this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
2036 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
87550 readers
3475 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a significant security risk, unfortunately.
If that happens, I’d suggest a fork with a built in blocker, one that still gets security patches from upstream Firefox.
Exactly. Ublock origin is notable only for being part of 0 ad companies and 100% trustworthy. The blocking lists are universal. If it’s built into the browser, you’re golden
i mean… blocking lists are universal, but the other features ublock offers are not - i'm making heavy use of ublock's dynamic filtering panel and per-site switches. one important thing i use ublock for is to whitelist which sites get javascript permissions and to get rid of remote fonts to make pages more readable. those features need manifest v2.
if firefox drops manifest v2 and you're relying purely on those inbuilt blocking lists then you might as well use the manifest v3 version of ublock without seeing a difference, right?
Can confirm, I was thinking about switching off of Chrome due to this but since I don't use the custom stuff (much) I'm not noticing a difference with the v3 compatible "light" version of uBlock Origin.