
uBlock Origin on Firefox Preview - surround
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1027
======
avolcano
Context is interesting here: uBlock Origin is one of the few extensions
available in "Firefox Preview," the new Firefox app for Android. The app is
somewhat controversial for breaking existing extensions, but they have been
slowly adding some whitelisted extensions, with uBlock having been the first
announced.

I hope Mozilla is able to roll out full extension support sooner rather than
later in FF Preview, but I do appreciate that they take it seriously enough to
work with developers this closely.

~~~
toastal
I'm eagerly awaiting getting back an extension that let me strip the tracking
tokens from social media sites, along with redirecting away from AMP. You'd
think these would be baked into the browser's tracking protection.

~~~
tommica
That sounds like a bad idea - how would the browser know the tracking token is
a tracking token and not just a token? And wouldn't redirecting away from AMP
be taking away control from the user?

As extensions those are fine, as core browser features, they sound a bit iffy.

~~~
searchableguy
So is downloading amp pages in the background and bloating your phone by
default though (chrome). I think something like that should be turned on by
default but toggleable. It's a sensible option for a privacy focused browser.

~~~
vbezhenar
AMP is just an ordinary page on google domain. If you're going to hard-code
some anti-Google behaviour in Firefox, it means to start a war against Google.
Not the wisest decision when Google is the main revenue source for Firefox
AFAIK.

~~~
bad_user
Given Google's reach, not the wisest decision for any browser maker.

Google being the main revenue source for Firefox is often cited and is true,
but if you look at Brave, its competition, what they do is to block a
publisher's ads, replacing them with their own, being essentially
_racketeering_ and I'm surprised how they weren't declared illegal already.

Fact of the matter is, if people don't pay money for browser licenses, and
they don't, and if ads don't fund those browsers, and they currently do, then
alternatives to Chrome cannot exist, if not funded by another mega corporation
that can burn money just so Google can't be the only player, like what Apple
does.

\---

But back to decision making — we are talking about AMP pages being served by
searching on Google.com, because that's the major source of these links.

Given the search engine is Google's property and not some public utility, they
can destroy any browser maker if they wanted to.

Speaking of which, if you're so bothered with Google.com serving AMP pages,
well, why not choose an alternative instead?

~~~
hgoel
Brave just has adblock by default with an opt-in system for ads based on
notifications. It isn't replacing the ads on the page. Not sure how you see
that as racketeering, it's a completely different system.

~~~
bad_user
But it does replace the ads on the page, because those ads they serve are
related to the pages you visit and that the system is "opt-in" is irrelevant,
because that's their business model.

It's racketeering because they piggyback on publishers for serving their ads
contextually, while not allowing publishers to run their own ads, forcing
publishers to join if they want any revenue from Brave users. Brave wants to
be a gate keeper, coercing publishers in the process.

Again, I don't see how this isn't illegal. It's one thing to be a non-profit
browser extension developed by a community on GitHub, it's quite another to do
build ad blocking products for profit, because the later is clearly copyright
infringement at the very least.

------
passerby1
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've an impression that redesign uses much more screen
space. Which is not very good for usability in my opinion, at least for
existing users.

~~~
Deukhoofd
It often is a good thing for touch screens, but for desktops it's often a bit
less practical. It's important to find a good balance between the two.

~~~
Quanttek
Even for desktop, I prefer the new design. It still makes it easier to click
and improves how quickly one can gain an overview

------
bambax
I have been using normal Firefox on Android for years. It has full extension
support and works perfectly.

~~~
onli
FF Previews is a godsend on older phones, and also on newer ones it is nice to
have a browser that fast available. Completely different level than the old
Firefox on Android, which I already liked.

~~~
Yergzue
Define older phones

Firefox Preview has minimum API requirement the Android 5.0, whereas Chrome,
Edge browser and Brave, to name a few, work fine on the older Android 4.4

~~~
MrRadar
I've been using Android since 2012 and I only have one phone that doesn't run
Android 5 or later, which is the Galaxy Nexus from 2011. That phone famously
(and controversially[1]) stopped getting updates after less than 2 years. My
other phones, a Moto X (2013), a Moto E (2014), a Blackberry Priv (2015), a
Moto E4 (2017), and a Moto G7 Power (2019) are all on 5.0 or later. I know not
every manufacturer is as good as Motorola at providing system-level software
support but I think supporting phones from ~2014 and later is a good enough
baseline these days. The last time Google released Android version stats[2]
(about a year ago?! WTF!) they showed devices running 4.4 and below at only
10% of total devices.

[1] [https://www.androidheadlines.com/2013/11/galaxy-nexus-
owners...](https://www.androidheadlines.com/2013/11/galaxy-nexus-owners-send-
sundar-pichai-14000-signatures-asking-android-4-4-kitkat.html)

[2] [https://venturebeat.com/2019/12/27/probeat-google-only-
updat...](https://venturebeat.com/2019/12/27/probeat-google-only-updated-
android-distribution-data-once-in-2019/)

------
ngold
I just want a UBlock UMatrix browser. Let the rest fight over popularity.

~~~
MayeulC
I already use both in Firefox Adroid. Most websites that break with uMatrix
aren't worth my while, anyway :)

And for the few others, while uMatrix's interface is a bit clumsy on mobile,
it works.

~~~
surround
I’m curious - why use uMatrix over uBo’s medium mode? I feel like it’s a lot
more effort for only a small benefit in privacy.

~~~
HackingWizard
Mainly block css. But, a better way to block media, CSS, scripts, frames in a
fine grained domain basis--more complicated in ublock. Also, limit cookies by
domain. Certain websites(extremely rare ones) need 3rd party cookies to
function.

------
tgsovlerkhgsel
Slightly offtopic: Will there be a way to transfer data (history, settings,
cookies ...) from the old mobile Firefox to the new one without syncing it all
to "the cloud"?

~~~
mimimi31
AFAIK Firefox sync doesn't save anything in "the cloud". It's just synced
from/to your other devices. The data is also encrypted using your Firefox
account password, much like what cloud-based password managers like Bitwarden
do. So I don't think Firefox Sync would be a bad way to get your data
transferred.

------
k__
I switched to NextDNS a few weeks ago, this even works with apps.

------
nyanpasu64
gorhill:

> I consider the high information density to be a key usability quality for
> advanced users (which is the purpose of that panel), as it allows to see a
> lot at a glance

I wish his extensions (like ublock0) had labels alongside each icon. uBlock
Origin does show tooltips on hover, but these are slow to appear.

------
shostack
Has anyone else experienced ublock origin slowing normal Firefox to a crawl?
I'm on an OG Pixel XL.

------
SimeVidas
I’m using Firefox Preview (the Nightly version) on my phone. I’ve installed
Privacy Badger instead of uBlock Origin because it’s not an ad-blocker. I hope
DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials is added soon.

------
IlyaOrson
Has anybody tried Opera on Android? It comes with free VPN and the tab UI is
awesome. I still feel Firefox preview won't match it fully.

~~~
rasz
Chinese owned, selling scam payday loans in Africa.

------
fastball
Brave for Mobile is still my favorite mobile browser.

Good interface and builtin, high-performance ad-blocking.

~~~
Markoff
for me personally adblocker without element picker is pointless, I want to
customize sites I visit every day from clutter, only ublock allows that
(reason I use Kiwi browser), I wish there were more browsers with built in
adblockers which would allow element picking, bit until then my only options
are kiwi browser, yandex better and firefox, which all support ublock
extension

------
pachico
Firefox mobile with ublock will look... Like Brave?

~~~
drannex
No, the UI and rendering wngine are different.

Brave is just a clone/derivative of the Chrome source code withminor feature
additions.

FF previewis not based on Chromium, has its own unique UI and has more
features and ability to install a small amount of addons (for now).

------
Markoff
I had horrible experience with Firefox preview, used it for few weeks but each
week there was new bug added, not nothing fixed

If you want extensions in Android mobile browser you can try Yandex (need to
first enable through flag and install uncompressed) or Kiwi Browser (last time
updated in October but feel free to compile it from source code on github)
which can install extensions without jumping through the hoops, they are both
better options than buggy Firefox preview.

