabilities than manifest v3 adblockers. I mean, sure they have their uses (eg. blocking ads&#x2F;telemetry in apps or whatever), but bringing them up in this context doesn&#x27;t really make sense.
      • hnuser12345639 minutes ago
        I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? That DNS blocking is actual blocking, while the extension can only do filtering after the connections are made.
        • gruez33 minutes ago
          &gt;I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections?<p>No. See:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;extensions&#x2F;reference&#x2F;api&#x2F;declarativeNetRequest" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;extensions&#x2F;reference&#x2F;api&#x2F;d...</a><p>&gt;The chrome.declarativeNetRequest API is used to block or modify network requests by specifying declarative rules. This lets extensions modify network requests without intercepting them and viewing their content, thus providing more privacy.
        • Daedren32 minutes ago
          They can block, it just has to be declarative unlike before. It&#x27;s better than DNS adblockers since you can still do content filtering, CSS&#x2F;JS injections and whatnot.
    • cmeacham9854 minutes ago
      Some ads (e.g. I know YT ads used to be this way, haven&#x27;t looked recently) can&#x27;t be blocked at the network level because they are served from the same domain&#x2F;servers as the content.
      • NeutralWanted49 minutes ago
        Sure, but have YT Premium for the family. Don&#x27;t know how anyone can use YT without it. And it blocks 90% of ads, the rest are tolerable &#x2F; go mostly unnoticed.
  • delduca45 minutes ago
    Droped Chromium browsers and been using Safari with Wipr2, so far the best experience
  • s0ss53 minutes ago
    Advertising companies shouldn’t be in the browser business. It’s a really bad conflict of interest. Chromium is a mistake.<p>Firefox is pretty great. But IMO they have some poor ux defaults that make it unappealing to random people who simply want a browser.
    • clipsy3 minutes ago
      There is no “browser business,” because people are - with rare exceptions - unwilling to pay for a web browser. Even Firefox is ad-supported indirectly via its default search contract with google.
    • terminalbraid33 minutes ago
      Chromium being open source is not a mistake. Letting google be the sole driver and not forking it has been. People who want control over their browsers have options. It&#x27;s a fight because most people don&#x27;t care about these things.
    • causality050 minutes ago
      Right. For example, Firefox Mobile doesn&#x27;t support hitting ctrl+T to open a new tab, completely breaking flow for anyone on a tablet with a keyboard or their phone docked to a monitor.
  • zb316 minutes ago
    I use MV3 AdGuard and it blocks ads for me. I don&#x27;t get the fuss about MV2 deprecation.. sure, MV3 is limited compared to firefox, but it&#x27;s not like MV2 was that much better, no version ever supported rewriting request response.<p>MV3 DNR redirect is notably lame though, instead of replacing the response it generates a real redirect which breaks for example replacing the service worker response. But could MV2 webRequestBlocking replace the response? Well of course not.
  • poulpy1233 hours ago
    I honestly don&#x27;t know how people do without ad blockers. Even with being ok with ads, they are so overwhelming that I could not use internet without blocking them
    • massysett1 hour ago
      I don’t use adblockers. If a site has too many ads to be usable, I don’t visit it.
      • WhyIsItAlwaysHN1 hour ago
        So no youtube?
        • NeutralWanted1 hour ago
          YouTube premium is one of the best subs you can buy if you watch a lot of YouTube. Plus you get Music.
          • Krssst56 minutes ago
            YT Music would be be better if I did not have to double check every of its suggestion for AI generation. Some accounts to make their AI use public which is nice but there&#x27;s no way to see their channel info in YT Music to look for that.
            • NeutralWanted52 minutes ago
              Cant say I&#x27;ve ever heard any AI generated music on YTM before
              • hnuser12345638 minutes ago
                This probably depends on if you&#x27;ve used it enough to make some playlists and give it an idea of the real music that you like.
        • massysett1 hour ago
          YouTube is tolerable with ads. If I found it intolerable, I would pay. Or not visit.
          • tornikeo57 minutes ago
            Humans are just so damn different in their tolerance to wasting time. I can&#x27;t take feeling like I wasted 10 seconds of my time on an ad even when watching an video for recreation.
            • noman-land31 minutes ago
              If an ad isn&#x27;t blocked, I fast forward through it. If I can&#x27;t fast forward, I mute it. If I can&#x27;t mute it, I&#x27;ll mute my computer and change tabs for the duration. If it&#x27;s a page in a magazine, I flip it quickly. If it&#x27;s a billboard I&#x27;ll avert my gaze. If it&#x27;s in an airplane I take out my headphones and cover the screen.<p>I find being advertised to so annoying there&#x27;s no way in hell I will spend my limited time on this planet willingly consuming an ad.
          • Ylpertnodi1 hour ago
            &#x27;Rainbow Dome Musick&#x27;, by Steve Hillagr..glorious soothing music, then 30 mins in, a Barilla pasta advert. Sorry, youtube - I tried.
    • cake-rusk3 hours ago
      Most laypeople I know haven&#x27;t seen an ad blocker in action ever.
    • jmclnx1 hour ago
      I use noscript instead of an ad blocker. I find it blocks the intrusive ads. I do not mind what I view as normal ads (ie: text or link), but these video and popup ads drive me crazy. I find noscript blocks the &quot;bad&quot; ads.
    • squigz2 hours ago
      I install Firefox and uBlock on friends&#x2F;family devices as often as I can.
    • Balinares2 hours ago
      In case your assumption here is that TFA is about Edge disabling adblockers: it&#x27;s not. It&#x27;s just removing ManifestV2 support. ManifestV3 is still supported. Despite what one might assume, MV3 does not seem to measurably diminish the effectiveness of adblockers; if anything, it improves it. (Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;petsymposium.org&#x2F;popets&#x2F;2026&#x2F;popets-2026-0027.php" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;petsymposium.org&#x2F;popets&#x2F;2026&#x2F;popets-2026-0027.php</a>)
      • Larrikin47 minutes ago
        The only reason anyone knows about the switch between manifest 2 and 3 is that the only meaningful difference is the crippled ad blocking ability. Nobody knows any other difference unless they are an extension developers or worked on making the Internet a worse place.
      • LelouBil2 hours ago
        Isn&#x27;t the main issue that for MV3 you can&#x27;t have a dynamic blocklist ? And so you have to update it with an extension update ?
        • phire1 hour ago
          There is a dynamic API too that allows extensions to modify the blocklist at runtime.<p>I’ve been using UBlock Origin Lite on my iPhone for a while, and that works great, keeping itself updated from EasyList and allowing for custom rules.<p>In some ways it’s better, in some ways it’s worse. Sometimes you have to flip it into “complete mode” (and give it full access to modify the current site) to get good blocking.
          • gruez49 minutes ago
            &gt;In some ways it’s better, in some ways it’s worse. Sometimes you have to flip it into “complete mode” (and give it full access to modify the current site) to get good blocking.<p>I don&#x27;t how this is supposed to be a demerit given that the v2 version had full access to every site you visit. Safari just made that more explicit.
  • feverzsj2 hours ago
    Basically every chromium based browser.
    • olivermuty2 hours ago
      Brave as well?
      • Saris44 minutes ago
        I believe their adblock is built in to the browser and not an extension, so it can be more effective than the limited extensions.<p>Brave has its own downsides too, but at least the browser seems pretty effective at blocking ads and tracking junk.
      • eddythompson8059 minutes ago
        Brave said they’ll keep some select MV2 extensions, though that remains to be seen. Especially if it causes too much maintenance headache with upstream chromium. Also it seems that Brave now distributes these select MV2 extensions. So I’m not sure if they have forked them, or if they just repackage upstream.
      • feverzsj1 hour ago
        Brave&#x27;s adblock isn&#x27;t as powerful as ublock.
        • antonymoose1 hour ago
          In what sense? As a normie-tier user of Brave’s internal and blocker, it’s worked great. I never became a power-user of uBlock.
          • orwin37 minutes ago
            Not saying this is it, but I never managed to block YouTube shorts with brave adblocker (in mobile), where I can do it with ublock. If you can do it, please explain, I promise I will try asap (I really dislike ff mobile UI).
          • wild_pointer48 minutes ago
            +1, works well enough
        • zamadatix1 hour ago
          It doesn&#x27;t have to be so long as it still supports the above.
  • raverbashing4 hours ago
    I guess it still will be the best browser to download Firefox
    • jmclnx1 hour ago
      Lets hope it stays that way :)<p>But if offered enough $, I fear it will join that no-bocker bandwagon.
    • biglyburrito4 hours ago
      It always was.
  • TiredOfLife1 hour ago
    It&#x27;s ending manifest V2, not just adblockers.<p>uBlock Origin lite is V3 and is still supported
    • s0ss52 minutes ago
      Inferior alternative
      • novafunc24 minutes ago
        I&#x27;ve used uBlock Origin Lite and have had no issues with blocking ads. The only downside I&#x27;ve seen is that I can&#x27;t do &quot;Block Elements&quot; to hide non-ad annoying parts of sites.
      • gruez46 minutes ago
        Serious question: which sites have you encountered where ublock lite doesn&#x27;t do the job? Even tricky sites (eg. youtube) are defeated with scriptlets, not by intercepting network responses.
        • s0ss42 minutes ago
          I don’t have any data on that because chromium derivatives aren’t installed, haha. It’s not a matter of “does it work”. It’s philosophical.