1. 34
  1.  

  2. 24

    The title is a little misleading. The author is not against adblocking in the abstract, but is against Adblock Plus, a specific adblocker.

    1. 2

      I think that was done on purpose, because the title wouldn’t have made sense otherwise. For me personally it is click-baity but definitely more tolerable and enjoyable than the standard clickbait titles one sees on the internet.

      1. -2

        The title capitalizes Adblock, which makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about a specific product.

        1. 21

          It wasn’t clear to me. All the other words in the title are capitalized, and “adblock” without qualification usually refers to all extensions which block ads.

          1. 13

            The title capitalizes all of the words. It’s in title case.

            1. 10

              That’s The Most Annoying Thing When Reading American Websites Online

              1. 0

                Americans are the only people on the planet who don’t adhere to your capitalization rules?

                1. 0

                  As far as I know, yes. British, French, Spanish and Portuguese-language sites don’t capitalize everything and it’s such smooth sailing.

        2. 7

          This whole “adblocker selling ad views” cluster fuck is why I like Apple/Safari’s approach.

          If you have to worry about how much memory each adblocker uses, and which ads they whitelist or whether they sell your private browsing data, you’ve already lost.

          1. 3

            What is Apple/Safari’s approach? How does it differ from Firefox extensions?

            1. 7

              As @geocar says: safari content blockers are basically JSON arrays of rules: block URL, whitelist URL, hide Element (using CSS selectors) or recently, force HTTPS for URL.

              The app provides this JSON (either from a static file in it’s app bundle, or a generated list via app options) to Safari, and Safari itself does the blocking.

              The blocker knows nothing about what you visit, you can combine content blockers, etc.

              While a content-blocker using app could have it’s own “approved ads” that it doesn’t block, theres no longer any issue about “Blocker X is the most memory efficient but it also allows Ads from CrappyCorp”, because the blocking is all done by Safari itself, so the content blockers are on an even playing field in terms of performance/features of what can be blocked/hidden. While there are some inefficient ways to write Content Blocker rules, Apple has pretty good docs about how to write good rules (i.e. mostly its about writing optimised RegEx queries to match domains/paths).

              Apps like 1Blocker also allow user-written custom rules (using the same basic syntax as raw Content Blocker rule sets) so you can customise what you block, using the same performance advice from Apple’s docs.

              1. 3

                What are some Safari (for macOS) extensions that use the Content Blocker API? The only one I found that was sort of usable was AdGuard, but I’d like to try something else.

                1. 2

                  I use 1blocker on both ios and macOS. With iCloud syncing and custom rule sets it’s pretty great.

                  (Not affiliated at all with 1blocker developer)

                  1. 1

                    Thanks, I’ll try it out.

              2. 4

                Safari Content Blockers aren’t allowed to inject scripts into your page, or otherwise track how many (or which) pages you visit.

              3. 3

                IE actually did this model - it had “tracking protection lists” that the browser itself applied. EasyList and others were translated to that format; and the browser did the blocking itself. (Unfortunately, they didn’t add that to Edge, but it at least supports WebExtensions to use a “normal” adblocker…)

              4. 4

                In terms of desktop adblocking and tracking blocking solutions, I use uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, and this hosts file.

                1. 4

                  I like the technique in general but often have local stuff listening on various ports. I wish there was a well-known ‘/dev/null’ IP address which these could be routed to … a tiny daemon could then return a protocol-appropriate NAK immediately and log the attempt.

                  1. 1

                    Rather than 127.0.0.1, could you just route to something on your LAN that doesn’t exist?

                  2. 3

                    I use uBlock Origin as well, works like a charm! Just have to disable font blocking on a few pages for them to be readable.

                  3. 5

                    TLDR:

                    Since then, the other partner Chris AlJoudi (who owns uBlock) has made some questionable decisions.

                    Long story short, use uBlock Origin, NOT uBlock. uBlock Origin has no association with uBlock.org.

                    1. 8

                      Except that the article is mainly talking about AdBlock and Adblock Plus, not uBlock. It mentions the uBlock shenanigans only in passing. So not a TLDR.

                      1. 2

                        I figured the AdBlock (Plus) shenanigans are very old news and fairly well known. shrug