How do browser extensions (uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, etc.) change the best browser+search engine pairings for fingerprint protection in 2025?

1. How extensions change the calculus: blocking vs. homogenizing

Extensions such as uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger block trackers, third‑party scripts and canvas fingerprinting, which reduces the signals available to trackers and can therefore lower fingerprint entropy on any browser where they work effectively ^{[3] [4]}. However, blocking can also make a user more unique if it leaves only a few users with the same set of extensions or if misconfigured defenses alter headers or behaviors in distinctive ways, a risk noted for user-agent or canvas blockers and configurable settings that can increase fingerprint uniqueness ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Platform limits: Manifest V3 and browser internals

The practical power of extensions is constrained by underlying platforms: Chromium’s Manifest V3 has reduced the functional scope of network‑blocking extensions, which weakens how well uBlock Origin and similar tools can reproduce the anti‑fingerprinting performance they once had on Chrome derivatives ^[1]. Conversely, browsers that bake protections into the engine (Brave’s randomization, Tor’s isolation, Apple’s ITP) retain an edge that extensions cannot fully recover on more hostile platforms ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Best pairings shift but favorites remain

Because Brave and Tor already produce strong anti‑tracking results and, in Brave’s case, a randomized fingerprint in EFF testing, pairing them with privacy‑centric search engines (DuckDuckGo, for example) remains a top choice in 2025 — extensions can complement but are not the primary defense there ^[1]. Hardened Firefox variants like LibreWolf paired with DuckDuckGo plus uBlock/Privacy Badger produce strong results too, but require careful configuration to avoid uniqueness from misconfigurations ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Search engine choice still matters — and integrates with extensions

Extensions can cut down query‑level telemetry (some blocker features prevent sending addresses to Google when clicking search results), making privacy search engines like DuckDuckGo more effective partners for privacy‑minded users; some privacy browsers ship DuckDuckGo as default precisely for this reason ^{[5] [1] [6]}. But built‑in ecosystem ties complicate the tradeoff: Safari’s strong ITP helps fingerprint resistance yet remains entangled with Apple ID and telemetry, so pairing Safari with DuckDuckGo plus blockers may improve tracker blocking but not eliminate platform telemetry tradeoffs ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Redundancy and operational complexity: extensions can overlap or conflict

Real‑world testing and community reports show overlap between uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, and that redundancy is common — some users report Privacy Badger as redundant if aggressive blocking lists are used in uBlock Origin or in privacy‑first browser builds ^{[7] [8]}. That redundancy can be harmless, but it often leads to complexity: users who enable multiple fingerprint defenses without understanding defaults risk creating unique fingerprints or breaking site functionality, undermining the intended protection ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Bottom line and pragmatic recommendations

Extensions change the ordering of optimal pairings by elevating privacy on browsers that lack native defenses, but they do not fully substitute for browsers with engine‑level protections; in 2025 the best practical pairings remain Brave or Tor with privacy search engines for out‑of‑the‑box protection, while a carefully configured LibreWolf/Firefox + DuckDuckGo + uBlock/Privacy Badger can match or approach that protection if users avoid misconfiguration and accept site breakage risks ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Users on Chromium‑based mainstream browsers should also recognize Manifest V3’s limits on extension efficacy and weigh switching to a browser that puts anti‑fingerprinting in the engine rather than relying solely on add‑ons ^[1].