Use Brave's adblocker instead of Adblock Plus

[radiumatic]

We all know that Adblock Plus isn't much effective. The default blocklists are also not enough.

But Brave's is relatively good and supports the Ublock Origin syntax. It doesn't require the extensions API either.

[uazo]

But Brave's is relatively good and supports the Ublock Origin syntax.

there is a need for technical verification, #560, an evaluation based on sentiment is not enough for me.

[radiumatic]

Are sites that load tons of ads and trackers and give scores based on the amount that is blocked enough? If so, I can conduct a test.

Maybe it's the blocklists' fault, but the embedded adblock plus is a absolutely not better than ublock origin. It fails to block many ads. I suggest you install ublock and browse all the settings. Ublock doesn't only block ads, it can block anything with proper filter. Not only that, but the region-specific filter that I have added is also able to mark "local" sites with censorship in the search page. ([Beware that this site contains censored media.])

[uazo]

Are sites that load tons of ads and trackers and give scores based on the amount that is blocked enough?

no, the information is not visible in any way at present.

Maybe it's the blocklists' fault, but the embedded adblock plus is a absolutely not better than ublock origin.

I never said that.

Ublock doesn't only block ads, it can block anything with proper filter.

I do not doubt it.
there is an issue present, post your examples there and a way to reproduce it. I always check what is written, but if you help me by giving me the steps to follow, it is easier for me.

[radiumatic]

Sorry if my "tone" wasn't appropriate.

no, the information is not visible in any way at present.

Can you elaborate please?

Is this not credible? The mechanism seems to be accurate and it's open source.

I never said that.

You mentioned in the linked issue that the custom adblock plus is probably better than Ublock because it can block worker scripts. I'm not sure if Ublock can block them, but it would be too much of an important lacking, for a very popular project, to not implement it.

As for an example, please see https://webtor.io .

[uazo]

Sorry if my "tone" wasn't appropriate.

no, don't worry, I never thought that.

Can you elaborate please?

I mean there is no summary panel with what has been blocked.

Is this not credible?

is obviously a personal opinion.
is valid in principle as a test method, but has no practical value. the score in itself is of no use.
https://canyoublockit.com/extreme-test is more valuable

You mentioned in the linked issue that the custom adblock plus is probably better than Ublock

"probably" precisely.

but it would be too much of an important lacking, for a very popular project, to not implement it.

ublock cannot do anything about it, it is not supported by chromium at all.
but the chromium team is changing the way blink fetches resources, so perhaps ublock will be able to do so in the future.

[Xisrr1]

uBlock would be better.

[Oriebirnavi]

I just discover this filter. It will not dectet adblock by any site. And it will block all the ads.

I attach picture

https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/2.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/3.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/11.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/14.txt
https://ublockorigin.pages.dev/filters/filters.min.txt

It works like a charm

[Xisrr1]

I just discover this filter. It will not dectet adblock by any site. And it will block all the ads.

I attach picture

https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/2.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/3.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/11.txt
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/android-content-blocker/filters/14.txt
https://ublockorigin.pages.dev/filters/filters.min.txt

It works like a charm

Adblocking is still detected on some websites.

[Oriebirnavi]

It's not a miracle. But it works on 95% of sites. Almost balanced with UBlock. Enough for me not to use Ublock as an extension and take advantage of what this Chromite browser gives us

[Xisrr1]

It's not a miracle. But it works on 95% of sites. Almost balanced with UBlock. Enough for me not to use Ublock as an extension and take advantage of what this Chromite browser gives us

For me it works worse than the default easylist filters, it is detected on many websites. I guess it depends on the websites you use.

[mathfelin]

wouldn't it be better to replace adblock plus with brave's adblocker?

[mathfelin]

What was placed on the chromite is very bad, even the Sidekick that has their own with the help of AI is better than that.

[uazo]

wouldn't it be better to replace adblock plus with brave's adblocker?

no, from my point of view.
the alternative is to activate the extensions in android, which I will try to do at some point.

[Xisrr1]

wouldn't it be better to replace adblock plus with brave's adblocker?

no, from my point of view. the alternative is to activate the extensions in android, which I will try to do at some point.

But enabling extensions could lead to security risks.

Also, I don't like extensions on Android because I don't like their GUI, it would be better in Cromite's settings page.

Additionally, it would be great to get a toggle for blocking ads in the 3 dots menu in every website. (Instead of opening the permissions page.

[mathfelin]

Brave is improving, as you can see in this link. Wouldn't it be nice to try a possible implementation of it? https://brave.com/privacy-updates/31-procedural-filtering/

[pires2214]

wouldn't it be better to replace adblock plus with brave's adblocker?

no, from my point of view. the alternative is to activate the extensions in android, which I will try to do at some point.

But enabling extensions could lead to security risks.

Also, I don't like extensions on Android because I don't like their GUI, it would be better in Cromite's settings page.

Additionally, it would be great to get a toggle for blocking ads in the 3 dots menu in every website. (Instead of opening the permissions page.

I don't think the extension is very deficient in security, after all, even Microsoft is already implementing it in its Android browser, in my opinion. What governs extensions on Android is adapting them correctly, that is, they must be truly compatible with Android, duly tested. Not like what happens with kiwi browser for example, which despite having Native extension support, a sea of extensions doesn't work properly , what an experience can't be very cool

[DKB-91]

If I could throw my opinion based from what I understand here (as a user of multiple adblock solutions, not as a expert), there wouldn't be much of an improvement as believed... If the brave shields were just an adblocker.

They could offer more on the privacy side since from what I understand using Brave/Cromite on android and Brave/Firefox/LibreWolf on desktop, it's more than a adblocker.

For praticality it's multiple extensions combined into one, except not working through the extension API and as such immune to Manifest changes.

It's a nerfed*(I'll explain later) uBlock Origin, a now nerfed CanvasBlocker, an HTTPS Upgrader and Cookie Deleter all rolled into one.

Now for secure connections and adblocker/tracker blocker Cromite is set, but it can't randomize canvas from what I tested and as such it leaks some device information.

Brave used to have a strict setting that works like Firefox RFP settings that denies canvas access altogether, now it only has canvas spoofing which is better than nothing I guess, still kinda nerfed from what it was. (also Firefox is working on FPP, another setting that works like Brave now does, so they're now working on spoofing canvas without the need of an extension, a middle settings between no protection and RFP, and Arkenfox has switched to that since v128, since canvas spoofing causes less site breakage than RFP canvas deny.)

And the forget me on close is the in-session sanitazer that shreds cookies if activated after a short while that the website is closed.

Another cool feature is that Brave Shields supports those settings both on a global scale and site scale, so you can whitelist/harden (all the individual settings) as you choose.

Since Cromite is like other Chromium based browsers, as in they expose canvas by default, I use it to login into sites since when you login you're no longer private by default, it gaining some canvas protection would make it good even as an ephemeral browser, which I now use Brave as. (On android, since Gecko Based Browser are less secure since Fission doesn't work yet. On desktop I simply need a Chromium for some sites.)

With that said I wouldn't recommend activating extention API for uBlock for multiple reasons, one being security and the other that uBlock Origin serves no additional benefit on Chromium unless the user uses Advance Mode to use what I call the "firewall" mode.

I forget what API it doesn't have access to in Chromium but as the developer says if you want the full uBlock Origin functionality you move to Firefox.

As for Brave, it's a rust based solution that was forked long ago so it most likely no longer as capable as uBlock Origin, or so the actually legitimate url shortener implies it's no longer 1 to 1 functionality:

TL;DR of my opinion is : no uBlock Origin, no extension API, if possible fork Shields for the other functionalities or keep Cromite as is. As for why I think so read above.