I just installed uBlock Origin Lite and didn't see any difference between uBlock Origin on the sites I frequent. One thing I like about uBlock Lite is that it defaults to Basic mode which does not require the permission to read and modify data.
Filter lists update only when the extension updates (no fetching up to date lists from servers)
Many filters are dropped at conversion time due to MV3's limited filter syntax
No crafting your own filters (thus no element picker) No strict-blocked pages (worse privacy) No per-site switches No dynamic filtering No importing external lists
Source with links: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1067als/comme...
Protecting the users at all cost is not a viable way to operate; if web extensions are to actually create user agency, there must be a possibility of evil. I spit up on the dog shit trashfire Google hath created by outlawing all dynamic code. This is a dark despairing turning point, a place where the browser has truly abandoned a core advantage, under pathetic sad Fear Uncertainty and Doubt pretenses & I want this decision to burn forever.
It'll be interesting to see if any of Google's promises about Declarative Net Request filtering being faster prove true. If the new uBO isn't significantly faster, these people will be majorly Emperor with No Clothes-ing themselves.
On my own computer, I prefer Firefox and the full version, but work doesn't allow "all site access" extensions in Chrome, and I'm really thankful for uBO Lite there.
I could definitely see myself switch on Firefox too, once most extensions move to the v3 security model. A hybrid would probably be ideal: v2-like blocking behavior on an opt-in basis per site for where it's needed, with a better default security posture where it isn't.
(Actually I wish Firefox would backport the v3-like "allow site access only after first extension button click" model that Chrome has backported even for v2 extensions, but that's pretty far down on my wishlist.)