this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
119 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

84699 readers
5666 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
119
Firefox browser has started shipping Brave's adblock-rust engine (shivankaul.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by Deep@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

More generic and therefore worse for fingerprinting. Though that’s only because it’s built in and standardized.

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there any value in redundancy?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

no, but no harm either. they use the same lists so one of them will just be doing nothing whenever the other removes something.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

no, but no harm either

Some harm, but (somewhat) minor. Installing addons for Firefox makes you more susceptible to browser fingerprinting due to fewer people having the same setup. It's harder to fingerprint your browser if you're just running defaults

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Every Firefox will have this. Every Firefox doesn't have uBlock

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

A better way to phrase it is "Not every Firefox install has uBlock".

The way you worded it suggests to native English speakers that Firefox and uBlock are mutually exclusive, which isn't the caze

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

fingerprinting can be based on detecting what resources are blocked, and sometimes also how are they blocked. but blocking will become the baseline, so nefarious companies will have less of chance to tell the difference

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the statement. makes more sense that it makes fingerprinting harder.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If it's shipping by default, it's better for preventing fingerprinting. If it's default on the browser, that's one less indentifying detail

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This one took me a second. You’re not the one fingerprinting, other people are. It’s worse for the fingerprinters, better for you. “Worse for fingerprinting” means it’s more difficult to use as a fingerprint

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So we're saying the same thing? That makes way more sense