Show HN: A browser designed to support uBlock Origin (MV2) and respect privacy | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: A browser designed to support uBlock Origin (MV2) and respect privacy

ublock-browser.com

7 pointstempest_tech28 comments

Wait... a uBlock Origin browser, not affiliated with uBlock origin? Using their branding?^1 "Privacy Focused" to support open source software without being open source?

This is awfully confusing and I reject it.

^1: or maybe just slightly modified? That "O" in the uBlock Origin logo might be turned into a "b" but it's sure hard to tell.

The download page doesn't work. It gives Error 404 using Firefox on Linux. I don't even know if Linux is supported and if this is user agent detection problem.

Also the browser is not open source and the reason in the FAQ [1] doesn't inspire confidence (in my personal opinion)

In general I would stick with using zen browser that is Firefox fork with the best of two world (tabs and work-spaces) with Firefox extensions support that is the best of uBlock Origin.

[1] https://ublock-browser.com/faq

Did you get permission to use the uBlock name and logo?

We did reach out to the uBO team because we’d love for them to join the initiative, but we haven’t received a response yet. Hopefully, we’ll have the chance to collaborate in the future.

So, that's a "you didn't". Honestly, it looks like you've botched this. Doesn't seem like very good PR for Tempest.

Would that not be infringement then? You’re taking their name, branding, reviews, etc and basically presenting them as your own with only a small disclaimer. Does not seem like an amazing choice to release before hearing back from them. Could easily be mistaken as an official browser from the team on a cursory glance

This is genuinely disgusting and egregious. Why would anyone want to "collaborate" with you when you just violate their ip rights and norms of the open source community and then act like this is perfectly normal?

You don't even have enough faith in your own product to brand it in a way that differentiates itself. This is a pretty blatant attempt to ride on the coattails of someone successful.

So took ublock origin and put it back in chromium where it was already working with chromium, branded it during the time of this Honey fiasco, and looking more in to it: https://infinity-browsers.com/custom-browser

Seems to be: Browser consultants for slapping brands on chromium which I don't disagree with, a lot of places I've seen just have google chrome installed and are told 'go at it'

But, I was messing with chromium last night and was thinking "I want ublock if I'm going to start using this more over firefox."

I don't know man. Doesn't seem open source.

FF and Brave for me.

Hey everyone. We just built a chromium-based browser called uBlock Browser to keep uBlock Origin running without Manifest V3 restrictions. It’s lightweight and privacy-friendly. We’d love to hear your feedback!

Taking bets on how long until Chromium becomes proprietary now.

Yeah I view the usage of chromium as a negative not a positive

Firefox/Gecko is sadly no better now (see their despicable stance on Private Click Measurement). The only alternatives on the horizon are Ladybird and Servo, and they are both at least 2 years from prime time.

I doubt they need to, really.

The browser market is essentially:

64% Chrome. Installed by default on Android, also popular on desktop.

22% Safari. Installed by default and impossible to change on iOS

5% Edge. Installed by default on Windows, and pushed aggressively.

3% Samsung. Installed by default on Samsung devices.

2% Firefox

3% Other

Opera, Brave and suchlike don't appear to be threatening Chrome's market dominance. Why cut them off, when they're helping keep competition law regulators asleep?

You can change away from safari on iOS for a while now.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...

At some point Google is going to remove Manifest V2 code from Chromium, and few browser packagers will be able to maintain a fork preserving MV2 availability. Will the Linux Foundation work to address this? The announcement is light on details as to what actual projects they plan on supporting.

I think the disclaimer that you’re not affiliated with the uBlock Origin project is too low down on the page. It really just looks like an official project until you scroll, and even then the text is easy to miss.

I would move the disclaimer up higher and maybe remove some of the uBlock branding to make it more obvious that it’s not affiliated. Plus, it seems the browser could be used by more extensions that would be affected by MV3, so maybe it would be better to do a rebrand anyways.

Anyways, that’s just my two cents. Good look with the project, looks like you have a great start!

Thanks for the feedback! You’re absolutely right — many extensions have been affected, and we’re open to helping out. We focused on uBO specifically because many of us have used it and felt like something meaningful was being pushed aside by Google, with little that could be done to prevent it from within Chrome itself. That’s how we came up with the idea to build something dedicated that still feels familiar to users.

Beyond the fact that there are some pretty clear license violations here that will get you shut down instantly, doesn't the idea of an entire browser centered around a single plugin just seem bad?

I get it, modern internet without an adblocker sucks, I use UBO as well. But you want to build an maintain a browser just for UBO? Why not use firefox in that case?

We didn’t create the browser with commercial success in mind — there’s no monetisation associated with it. Our goal is to address a practical problem faced by uBO Chrome users in a way we can. If it gains sufficient traction among them, and not only, we’d consider it a successful initiative.

Of course, using Firefox is a choice we fully respect. This project was created in the spirit of offering users users with more options.

Thats not how licensing works.... You are using UBO's likeness without their permission. Commercial success does not affecting licensing requirements.

Also it seems like your company makes custom browsers, and you put your company name on it, so this is effectively an ad for you, which means success of this browser will be commercially beneficial to you.

> We didn’t create the browser with commercial success in mind

Then where's the source? And why are you making white-label browsers?

Not open source. I think I'll stick with Firefox and Brave.

ah yes, using a badly done browser from some unidentified randoms, who can't even put up binaries correctly and are trademarking infringing the most famous ad blocker, is definitely a good way to improve your security posture.

uBlock Origin is GPLv3 and yet this browser does not offer sources.

My understanding is that it is a browser that supports uBlock Origin. It isn't distributed with it, so the GPL restrictions don't apply.

It is essentially just a fork of Chromium that keeps Manifest v2 support, so that uBlock Origin continues to work.

The branding is concerning though.

That’s a valid point, and one we’ve carefully considered. The technology behind uBlock Browser is also used to develop private-label browsers for independent software publishers, which could be impacted by open-sourcing. However, we’re open to trusted community members or privacy advocates reviewing the source code under an NDA to ensure transparency and reinforce our commitment to privacy.

So you are brazenly violating the UBO license in addition to the trademark? Way to go building trust with the community.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com