[zw]

This is a mind-boggling level of FUD. Content blockers have been noticeably superior on both macOS and iOS for years. They’re not “limited”, they’re rational. It’s abjectly absurd that traditional ad blockers can consume as much CPU as they do on every single page load. I hope everyone in this thread jumping ship to Firefox in a panic enjoys their shorter battery life.

[Nextgrid]

Disagreed. Content blockers are "dumb" as they just provide a list of URLs/regexes to block, which doesn't always work and doesn't allow behaviour-based blocking like "dynamic filtering" that some Javascript-based adblockers have.

Sure, it's technically possible for a JS blocker to use more CPU, but 1) it's a trade-off the user should be allowed to make (I'm happy to sacrifice some CPU in exchange for better ad blocking and privacy) and 2) I never had a case where a JS-based blocker noticeably impacted performance.

[Mehvix]

Users should have the choice as to what method of adlbocking they want to use.

[Varriount]

Aside from battery life, how are the current alternatives for Safari better than uBlock?

[lightedman]

"I hope everyone in this thread jumping ship to Firefox in a panic enjoys their shorter battery life."

10 hours on my Chromebook using FireFox Focus and uBO vs 7 hours using Chrome.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?