Post #1714451 · Elektrine

2026-04-24 14:05 UTC

I said it for Waterfox and I'm gonna say it again for Firefox: **this is good**. At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny). The biggest difference between Firefox and Waterfox in implementation is **the WaterFox developers noticed this FF change early, and [committed](https://piunikaweb.com/2026/03/30/waterfox-brave-adblock-native-content-blocker/) to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box**, which is great news for users. A few more reasons this is good: 1. Rust is faster than JavaScript 2. Native functionality is faster than an extension 3. Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do

Replies (3)

@zewm@lemmy.world 2026-04-24 18:06

Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.

Open ##1714498
@WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2026-04-24 15:34

> Rust is faster than JavaScript isn't ublock's filtering compiled to webassembly? > Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share

Open ##1714499
@Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 2026-04-25 00:27

>At worst, it's just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny). I think you're right but I'm sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways? I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.

Open ##1714503