Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by woko 1729 days ago
Moreover, I don't understand how having a built-in adblocker is seen as a selling point. Wouldn't it be more powerful to rely on a third-party add-on like uBlock Origin?
1 comments

At some point it's nice to stop tracking which browser addon has not yet sold out to sketchy third party and just let the browser do it.

Only one "purchasing" decision to make at that point.

I know I can consistently rely on uBlock Origin, and they have established a pretty good reputation. Plus I really like the "block element" feature, an opinion I've seen mentioned here before.
You could have made this same argument for AdBlock Plus a few years ago.

It was trustworthy, until it wasn't.

To be fair, the same could be said of a browser fork.
I trust Gorhill more than I trust Mozilla... let alone makers of a Firefox fork. Of all of them he is the only one with years of proof that he explicitly doesn't want money involved in the work. This project is already promoting sponsorship and Firefox is an entire organization that lives on selling their userbase.

These things don't make them inherently evil, the world isn't black and white and people doing good still need money, but it flips your idea about singularizing trust in the browser maker on it's head.

That’s a weird argument when the browser project has multiple orders of magnitude less backing than the add-on.
In this case sure, I was just making the argument for integrating ad blocking into the browser in general.

I would prefer a world where all browsers have integrated ad blocking, in which case I only have to make a decision on browser, not browser + ad blocking extension.