An update on uBlock(ublock.org) |
An update on uBlock(ublock.org) |
For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help.
Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions.
Amusingly, trying to load the uBlock website was initially blocked by uBlock Origin!
https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria
I mean, sure, uBlock origin is most often recommended around here. But let's not be misleading about products we don't like.
Adblock Plus does not block all ads and they control which ads are displayed and which aren't. If anything the name Adblock is miss leading.
uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
Because of the following filter
||ublock.org^$document
Found in: uBlock filters – Badware risksgorhill is the original author of uBlock, but when he handed the project off to someone else, he found that they didn't live up to ethical standards, which is why gorhill started uBlock Origin. That other person owns ublock.org, so it makes sense to filter that domain.
edit: and here is a commit blocking the site ublock.org - https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef3370...
uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
Because of the following filter
||ublock.org^$document
I wonder if this will cause legal troubles to the true uBlock Origin.
[0]: https://twitter.com/judemaier/status/1020034358558670848 [1]: https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/commits/master
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Which sinkholes every known ad/malicious domain. It's been pretty useful, and it hasn't broken nothing important yet.
(reading github description, seems it includes this as a source, but also others)
Ublock origin is so much awesome.Its free software and also very easy to use and its actually much more than adblocker.
Why would they invest "heavily into uBlock" instead of improving AdBlock? It doesn’t make sense to maintain two different ad blockers.
somesite.example/ads/banner1.jpg
somecdn.example/adcompany/ads.js
It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker. If you use platforms that respect their users' choices of software you don't need it.
For instance, they randomly decided to block *.microsoft.com - you can imagine the chaos that caused.
When I last used Windows, you could host updates locally. And I believe that Microsoft actually recommended that for large firms.
And yes, you do need a software rule based blocker to supplement IP blocking.
Most ads come from a few sources, that's why hosts based blocking has been effective since 2000s.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Be...
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/17/028245
tl;dr: the real one is Ublock Origin, get it here: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock
From the same author I would also suggest uMatrix, sort of a NoScript on steroids which allows a much finer filtering literally ripping pages of a great deal of their junk more selectively, but be aware that it requires "training" (telling it this can be loaded, that cannot) which for some non technical people could be annoying.
Ublock & umatrix still don't block autoplaying videos. You should still use NoScript.
IMHO if you push small cosmetic changes in the UI in every update, like Gorhill does, there's a problem.
He has a poor attitide IMHO.
https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-users-finally-get-option-t...
By uBlock Origin
uBlock was the AdBlock when AdBlock sold out. Now who will be the uBlock now that uBlock has sold out? And this is separate to uBlock Origin, right?
A few years ago, back when uBlock Origin was just uBlock, gorhill (it's sole developer at the time) entrusted the uBlock development to what was supposed to be a community effort. Instead a single developer took over and essentially did nothing with the extension except place donation links to himself in the extension and on the website.
It didn't take long until gorhill himself noticed and decided to pick development back up - under the new name of uBlock Origin. To this date uBlock has barely seen any development while uBlock Origin is actively maintained.
You can find gorhill's reaction on Twitter https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1019975271443771392
Basically what AdBlock bought is the technical right to say "this extension is the original uBlock project" which is a part of narrative on https://www.ublock.org/announcement/ https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock/epcnnfbjfcg... but as far as community is concerned it died when it was transferred over and resurrected shortly after under a new repo on Gorhils account
How do you know this? Is there a source?
not even.
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aitunes.apple.com+adbl...
It turned out that the kid didn't have the skills to continue the project. He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website. Gorhill soon returned to the project, but was unable to get the rights to it back, so forked it as uBlock Origin. IIRC this was in 2015 or so. Ever since, Origin has been the only adblocker worth using.
No, he _created_ the website. That’s why I wrote “scammy website”. The domain name was registrated on April 18, 2015 [1]. The homepage has since changed, but at that time, it was begging for donations [2]. It had a donorbox campain, since taken down, that asked for ridiculous amounts such as "$25: Covers hosting the uBlock website for one week".
[1]: http://www.whois-raynette.fr/whois/ublock.org
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002655/https://www.ubloc...
[3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002729/https://donorbox....
so breaking 80+% (being a bit conservative here) of people's computers is okay?
Or develop for Windows, or have a client who uses Windows, or neer to access any of the documentation on MSDN, or...
And in selective mode, they control the policy for which ads get displayed, which would be the whole point of installing a selective ad blocker. It's not inherently wrong to do that; if you more or less agree with their policy, maybe that's the setting you want?
Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopeful" that those people will remove Taboola soon. There's a thread from 2015 asking them to remove it[3]. Convenient.
We both know most people don't spend time reading the options page of their browser extensions. If you download an ad blocker it should block ads. Having to check a check box to get the functionality you paid for is unexpected. Adblock is able to make millions of dollars because most don't know to check it. Most people just want to not see ads, a "selective" ad blocker happens to be the most famous because it was the first popular ad blocker that pivoted into a lucrative rent-seeking operation after becoming a household name. I've heard the euphemism "default opt-in".
According to the author of uBlock Origin it uses less resources[4].
Unless you work for Adblock or Adblock Plus or the companies that paid the bribe there is no reason to recommend it.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-tabo...
[1] https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...
[2] https://help.getadblock.com/support/solutions/articles/60000...
[3] https://adblockplus.org/forum/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&keyw...
re: "Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"
That link goes to Adblock's page, not Adblock Plus.
Their explanation of why they can't block it ("whitelists always override blacklists") is purely technical and is of course something that could be changed in the code - but maybe their contacts with advertisers say otherwise?
I don't see anything particularly wrong with Adblock or Adblock Plus making millions of dollars, but customers who aren't satisfied with this should of course switch to something else.
Something has to get the updates in the first place, even with the local P2P sharing.
If you're one of those "I never update my Windows install" people at this point you're beyond hope..
I do not trust Microsoft. And so, when I need to use Windows 10, I do it in a very careful way. I start with an anonymously obtained installer. I install and update in a VM, with Internet connectivity through a nested VPN chain. Then I clone the VM, and work in the clone, with *.microsoft.com blocked.
When necessary, I update another fresh clone. Then I clone that, and securely transfer files from the first clone. That way, Microsoft never sees anything except for a clean install, and has no PII to track.
I call "Adblock" "Adblock Plus" to avoid ambiguity with ad blockers in general.
I'm not making value judgments, I'm explaining why saying Adblock and Adblock Plus "is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions" is completely accurate and not "misleading". The site you linked that explains their policy is corporate propaganda.
There's no point in even acknowledging their "technical explanation". It's a <10 line change that calls String.prototype.replace() on instances of "taboola" in the whitelist before enabling it.
There are no "satisfied customers" of Adblock Plus. There are only people who heard about Adblock/Adblock Plus in the news or mentioned somewhere else or because it's the first google search result (the first mention of uBlock Origin for "block ads" is on page 11 and it's an unrelated reddit thread in the uBlock Origin subreddit) and don't know about these practices. If you showed them a screenshot of Taboola ads they would not think those are acceptable. That's is why everyone here recommends uBlock Origin.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off...