Is there any justification for this beyond increasing Google's ad revenue?

crazygringo · 2025-03-10T18:15:06 1741630506

Performance. For faster page loads.

uBlock Origin Lite still blocks ads on Chrome, but it's faster than uBlock Origin.

I don't expect Google's ad revenue has changed meaningfully at all, assuming people switch to uBlock Origin Lite.

zamalek · 2025-03-11T14:23:25 1741703005

The difference is negligible: https://nitter.net/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086 (uBOL appears as adblox).

gkbrk · 2025-03-10T19:59:40 1741636780

It blocks less ads, it's not surprising that it's faster.

warkdarrior · 2025-03-10T22:43:07 1741646587

I thought the browser would be faster when blocking more ads, not fewer ads.

gkbrk · 2025-03-11T08:53:07 1741683187

I doubt they're benchmarking things properly. Most likely some flawed "ad blocking speed" that doesn't measure ads and tracking scripts that are loaded / parsed etc.

Not even sure it's a valid comparison; are you even an ad blocker that can be compared with another ad blocker if you don't block ads properly. You can get a lot more speedup with an ad blocker that blocks nothing. Ad blocking speed would be 0 microseconds :P

djpr · 2025-03-10T18:11:08 1741630268

Funny thing is: It’s to prepare for when Chrome is spun off from Google, due to increasing US government pressure.

See: https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/08/new-doj-proposal-still-cal...

FergusArgyll · 2025-03-10T19:20:52 1741634452

The quiet part which none of us are saying out loud (bec. we love UBO) is that it's insane to allow extensions to have that much power.

uBlock Origin is obv a great great extension and I'm considering switching to FF just for that one extension, but consider what some newfangled AI extension developed by a random dude can do to the webpage you're viewing - anything UBO can do! So I think they have a decent case but I wish there was a carveout for UBO