Concerning Vivaldi view https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v...ture-proofed-with-its-built-in-functionality/ Quote from that site: We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium. We expect to drop support in June 2025, but we may maintain it longer or be forced to drop support for it sooner, depending on the precise nature of the changes to the code.
I would like to make a few points with Wilders' members. The Chromium-based browsers that have claimed to maintain UBO MV2 do not have a Web Store. Almost certainly UBO MV2 will be removed from the Chrome Web Store sooner, compared to UBO MV2 in the MS Store. Gorhill has not yet made available, in Github, UBO MV2 untethered from the Chrome Web Store. Have these confident users tried using the CRX Extractor/Downloader 1.5.8 extension to download UBO MV2 from the MS Store and see if it can be installed,in their Chromium-based browsers? Could it be possible that Gorhill decides to stop developing UBO MV2 for Chromium when the extension is removed from the Chrome Web Store? In this case, even statements of an extension after June 2025 are of little use.
currently you can run any chrome extension in developer mode for extensions, unpacked or re-packed. but its not signed and it can not be auto-updated (same as BPC for chrome). i dont know if hill stops dev of uBo, too far in future. uBo is only usable for a very minor part of chrome-based browser users, and ofc firefox. he might focus on ubol. any how users have to face that uBo has an end for chromium based in most cases and look for an alternative. to know that uBo is not liftable to MV3, no way.
I hope something good surface, AdGuard is no alternative. Everything and anything from Russia is no no.
Which other extension for Chrome, except uBO, have element hiding helper (picker) ? It's very important part of adblockers. About 12 years ago i used Adblock Plus on Firefox, and it had element hiding helper, and could put filter lists. Nowadays Adblock Plus isn't popular anymore, is there any problem with it ? (i know that today uBO is better, and i use it on browsers)
I use Firefox for everything (and use NoScript to block content). But until a few weeks ago I had to use Edge when I visited a couple of websites that I visit regularly. The problem Firefox was having with this websites is now fixed so I have no need for Edge anymore. But, for the last 3 or 4 months, when I was using Edge to visit this websites, the websites would not work with NoScript installed, eventually when I learned that Chrome/Edge is killing NoScript and other extensions like it, I uninstalled NoScript in Edge and installed ABP (still worked a couple of weeks ago). The answer to your question is yes. ABP does have the Element hiding helper, and it works fine. Bo
Ok, thanks ! My first browser is always firefox, but i want to find options for my secondary (Chrome) when uBO wouldn't work on it. Adblock Plus is much bigger in size, but ok. Important is that it has element hiding option. Till then maybe there will be more options. Via google i found that Brave browser also has integrated element blocker: https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/...Content-Filter-to-block-elements-on-a-webpage
Brave is a very good alternative. Not only because of the element blocker ('block elements' in the context menu), but also it has a good built-in (and tweakable) content blocker based on uBO. No need for an extension.
The shift to MV3 really complicates things for those of us who rely on advanced adblocking like element hiding. I've tested several setups myself, often leaning on a mix of browser extensions and privacy tools outside the browser (like alternative search engines or alias-based email options) to keep things private. Has anyone tried Brave's built-in blocker with more granular settings? Curious if it holds up for complex sites.
adblock plus has ~270megs installed, adguard has ~335megs here with my settings. any ad blocker can also block scripts, while noscript only block scripts. the result may be the same, but i wont count on it as ads are also delivered as static content where noscript failes. and i wont use both because of interferences.
Not true (you been here long enough to know that). NoScript is not an Adblocker but you, the user, can block most ads yourself with no need for using other peoples filter lists. You create your own list and tailor it according your personal use of the web. I haven't used an "AdBlocker" in Firefox since 2008 (no need for one, thanks to NoScript), and see no ads (other than the ones in YouTube). I know I told you this before, the only people that experience "interferences".are people who don't put the time to learn the program. You put the time, you learn. To other members who might not be familiar with NoScript. To me, learning NS was like learning to ride a bicycle. Once the program clicks in your head, it becomes easy. NS gives you the satisfaction of you, yourself, doing the blocking. Creating your own list of Trusted and Untrusted websites gives you the feeling of achieving something special and powerful on your own. Over the years you cultivate your lists. If you might see things this way, you'll like NS. Bo
not? so what about https://noscript.net/ are they lying to me? for the second - yes, experience may grow when installing two or more blockers. but its this what gorhill wrote "two blockers are intercepting each other". and there exist no rule which one strikes first, in no browser. i may reduce eg ublock to a pure adblocker based on path and files, while noscript blocks scripts, thay may work. but a lot of user aren't tech savvy enough to evolve/apply such settings. and no, i wont miss noscript as i dropped it ages ago (v5), with ablock plus. and changed to ublock, as i changed to adguard these times. back to mV3, noscript is currently MV2 so it has no future this way in chromium based. "noscript lite" (not from nosript.net) is MV3, maybe a preview whats upcoming. "scriptsafe" is similar, but also only mv2, "script blocker ultimate" is mv3, but a year old and has bugs. dont care if you use firefox, but some are vital for chromium based and currently have no future.
No, the website is not lying to you, The problem is that you do not understand what you are reading nor understand how NoScript works or how to use it properly. The line you quoted: "this browser extension allows JavaScript and other potentially harmful content to be executed only by trusted web sites of your choice" basically means that when you land on a website all scripts are blocked by default, and the only ones that will run are the ones you allow to run. In NoScript language, when you trust a script in NS Menu, you are allowing it to run. So, if you allow the wrong script, and that script is harmful, that is your fault. Anyway, without NS, all scripts run, including the bad ones. So, with NS, you block the bad scripts, includig the ones that generate ads. Again, you not only did not understand what you read in the NoScript webpage you linked but neither understood what I meant when I said "Not true".You had said that NS doesn't block ads, and I told you, Not true, because even though NS is not an adblocker, you can block ads with it. I don't see ads, any, period, other than the ones in YT. Bye. Bo
