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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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).
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.
Relevant recent discussion: "Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 25-apr-2026 248 comments
Cool project but I have to ask. Why not use brave?
why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS
You might want to not use chromium?
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.
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.
The lists are maintained same as extensions.