gorhill

7 ms·

1.
by gorhill 15d ago
> content can load without the blocker being ready to That issue does not exist for uBO Lite. I specifically wrote in the FAQ under "What are the upsides of an MV3-based content blocker?": > For Chromium-based browsers speci
2.
by gorhill 1mo ago
Cosmetic-based filters and scriptlet injection-based filters work by default, they are enforced in _Optimal_ and _complete_ filtering modes. The default filtering mode is _optimal_.
3.
by gorhill 1mo ago
> all answers I've found in Google to this question say there is no element picker Because Google feeds on comments like yours to answer your question about whether there is an element picker, it's bound to be wrong. You can cr
4.
by gorhill 1mo ago
uBO Lite does support "element picker", it's called "Create a custom filter" in popup panel.
5.
by gorhill 1mo ago
> can't do "Block Elements" In uBO Lite, it's called "Create a custom filter" in the popup panel.
6.
by gorhill 5mo ago
Best is to report the issue using the "Report an issue" in the popup panel while on Reddit site. There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. De
7.
by gorhill 5mo ago
Reddit's sponsored posts are blocked by default in uBOL when using _optimal_ (default) or _complete_ mode.
8.
by gorhill 7mo ago
I never transferred the extension in the Chrome store. The Chrome store extension has always been the one from the repository I control, and I've had full control of it since when I created it back in June 2014.
9.
by gorhill 11mo ago
Those "adblock test" sites misinform people, they should never be used as they lead people to make bad decisions regarding their choice of content blockers.[1] [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
10.
by gorhill 1y ago
When trying to diagnose performance or memory issues with a browser, always start with the installed and enabled extensions.
11.
by gorhill 1y ago
> it claims to use zero CPU There is no claim of "zero CPU". The claim is that the service worker wakes up only when necessary -- it is designed to be suspended by default from the ground up. In Optimal and Complete modes, the
12.
by gorhill 1y ago
Those webpages used to "test" blockers are frowned upon, see: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1583581072197312512 There are many reasons that sort of online tools are not able to reliably test a content blo
13.
by gorhill 1y ago
> Doctor Feng, or similar, though I can't find DirectorFeng: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbzzMQ1mNKjAaDwbELsVYcQ
14.
by gorhill 1y ago
When you enable "Developer mode" in the "Extensions" page of your browser, you can open the developer tools for the extension by clicking the "service worker" link, and from there select the "Network"
15.
by gorhill 2y ago
It's working fine on Youtube in Optimal mode. If you have still issue, you will have to go through self-diagnosing steps[1] to rule out all the myriad other ways you suffer such issues -- most commonly another extension is interfering
16.
by gorhill 2y ago
I randomly browsed the site with Firefox stable and I couldn't see any obvious malfunction. What exactly is not working? Is there a specific webpage where the malfunction can be seen?
17.
by gorhill 2y ago
No competent content blocker tests "ten thousand regexp matches" for each request URL to match, this is not how it works. To simplify, and speaking from uBO's perspective, consider that nine distinct tokens can be extracted f
18.
by gorhill 3y ago
The extension in the Chrome Web Store (CWS) never changed hands. I just reverse-forked a GitHub repo, which was of no consequences to those who installed the extension from the CWS. I was asked to transfer the CWS entry, I refused. This can
19.
by gorhill 3y ago
I see 156 distinct 3rd parties on my side if I disable the content blocker so as to let the second-, third- and nth-waves of JavaScript execute: https://imgur.com/a/lZbUqnQ
20.
by gorhill 3y ago
It's perfectly fine and valid to question the pile of JS code executing in Youtube webpages, but in this specific instance the performance issues are caused by ABP/AdBlock. The issue has been acknowledged by the developers[1]. It
21.
by gorhill 3y ago
> no problems with AdBlock plus on FF Because it has not been updated to the problematic version, which is 5.17. In fact AdBlock on AMO is still 5.4.2, i.e. 13 versions behind latest official AdBlock version, it was last updated in Feb.
22.
by gorhill 3y ago
A reliable way I found to confirm whether there is new anti-content blocker code released by Youtube is to visit uBlockOrigin's reddit sub[1]: If there are well over 1,000 "here now" (near top right), this confirms the anti-c
23.
by gorhill 3y ago
> It isn’t “nothing else”, cosmetic rules can still be updated independently “over-the-air”. It's not just about cosmetic rules, it's also about DNR rules other than block/allow/allowAllRequest: redirect=, removeparam
24.
by gorhill 3y ago
> one can learn about the no-review-fast-track that Chrome WebStore plans to implement next year. My understanding is that no-review-fast-track is only for extensions which changes in DNR rulesets are only about block/allow/all
25.
by gorhill 3y ago
For an extension to be entirely declarative, it must package all the scripts to inject anywhere, the scripting.registerContentScript API doesn't allow injecting code as string[1], the content scripts must be part of the package.[2] The
26.
by gorhill 3y ago
This was the first commit, and the commit message is accurate about the technical limitations of this first version. If you want cosmetic filtering and other advanced filtering in the current, more mature version, you need to explicitly gra
27.
by gorhill 3y ago
> uBlock to intercept http requests before rendering the web page. And from my understanding this has always been supported in Firefox, but never in Chrome. The webRequest API does allow to intercept and cancel HTTP requests, it has been
28.
by gorhill 3y ago
> I get a 3-5 sec lag on launch [0] as it prepares the browser to block ads. uBO is typically ready in a fraction of second, so "3-5 sec" is not normal. In Firefox all extensions sit in the same process, so it's possible a
29.
by gorhill 3y ago
> rare minor annoyance of cosmetic filtering (which gorhill removed for political, not technical reasons) Please clarify. No political motivation went into uBO Lite. It supports cosmetic filtering just fine -- it's a matter of picki
30.
by gorhill 3y ago
> There's probably a way to do this with chrome.webRequest Network requests initiated by other extensions in their own context are not visible to other extensions through the webRequest API.

More ›