[HN Gopher] uBlock Origin 1.41
___________________________________________________________________
uBlock Origin 1.41
Author : favourable
Score : 440 points
Date : 2022-02-10 15:11 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| At the risk of comming off as pathetic but it just struck my mind
| that Raymond probably deserves something like a Time's Person of
| the Year (if not Decade) award. I mean - this is the only piece
| of software (not exaggerating - I'm actually just realizing it
| now) which I consistently install everywhere and anywhere me or
| somebody who means something to me is accessing the internet
| from. We reached a point where for me and probably each one of
| you guys the Internet is unusable / unbearable without it! It's
| an integral part of the Internet now to just make it and keep it
| useful.
| lazlee wrote:
| I find it funny that when HN loaded for me, the post below this
| one was "How I changed my mind about advertising." Not here - ads
| begone. Wuthout UblockO the net is ugly and insufferable.
| lazlee wrote:
| Now if only somebody made a decent ad blocker for phones. I
| haven't been able to find one (android) that works decently.
| xigoi wrote:
| For system-wide blocking (no root required):
| https://f-droid.org/packages/org.blokada.fem.fdroid
|
| For browser ads, just use Firefox or one of its forks and
| install uBO.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| I've been using Firefox + uBO on Android. But I also run
| NetGuard from F-Droid as a local VPN ad blocker. I used to
| run Blokada, which does the same thing and is good too. But I
| like the more granular control over each app in NetGuard.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| I use Firefox + uBlock Origin, but to block ads in other apps
| I also use the NextDNS app (you can set up a custom set of
| blocklists, including adblock lists, in your NextDNS
| account).
| gpm wrote:
| Firefox + UBlock works great on android.
|
| DNS66 works ok for apps that aren't browsers.
| elcomet wrote:
| I use brave browser for the fone, it works very well. And for
| youtube, I use the youtube vanced app which blocks ads by
| default.
| Shared404 wrote:
| For youtube on android, also see Newpipe.
|
| Only downside for my usecase is that it doesn't support
| chromecast, but that only comes up once in a blue moon.
| lazlee wrote:
| Thanks everyone. I'll check those out.
| dazdaz wrote:
| On a rooted phone, AdAway works fine.
| https://github.com/AdAway/AdAway
| npteljes wrote:
| Link to the discussion: "I changed my mind about advertising"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30270450
| mikece wrote:
| This is always the first addon/extension I add to a browse;
| installing uBlock is like "sudo apt update && sudo apt update -y"
| on a freshly installed system -- you're asking for trouble if you
| don't secure things as soon as possible.
| gggfvvff wrote:
| The worst thing is that Firefox removes all add-ons if it was
| not used for a while. One can disable this by setting
| disableResetPrompt to true, but it's annoying e.g. when you set
| up an ad blocker on your mom's laptop only to find it being
| removed a few months later.
| harph wrote:
| First time I heard about this - I set up uBlock on my mom's
| Firefox years ago, and it's still there...
| neoglow wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, but that implies she is not using Firefox
| as her daily driver.
|
| Changing the icon to, shudder, the edge icon might help and
| call it "Internet" and maybe she will use it. Most people do
| not really know, or care, that their browser is.
|
| I do this with very un - techsavvy people and install uBo and
| they have a fairly safe time online.
| favourable wrote:
| Indeed. I'm no stranger to creating new browser profiles for
| different things, and the first thing I do when setting up a
| new profile (in Firefox) is to install uBo. I have it turned
| off in one profile for sites that break when using it. For some
| reason, some e-commerce stores don't work with it, because of
| KYC BS and having them flagging you as suspicious because
| you're using an AD-blocker. That I can tolerate though (it's
| finance right?). But for the bulk of my browsing, uBo is
| essential.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I turn it off when I'm buying from a site because I've had
| cases where the blocking interferes with the checkout. In one
| case recently, when I forgot to disable it, the transaction
| half went through. I was charged but the order was stuck
| pending payment and it required me contacting their support
| team to manually override that.
| favourable wrote:
| Yeah the reason I have a dedicated profile for e-commerce
| (with uBo not installed) is that e-commerce sometimes use
| an array of different domains during the checkout process,
| and you have to whitelist each domain which is bothersome.
| Best just not using uBo entirely during the process.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I keep a Chrome install for when disabling uBlock for the
| main site doesn't work. Moving over to that also has the
| benefit of removing Firefox as a reason the checkout
| might not be working (I tend to assume that the only
| browser people test for is Chrome).
|
| I have had a few cases where even that didn't work and
| instead I had to switch to my phone and disconnect from
| my wifi to ensure that the DNS block list I use isn't the
| problem.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I was setting up a workplace computer last week. It was
| shocking to see all the scams circulating in the adds.
| Especially the download scams on download pages. Next time I
| will change the order and install uBlock the first thing after
| the browser.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| What a wacky industry we are in. 90% of the websites people like
| us build are primarily there to show us ads. And then there's
| this one addon maintained by one guy (and an army of helpers) for
| free that removes those ads and makes the web more usable again.
| progx wrote:
| The problem are not ads. The problem is the huge amount of ads,
| bigger bigger bigger, animated, with sound, tracking and and
| and... Nobody has a problem with small decent ads without
| tracking, but that was not enough for big companies.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Nobody has a problem with small decent ads without tracking
|
| I do. When I want to see products, I'll explicitly ask for
| them. Nobody is allowed to grab my attention unsolicited. I
| have attention deficit, it's hard enough to focus as it is
| and I really don't need entitled company thinking it's okay
| to just hijack it at their convenience. I really couldn't
| care less about their "legitimate business interests" or
| whatever.
|
| When email users do it, we call it spam. When applications do
| it, we call it focus stealing. Advertising is just yet
| another form of abuse that should not be tolerated under any
| circumstances. If they won't stop, we'll make technology that
| will make them stop. We don't need to apologize for it or try
| to reach a compromise with them. Their business model is
| unacceptable, period.
| [deleted]
| TuringNYC wrote:
| For me the problem is also that you get ads even if you did
| pay. I pay for WSJ and Bloomberg and still get presented with
| ads. Whats the point?
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| What's worse is you get tracked even if you are paying.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Oh yes, the problem are the ads.
|
| Even subtitle ads break your focus from the content, give bad
| incentives, unfair leverage, etc.
|
| If ads were not here, most junk content in the internet would
| not exist because people would not pay 20 cents to see it.
| They pay to see it with ads, because it's a price they don't
| pay consciously, nor can they assess the consequences
| clearly.
|
| I'm for the total and complete ban of ads. A content can't
| exist without it? Ask people to pay. If they don't, it means
| it didn't have real value. Let it die.
|
| Worse, ads create a huge asymmetry of power in the favor of
| those who already have it. If you can throw a lot of money to
| ads, you can gain on the competition. Local small shops can't
| do that, so ads promotes way more coca cola than organic
| carrots.
|
| Besides, the people publishing ads have an agenda that almost
| never align with the customers interest. People say there are
| ads they want to see, but the reality is that even those ads
| are not trying to make you more knowledgeable. They try to
| sell you something.
|
| We have thousands of communities of experts in stuff,
| testers, consumers, bloggers, than can inform you. You don't
| need ads to know about something.
|
| Society as a whole would be better without it.
|
| Newspaper would be more objective, streets would be more
| beautiful, content would be more qualitative.
|
| What about all those youtubers that couldn't exist without
| ads ?
|
| 99.99999% of them are crap. The youtube frontpage is a trash
| can.
|
| A minority is good, but in the new adsless society, some of
| them would survive in a different way. Some would not, but
| the benefits are more important. Just like the US didn't keep
| thralls because "think of the economy".
|
| Finally, the ads lead to websites to promote engagement at
| all cost, which fuels fake news, outrages, and tribalism on
| social medias. Ads are a burden to the human species.
|
| And I say that... as a person who gets a lot of revenue from
| ads.
| rawoke083600 wrote:
| I HATE the 'modern-web' it is x10 worse on mobile.
|
| You usually have to wait for the trackers, ads, popups,
| accept-popups,newsletters signups etc. I basically cant view
| 60% of the webpages google recommends for me ony android
| mobile. The other 40% is usually just super thin seo content
| :/
|
| I just finished reading the Gemini Protocol specs. I really
| hope something like this takes off and there will be a second
| 'silo/community' running alongside the modern web.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You can have uBO for Firefox mobile.
| tfigment wrote:
| Or use firefox focus which is faster ime and while not as
| aggressive in filtering as uBO does a good job and saves
| nothing beyond current session (cookies, ...)
| npteljes wrote:
| You can just say "web" - for 20+ years it has been looking
| like this.
| properparity wrote:
| Yep.
|
| I don't use uBO just for ads, I have tons of custom
| cosmetic filters to block all the god damn always-on-top
| video players, popups, fullscreen fade outs, annoying
| sidebars, non-ad animations, fonts, etc.
| rawoke083600 wrote:
| Right ! Its a total disaster !
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Whoever designed those video players that autoplay and follow
| you when you scroll down and give you no option to turn off
| that behavior... that kind of evilness is actually admirable.
| abledon wrote:
| through sheer scale of reach of the plugin, protecting our
| mental health from intrusive ads in our subconscious more than
| work done by 10s of thousands of therapists
| schleck8 wrote:
| The addon itsself, sure, but it relies on filterlists that are
| moderated by a lot of people.
| sherr wrote:
| Thank you Raymond and all others involved with uBlock Origin. It
| makes the internet bearable for me and other family members.
|
| Every time I use the "YouTube" app on my elderly relatives TV and
| see how often it is interrupted with adverts I count my blessings
| that this add-on exists.
| AnonHP wrote:
| Tangential question to anyone reading this: How does uBlock
| Origin block in-video ads that are in video format? I thought
| all those are embedded in the video stream and served from the
| same hosts that serve the video. If not, how has YouTube not
| changed the way it serves the video to disable such blocking
| functionality? Note that this is not about text ads that may be
| overlaid in the video or text ads elsewhere on the YouTube
| page.
| cyral wrote:
| I imagine that encoding the ads into videos would be too
| expensive. Ads change often and are personalized, so the
| video streams would also need to be personalized and couldn't
| be cached and served from a simple edge CDN anymore. Instead
| each ad is it's own stream which is loaded (or in this case,
| not loaded, so instead of blocking playback entirely it just
| skips the ad).
| Retr0id wrote:
| PSA: If it's a recent-ish LG TV, you can root it and install an
| ad-free youtube app in just a few clicks. That said, one might
| be afraid of potential future breakage/maintenance burden from
| installing homebrew software for a relative.
|
| https://rootmy.tv/
|
| https://repo.webosbrew.org/apps/youtube.leanback.v4
| [deleted]
| kristofferR wrote:
| Yeah, I've done this on my LG C9, works awesome.
|
| Apart from SponsorBlock in YT, the most useful thing I've
| found is the Hyperion sender app. I'm really looking forward
| to building my DIY Ambilight when the pieces arrive, and it's
| really nice to automatically capture all output, instead of
| capturing through HDMI.
| behnamoh wrote:
| SponsorBlock is awesome. I just wish it could automatically
| "detect" those sections without users input. Something like
| a neural network to detect if a section is sponsorship.
| thiht wrote:
| On Android TV there's SmartTubeNext that I've installed
| without root access. It's such a joy to use. It's honestly
| better than the official Youtube app (it handles multi
| accounts properly) and even embeds SponsorBlock by default!
| And it doesn't show the comments, which is another feature as
| far as I'm concerned.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I installed SmartTubeNext last week and it feels like a
| burden has been lifted from my everyday life. There's
| genuinely not enough praise that can be given for it; it's
| arguably the perfect YouTube app for your TV.
| pimeys wrote:
| It also supports logging in multiple accounts and remote
| play. Thank you for mentioning this!
| capableweb wrote:
| As I'm just about to start shopping for TVs, like LG
| generally and would love it if I could root it, you know if
| there is any list of compatible models somewhere? I did some
| browsing and could only find which webOS versions that are
| vulnerable, but not which LG model runs what version ("out of
| factory" version at the very least).
| Retr0id wrote:
| If you buy any retail model today, it will be compatible.
| capableweb wrote:
| Great, thanks for the reply!
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| Can you load custom OS images onto them, or is this the same
| situation as with bootloaders on most Android devices?
| apexalpha wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea! Thanks for the tip I have some reading to
| do.
| mkesper wrote:
| Set up something like a pi-hole.
| monkmartinez wrote:
| Unfortunately, Pi-hole does not work for Youtube ads... At
| least, I have been unable to find a reliable way to implement
| it. My house would be much better for it, but I can not seem
| to find a solution.
| arbitrage wrote:
| It may be the devices not honouring your DNS directives.
| Sometimes they will still reach out to their own resolvers.
|
| It helps if you have a network perimeter firewall to block
| unauthorized DNS usage.
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| I think youtube serves ads from its own domain, as a
| first party. This makes it harder for a pihole to block.
| Ublock does it differently, looking at elements etc...a
| pihole just tries to block dns requests to ad domains,
| not looking at code that your browser is trying to load.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Every time I use the "YouTube" app on my elderly relatives TV
| and see how often it is interrupted with adverts I count my
| blessings that this add-on exists.
|
| Sad reality is Google can make ad blockers obsolete if they
| really wanted to but I don't think it will happen anytime soon
| since antitrust lawsuit is pressuring them to ease aggressive
| business practices.
| npteljes wrote:
| I mean, YouTube at least offers a subscription that makes the
| ads go away. Which is not the case with the cesspool that's the
| rest of the internet basically. It's such a privilege that a
| software like this exists, and is offered for free with no
| strings attached.
| avgDev wrote:
| The problem is YouTubers still get sponsored and advertise
| within the video. I would not want to pay for YouTube Premium
| and still get exposed to those ads.
| post_break wrote:
| Sponsor block extension. It's ad blocking extensions the
| whole way down.
| mrkramer wrote:
| FTC said that creators and influencers on social media
| services need to put "sponsored", "promoted" or "ad" tag
| disclosure on brands they are endorsing so it would be
| possibly for someone to make uBlock Origin filter which
| blocks such content.
| post_break wrote:
| The sponsor block extension is crowd funded, people put
| where the sponsor message is and it automatically skips
| it. Not sure if ublock can seek inside a youtube video.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Not sure if ublock can seek inside a youtube video.
|
| I was referring to a hashtag or simply a tag a piece of
| text that can be spotted and then that type of content
| skipped.
| kmlx wrote:
| yes, this. but this practice is less common than i would have
| assumed at first.
|
| there are websites out there that even after paying their
| subscription they still put up ads.
| NoPicklez wrote:
| Youtube still put up sponsored ads unfortunately, even if
| premium
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Hulu charges money and still interrupts shows with ads.
| Cable television ended up that way eventually too, despite
| one of the original selling points being the lack of ads.
| They always keep trying to take more.
| shmerl wrote:
| I guess Mozilla add-ons repo is a bit behind? It still shows
| 1.40.8.
| yborg wrote:
| Firefox: Review pending
|
| Should update presently.
| dartharva wrote:
| The update has been rejected by the Mozilla team.
| shmerl wrote:
| What was the issue?
| dankwizard wrote:
| Click the article, it's one of the first lines. But to save
| you the click it was due to a Chess match he played against
| Mozilla in '18, they are still bitter about losing
| lostgame wrote:
| Someone posted a comment I'd replied to in another thread here
| about iOS sideloading.
|
| They'd asked 'why do you even need sideloading, what apps would
| you even need?'
|
| I'd said 'emulators', but uBlock is _definitely_ another thing I
| wish I could sideload onto my iPhone.
| sdze wrote:
| It is a pity that Apple decides to castrate Safari's API in such
| a way that uBlock Origin won't function.
|
| It is _the_ best AdBlock out there in my opinion. Works
| especially well for certain dirty pages with nasty ads.
| AnonHP wrote:
| Apple introduced content blocking in Safari in iOS 9 with
| privacy in mind. Essentially, content blockers started off as
| filter lists that Safari would use. Even with the more recent
| support for WebExtensions, this wouldn't allow uBlock Origin
| because uBO gets to see every network request made, intercept
| it, match the requests with the blocking rules and prevent or
| allow them. Granted that uBO is trustworthy and has never
| siphoned off browsing behavior to other systems. But that risk
| exists with almost every extension of this kind on other
| browsers.
|
| I use Firefox with uBO, and am not supportive of Apple's
| position on not allowing uBO. But I see the value in
| controlling what information browser extensions can see,
| capture and possibly exfiltrate.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Thanks for your work. This is always the first extension I
| install on every browser I come across.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| uBlock Origin is great. If you don't have it, you should get it.
| I don't understand how people use the web without it.
| ck2 wrote:
| The minimum browser bump is important to note because of the
| security in versions before 1.39
|
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.39.0
| shantara wrote:
| >uBO works best on Firefox
|
| Not a fan of the recent Firefox changes, but alone makes me keep
| it as the default browser
| ravenstine wrote:
| Same. I'm sad to say that Mozilla really lost its way, but
| Firefox is still the most libre browser I know of, thus I will
| continue to use it until it becomes otherwise.
| sleepless wrote:
| "Lost its way" is non-actionable and unsubstantiated
| criticism that reflects poorly on the person making such
| statement.
|
| What specifically do you disagree with? I actually feel the
| opposite way. Finally after years of ignoring macOS Firefox
| feels more at home and the UI changes make it much more
| pleasant to use.
| ravenstine wrote:
| This is a discussion forum, not an academic debate. The
| core of my statement is that Firefox has qualities that
| make me want to continue using it despite how I disagree
| with how Mozilla operates. I don't owe anyone actionable
| criticism or evidence to backup my sentiment.
|
| > What specifically do you disagree with? I actually feel
| the opposite way. Finally after years of ignoring macOS
| Firefox feels more at home and the UI changes make it much
| more pleasant to use.
|
| Mozilla owns Firefox, but Mozilla is not Firefox. Firefox,
| for the most part, is fine. The text input I'm typing this
| in is being rendered by Firefox.
|
| As far as specifics go, Mozilla can hardly be considered
| well managed by any objective sense. The market share of
| Firefox has been declining rapidly for years, and Firefox
| is the product everyone knows Mozilla for. Why then has
| Mozilla not done anything meaningful to course correct? Why
| do their executives of a non-profit foundation still get
| raises when their core product is losing? (to be fair they
| don't make much compared to for-profit salaries) Why are
| they more interested in selling other products in a space
| where there's already massive competition, and using
| Udemy's pricing trickery to convince you that you're
| getting a good deal? Why did they abandon Servo? Why did
| they integrate a commercial service, Pocket, into Firefox
| and make it opt-out? Did they _really_ need to make Brendon
| Eich leave because he committed the deadly sin of... _being
| against gay marriage?_ Do they really need to be blogging
| about political activism that has nothing to do with the
| web?
|
| These are all facts you can look up easily.
|
| Yeah, I don't like them. They're not well managed, and they
| pretty much only exist in their current form because Google
| needs them to exist. If Google stopped giving money to the
| Mozilla foundation, lots of people would be laid off,
| Firefox would go into a tailspin, and they'd be left with a
| VPN service nobody really wanted. Maybe if money spent on
| Mozilla VPN clearly went to making Firefox better, more
| developer friendly, and more prolific, then it would be a
| somewhat different story, but whether that is actually the
| case isn't obvious. Even then, it's debatable to what
| extent any VPN service isn't snake oil.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| "reflects poorly on the person making such statement" is
| non-actionable and unsubstantiated criticism.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| No, it isn't. The implication is "To hold oneself to a
| better standard, make actionable and/or substantiated
| statements, especially when making critical statements."
|
| People seem to shit on Mozilla/Firefox often, and often
| without any evidence or useful data to work with. And
| they often say they use Chrome instead, run by an
| organization that those same people would probably say is
| user-hostile.
|
| It's like seeing people criticize corruption in Western
| democratic governments and declaring they're avoiding
| that mess by moving to Moscow.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| > The implication is "To hold oneself to a better
| standard, make actionable and/or substantiated
| statements, especially when making critical statements."
|
| Ok, but defining the implications of 1st party statements
| to 3rd parties is tricksy business.
|
| > People seem to shit on Mozilla/Firefox often, and often
| without any evidence or useful data to work with. And
| they often say they use Chrome instead, run by an
| organization that those same people would probably say is
| user-hostile.
|
| Except ravenstine didn't do any of that, so you're
| applying your issues with other people to the wrong
| conversation. They responded with depth before you posted
| this.
|
| > It's like seeing people criticize corruption in Western
| democratic governments and declaring they're avoiding
| that mess by moving to Moscow.
|
| You sure you're in the same conversation as everyone
| else?
| freediver wrote:
| It would be good to have a way to reproduce these results on
| modern versions of browsers.
| [deleted]
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This person is aggressively against being rewarded for their
| selfless desire to make the internet functional, nicer, quieter,
| and more about the users.
|
| How many of you here instead spend your 40 hours a week making 6
| digit salaries at a company that wants nothing more than to own
| the attention of everyone who connects to a network? How many of
| you have actively worked to create systems and technology to
| invade the screens and speakers of users who wanted nothing of
| the sort? How many of you have sat in meetings about
| "attribution" or "analytics" and lied to yourself about what you
| were building and what it would do to millions of people?
| cptskippy wrote:
| > This person is aggressively against being rewarded
|
| Back when uB was transferred to a different maintainer and uBO
| came about, I recall reading something about this. It isn't so
| much that they don't want reward or recognition but rather the
| do not want the obligation that comes with it.
|
| Back when I maintained a couple Add-ons for Firefox there was a
| constant external pressure from users to
| fix/improve/maintain/develop the Add-on. In addition to that,
| the user base wants to engage and feel part of a community and
| interact with you. In a way it's stifling and why I eventually
| abandoned the Add-ons.
|
| When you start accepting recognition or donations for work you
| share, there's obligation tied to it.
|
| Some people don't want the obligation, it has nothing to do
| with virtue.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The reason for their desire to not be rewarded is orthogonal
| to their virtue in spending their limited time and effort and
| resources in making the internet a better place, which IMO is
| virtuous.
|
| That's what I was trying to get at. What legacy are you
| leaving this world? Are you truly leaving it a better place
| than you were given?
| WheatM wrote:
| geoffeg wrote:
| Does anyone know of a way to run uBlock Origin as an HTTP(s)
| proxy? I'd really like to be able to provide uBlock Origin style
| functionality to mobile and other browsers on my network that
| can't easily run uBlock. Historically privoxy could do some of
| what uBlock does, but development on privoxy seems to have
| declined...
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Yes and no. One could create a Squid SSL-Bump (MITM) proxy and
| create ACL's that operate closely to uBlock. There won't be
| full parity between the two so uBlock would still provide some
| benefit to the client. The method of using Squid as a MITM
| proxy method assumes one can install and trust a server public
| key into the clients. Squid will limit what HTTP protocols one
| could use. e.g. h2, alpn won't be supported. If one does not
| mind those limitations and having to maintain a small list of
| sites to bypass MITM due to public key pinning then Squid can
| have rules for anything the client or server can see. Domains,
| URL's, Content-Type, Size, Methods, Ports, you name it. One
| could save some bandwidth on static content as an additional
| benefit.
| CodeHz wrote:
| You could try adguard (android version), but it is paid.
|
| And the biggest problem is most of sites are already upgraded
| to https, it needs MITM attack, but lots of applications won't
| accept any user certificate... (so adguard needs be installed
| to let those apps bypass its proxy, that's mean, you cannot
| just host a central proxy server to filter all ssl traffic)
| quesera wrote:
| Is Privoxy development velocity the best metric?
|
| Once the framework is in place, the interesting action is in
| filter configuration, right?
|
| https://www.privoxy.org/ says latest release is about two
| months ago.
| imglorp wrote:
| Pihole? I think they share some block lists.
| freedrock87 wrote:
| Only does DNS blocking
| nix0n wrote:
| If you have Android, the easiest way to run uBlock Origin is to
| install it for mobile Firefox.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Yes, unfortunately it won't help you if you use any apps that
| display arbitrary websites in the system webview. E.g. a
| reddit client.
| bentcorner wrote:
| If you set it as the default browser, well-behaving apps
| that use Chrome Custom Tabs will use firefox in these
| situations.
| xigoi wrote:
| https://f-droid.org/packages/org.blokada.fem.fdroid
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Precisely. On iOS, I've recently been enjoying Hyperweb,
| which you can add some of uBlock Origin's blocklists to. My
| experience so far has been great, though I'm aware that their
| blocking is probably based on Safari's neutered "content
| blocker" API so it isn't quite as fast or efficient.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I've been very happy with the free tier of Lockdown
| Privacy, which blocks ads in every app, not only Safari. It
| creates a dummy VPN which can filter. Not as powerful as
| uBlock Origin, but it blocks in-app ads too.
| favourable wrote:
| Have you considered pi-hole[0], NextDNS[1], or AdGuard[2]?
|
| [0] https://pi-hole.net/
|
| [1] https://nextdns.io/
|
| [2] https://adguard.com/en/welcome.html
| geoffeg wrote:
| I have pi-hole, and while DNS filtering does eliminate a
| majority of annoyances on the web, there's still a large
| amount that I need uBlock for.
| vdfs wrote:
| DNS filtering is the only option outside the browser
| because of SSL
| Chabsff wrote:
| That's not necessarily true. SSL/TLS does not prevent all
| MITM, it prevents _unwanted_ MITM.
|
| To be fair, I don't think you can install certificates on
| a Chromecast for example, so it might not be practically
| feasible for all devices, but a blanket "SSL makes that
| impossible" is not correct.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| _SSL /TLS does not prevent all MITM, it prevents unwanted
| MITM._
|
| That's news to me. Can you expand on this ? I always
| assumed if an API Endpoint for example is served on TLS
| it's secure till the termination. No ?
| nicoburns wrote:
| You can always choose to install your own root
| certificates, at which point your browsers will trust any
| certificates issued by them (which could be your own mitm
| proxy)
| remh wrote:
| It would cause issues for websites / apps using HSTS /
| Certificate pinning (a.k.a. most big websites)
| makeworld wrote:
| No, HSTS doesn't pin the cert, it just says that TLS must
| be used. A custom root certificate will fulfill that
| requirement.
|
| Cert pinning isn't used by browsers in general.
| derimagia wrote:
| In practice it's usually done with SSL termination (MITM
| but you have a trusted certificate)
|
| Adguard Docs on it:
| https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/https-filtering#how-
| does-h...
|
| Charles Proxy:
| https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/ssl-
| prox...
| NotAWorkNick wrote:
| From the release notes -
|
| New - Dark mode Support for dark mode added to the Settings pane,
| under the (new) Appearance section:
|
| Thanks Raymond!
| favourable wrote:
| I'm excited for this too:
|
| > A new setting in "Filter lists" pane to control whether uBO
| should wait for all filter lists to be loaded before
| unsuspending network activity.
| haunter wrote:
| uBlock Origin + ungoogled-chromium [1] is what I use daily. And I
| don't how to appreciate people who are working on these projects
|
| 1, https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
| computronus wrote:
| From https://ublockorigin.com/ itself: "The uBlock Origin
| project still specifically refuses donations at this time, and
| instead advises all of its clients, users and supporters to
| donate to block list maintainers."
|
| As an example, I donate to https://patreon.com/blocklist .
| Amazingly, right now, there are only 43 patrons.
| ents wrote:
| I donate to oisd.nl -- the wife approved Pi-Hole DNS list
| that can also work with uBo.
| tylerfontaine wrote:
| Unfortunately, the list doesn't seem to be compatible with
| piHole (at least >5.0), and in searching around there's
| some beef between pi-hole folks and the oisd maintainer. I
| won't perpetuate it by posting links, but it's sad to see
| for sure.
| pritambaral wrote:
| Head's up for anyone going down this route: uBlock Origin is
| going to be gimped when Chrom{e,ium} switches exclusively to
| Manifest V3.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Whats Manifest V3?
| pritambaral wrote:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&q
| u...
| josefx wrote:
| Modern browsers share a "standard" list of APIs for
| plugins, that makes it possible to write a plugin that runs
| in both Chrome and Firefox. Google decided to remove
| several APIs for "performance" and "privacy" reasons from
| the third version of that list. It just happens that all
| dropped APIs where used by ad blockers and that some of the
| announced "replacement" APIs weren't even able to handle
| the most commonly used static block lists. As far as I
| understand the replacement APIs where developed in
| cooperation with Ad block plus, which just happens to allow
| Googles ads under its acceptable ads program.
| favourable wrote:
| > Whats Manifest V3?
|
| In simple terms, it's Google's attempt to stop AD-blockers
| interfering with their business model.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I think it's very much still an "if" not a "when". Chrome
| will stop being a lot of peoples' recommended browser if they
| do this, and could well end up losing them a lot of users.
| SkySkimmer wrote:
| I've blocked so many fixed position headers with this thing.
| Although tbh I should learn the filter syntax to make them
| position: absolute instead.
| loop0 wrote:
| Ever since I heard about AdGuard Home I never looked back. I have
| a raspberry pi 4 serving all dns requests from every electronic
| at my house for 215 days of uptime now without any issues.
| Browsing the web seems faster and cleaner ever since.
| CamJN wrote:
| Well, all dns except that over ipv6, DOH, DOT, software using a
| separate resolver hard-coded to a specific ip... The amount of
| work to force dns to your dns server these days is nuts.
|
| I use a pi-hole and these days I have to:
|
| - block dns advertisement of my ISP's dns server for ipv6
| (which, there's no UI for that on my router so i have to edit
| the config by hand) - maintain a list of dns over https ips and
| block them in my firewall (since mitming this traffic is a huge
| pain) - force all traffic to port 853 to my pi and setup a
| masquerade for that traffic so the client doesn't know - force
| all traffic to port 53 to my pi and setup a masquerade for that
| traffic so the client doesn't know
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Does anybody know if there's a way to donate to gorhill/uBO
| development? I looked through the entire README and I don't
| _think_ there 's any link to send $ (just a "contribute to
| translation" link -- what a brilliant crowdsourcing solution!).
|
| Does gorhill just do this for free because he's an amazing human
| being, or am I missing where I can buy him a coffee?
|
| Been trying to make a more conscious effort to donate to
| meaningful causes this year, and I have to say uBO is one of the
| strongest forces for good on the internet I know.
| favourable wrote:
| Yeah they really need a Ko-Fi[0] or Patreon[1] link in the
| README IMHO.
|
| But that said, looks like they don't _want_ donations[2]
|
| > I don't want the administrative workload coming with
| donations. I don't want the project to become in need of
| funding in any way: no dedicated home page + no forum = no cost
| = no need for funding. I want to be free to move onto something
| else if ever I get tired working on these projects (no
| donations = no expectations).
|
| > Have a thought for the maintainers of the various lists.
| These lists are everything. This can't be emphasized enough.
|
| [0] https://ko-fi.com/
|
| [1] https://www.patreon.com/
|
| [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-
| accept-...
| josefx wrote:
| > Yeah they really need a Ko-Fi[0] or Patreon[1] link in the
| README IMHO.
|
| I am quite sure that kind of nonsense lead to the Origin
| fork. As far as I understand the old uBlock project was taken
| over by a contributor who offered to manage user requests but
| immediately started to look for ways to monetize it and
| things only went downhill from there.
| ask_b123 wrote:
| You mean things went gorhill from there? :-)
|
| But yes, although I'd be quite happy to donate to uBO (it
| is the only extension I find indispensable and I even
| abandoned Safari after it stopped working there), I cannot
| help but admire their stance on donations.
| ihuman wrote:
| The README also says they don't want donations
|
| > Free. Open source. For users by users. _No donations
| sought._
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Write him an email and sincerely thank him for the work, and
| ask if there is any charity he would prefer you donate to.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I recall him stating he didn't want to take donations because
| he didn't want the chance of money coming in from someone that
| could influence the decisions of the project (see AdBlock
| Plus).
| dont__panic wrote:
| And every time I learn more about gorhill, I respect him
| more. Forget looking up to the Bezoses and Zucks of the world
| as role models, or even the Gates. This is someone who writes
| software that improves the quality of life of tens of
| millions of people across the planet, maybe even hundreds. I
| haven't heard a bad thing about him yet.
| bentcorner wrote:
| > _This is someone who writes software that improves the
| quality of life of tens of millions of people across the
| planet, maybe even hundreds._
|
| The sad thing is that it doesn't have to be this way, if
| ads weren't so terrible or intrusive gorhill could be
| working on something else instead. I'm sure people will
| point out the upside of browser ads but I speculate that
| it's a net (!) negative.
| npteljes wrote:
| I agree, but the notion of doing something like this is
| inspiring. The FOSS movement is full this sentiment and
| it's nothing short of a miracle.
| agumonkey wrote:
| couldn't we cap the donations and anonymize it ?
|
| maybe find other ways to thank or help gorhill.. his work is
| too much of a gift
| npteljes wrote:
| I suggest to take the goodwill elsewhere. This person
| actively don't need it, but a myriad of other causes do.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I already do that.
| nevitablentropy wrote:
| Per the About section [0] on the README:
|
| uBlock Origin's manifesto. Free. Open source. For users by
| users. No donations sought.
|
| Without the preset lists of filters, this extension is nothing.
| So if ever you really do want to contribute something, think
| about the people working hard to maintain the filter lists you
| are using, which were made available to use by all for free.
|
| You can contribute by helping translate uBlock Origin on
| Crowdin.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#about
| JimWestergren wrote:
| This is uBlock Origin (the good one) and not uBlock. Info
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ub...
| favourable wrote:
| Amended. The Github repo is named `uBlock`[0] so there will be
| confusion for people about which is the 'best' version (Hint:
| it's uBo)
|
| [0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
| rasz wrote:
| >By default, at browser launch uBO waits for all filter lists to
| be loaded before unsuspending network activity so as to ensure
| web pages are properly filtered at launch.
|
| Fun Fact: uBO might wait, but Chrome DGAF and will load pages
| without waiting for all extensions to properly load.
| moedersmooiste wrote:
| The first thing I install on every fresh desktop OS...
| tiffanyh wrote:
| iOS availaiblity.
|
| Is there a reason why it's not available on iOS?
| jhickok wrote:
| Apple is the reason.
|
| https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
| tiffanyh wrote:
| So what's the best adblocker on iOS these days?
|
| Because in your link above, the alternative recommendations
| have now either become "un-recommended" or have massive
| reported performance issues.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Performance and battery life were my worries when I tried
| ad blocking apps on iOS. So far I've been very happy with
| Lockdown Privacy, which when active, consumes 5% of the
| battery. In exchange, I barely see ads even inside apps. If
| only it had as much filter lists as uBlock Origin.
| arepublicadoceu wrote:
| Safari + Adguard OR 1blocker OR wipr (it's not even close
| to ublock origin but it's the best you're gonna get on this
| damned walled garden)
|
| For ioswide adblock: nextdns dns profile is the best you're
| gonna get as well. With no battery usage as it's just a dns
| profile.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Ironically, uBO author recommends AGAIST what you listed.
| See the parent link.
| arepublicadoceu wrote:
| Are you sure?
|
| Just checked the link and the only arguments against
| 1blocker is the subscription model and paid upgrades.
|
| Nothing significant against adguard or wipr.
|
| The do not recommend list only have:
|
| -Adblock plus
|
| -Ublock
|
| -Adblock for safari
|
| Anyway, as I said, nothing comes close to ublock origin
| but it is what it is.
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| The ublock origin creators deserve a Nobel peace prize. No
| kidding or hyperbole.
| kazinator wrote:
| Block Element is a quite a useful feature of uBlock Origin.
|
| You can right click on individual things in a website's UI and
| make them go away using the "Block element ..." context menu
| command added by uBlock.
|
| This is useful for not only getting rid of ads, but anything that
| distracts you or tricks you into clicking on it.
|
| For instance, in Reddit, if you find yourself accidentally
| clicking on switching to New Reddit (which annoyingly updates
| your profile to make that choice stick), you can just block that
| button.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| Yep I use this to block the stack exchange top block thing on
| the desktop site. I get sick of dismissing it all the time.
| kazinator wrote:
| Sorry, what exactly is this "top block thing", on which
| StackExchange site?
|
| I didn't manually block anything from these sites, but don't
| see any annoying block near the top.
|
| Well, the main "stackexchange.com" has a dialog-box-like
| element titled "StackExchange Q&A Communities are Different.
| Here's how:", with a bunch of content, and a [Learn More]
| button. You can close this with the X in the top right
| corner. Is this it?
|
| I guess it doesn't bother me because I've never found that
| site useful to begin with.
|
| The dismissible block is not actually at the top; it's below
| the "search all sites" toolbar, and below that block there
| isn't any particularly useful content, just "hot questions"
| and a sidebar of "featured sites". Basically nothing other
| than that toolbar is useful, and that toolbar could just be a
| tiny browser extension or something. So if I dismiss that
| box, no useful content moves up to occupy that space. It
| could bother me a bit if I were interested in browsing the
| hot questions, rather than search.
|
| Maybe DuckDuckGo has a shortcut for it? Hey, yes it does: !se
|
| If you use DDG, you have no need to visit stackexchange.com
| just to search all the SE sites; just !se in front of your
| search terms.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| I assume they mean the useless "Closed, duplicate" (which
| almost never links to a duplicate) or "Closed, opinion"
| box. I forgot I can remove them with UBlock Origin.)
| arrosenberg wrote:
| FYI, all of the things you block wind up in a text list within
| the settings of the app, so it's super easy to
| copy/paste/edit/add elements that way if you need to.
| diabeetusman wrote:
| I actually found this useful the other day when I was shopping
| online on a bugged website. After I applied a filter, the
| loading spinner wouldn't go away, even after it had finished
| loading the filtered results.
|
| I blocked the loading spinner element and the website worked
| perfectly after that.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| Block Element is the goto where reader view fails.
|
| For a great many sites, I remove headers, footers, sidebars,
| etc.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| The eyedrop (permanently hide element) is great for getting
| through most cookie walls without accepting anything.
|
| The filters (custom rules for hiding stuff) is great for
| personalizing your browsing. Eliminate scores on Reddit,
| YouTube video cards containing keywords for stuff you don't
| want to get spoiled, Tweets types that don't interest you like
| "Stuff your follows such as "You might like", etc.
| 63 wrote:
| Don't they just assume using the site without accepting is
| the same as accepting all?
| EEBio wrote:
| Some probably do, but any GDPR-compatible website won't.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| Bypass Paywalls is a great extension that does this
| automatically.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-10 23:02 UTC)