FilterHN

Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

41 points

3 hours ago

| 5 comments

Firefox 149 ships adblock-rust (Brave's Rust engine, MPL-2.0) completely disabled with no UI. It's controlled by two about:config prefs with no WebExtension API, so you can't touch them programmatically from a standard extension.

This extension gives it a UI: ETP toggle (via browser.privacy API, instant), filter list manager with clipboard helpers for the manual about:config steps, and 8 preset lists. You can also add your own if you so desire.

▲

embedding-shape

3 hours ago

[-]

> Disable Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection so adblock-rust handles blocking instead.

What concrete and practical differences are there between the two? I'm guessing because this exists, adblock-rust somehow is better than the built-in ETP? In what way?

I'm using ETP + uBlock Origin right now, and can't remember the last time I saw an ad, if I used this instead, what practical differences would I notice?

▲

ernesth

2 hours ago

[-]

I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182)

Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).

▲

RandomGerm4n

2 hours ago

[-]

Can this extension effectively block ads on YouTube? When I manually enabled the Rust ad blocker in about:config and added filter lists there, ads still appeared on YouTube and some porn sites. While uBlock Origin blocks everything.

▲

antonok

59 minutes ago

[-]

It should be able to. Waterfox is using roughly the same integration and the maintainer has been seeing reports of YouTube issues, but cannot reproduce it. https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issueco...

▲

2ndorderthought

2 hours ago

[-]

Cool project but I have to ask. Why not use brave?

▲

monegator

1 hour ago

[-]

why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS

▲

Barbing

1 hour ago

[-]

Best iOS strategy that comes to mind is Safari:

  -iCloud Private Relay (native VPN-like thing)  
  -uBlock Origin Lite
  -AdGuard DNS

(Using fresh private tabs for small privacy gain?) Better than third-party skinned browsers right? Always happy to be informed otherwise.

(AdGuard does have an option to supplant uBlock in this stack btw, does “advanced” blocking https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ which is nice but trust $mm-refusing uBlock dev gorhill forever)

▲

Anthony-G

45 minutes ago

[-]

This sounds like good advice so upvoted. I’m a big fan of Raymond Hill¹’s products so I am curious about how much benefit Adguard provides if uBlock Origin is already blocking online trackers, ads and other annoyances.

¹ In this case, the developer – not the musician. I really liked the user interface of uMatrix.

▲

RandomGerm4n

1 hour ago

[-]

I’m a Firefox user myself but there are some very valid arguments against it on Android as well. Firefox on Android is significantly more vulnerable to exploits, lacks internal sandboxing and doesn’t properly isolate tabs from each other.

▲

avazhi

1 hour ago

[-]

Firefox and Brave are both profoundly bad on iOS. Scrolling is a nightmare.

▲

jdmg94

1 hour ago

[-]

everything on iOS is just a safari skin

▲

dadoum

28 minutes ago

[-]

There is Reynard if you're motivated too (Gecko-based, but it's not ready for prime time yet, and to get good performance you'll have to resort to some workaround to get JIT enabled, as it does not rely on Apple's BrowserEngineKit; one of the goals of the project is giving to not up-to-date iOS devices access to a modern browser).

▲

rafram

44 minutes ago

[-]

That's not totally true. Orion supports Chrome/FF WebExtensions, for example. The engine does (practically, even in the EU) have to be WebKit, but that's not the same thing as a "Safari skin."

▲

nemomarx

2 hours ago

[-]

You might want to not use chromium?

▲

Dwedit

1 hour ago

[-]

Some people don't like how Brave is pushing cryptocurrency.

▲

kuekacang

1 hour ago

[-]

Genuine question, does brave have ff's container extension? currently that's one of the thing that keeps holding me on ff. another big one is i test website on firefox so to not get carried away with features only available in chromium

▲

2ndorderthought

37 minutes ago

[-]

Containers are experimental as of very recently. So they will soon, but expect it to be in development right now.

I also test on FF and I don't care much for chromium. I was just curious why the author chose to do this.

▲

Larrikin

1 hour ago

[-]

Why support Chrome at all?

▲

avazhi

1 hour ago

[-]

Why would you use Brave when for many years it wouid surreptitiously install a VPN service on your Windows machine. The Brave devs took more than a year to even address it, let alone remove it.

More ideologically, Google and Chromium are awful for the internet as monopolistic tech.

▲

ndisn

1 hour ago

[-]

What’s wrong with a VPN service as long as it doesn’t route your traffic or anything.

▲

jrm4

45 minutes ago

[-]

Their whole thing looks sketchy, frankly. I'm not saying they're evil or have some deep secret ulterior motive. But their "vision" appears to be bunch of absolutely half-baked ideas for privacy, for which Firefox has a much more boring, and consequently better, track record.

▲

HelloUsername

2 hours ago

[-]

Relevant recent discussion: "Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 25-apr-2026 248 comments

▲

kgwxd

3 hours ago

[-]

Don't want it. Tracker/Ad blocking should forever be an extension, maintained by someone with zero obligation to, or association with, the ad/tracking industry. A USER agent.

▲

RandomGerm4n

2 hours ago

[-]

One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.

▲

gblargg

28 minutes ago

[-]

If browsers came with ad blocking that's enabled, it would just make those lists less effective since advertisers would have a serious incentive to work around them. I'd rather ad blocking only be used by people who care enough to install it.

▲

mp3geek

2 hours ago

[-]

The lists are maintained same as extensions.

▲

jasonlotito

1 hour ago

[-]

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt",

"https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt",

"https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt",

"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..."

These are the lists you say you do not want being used.

Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.