I was surprised to see no mention of uBlock, which was created to rectify this (on Chrome):
ppl in hnews comments mention that. Also, check out uMatrix, the second half of gorhill’s block suite.
Imagine if browser vendors gave us a native adblocker, rather than features nobody in the world cares about.
Privoxy seems like it should be able to do the job, but I’ve never actually used it myself.
Internet Explorer actually does. Their euphemism for it is tracking protection lists. Load EasyList and it works.
Just to elaborate on how it’s integrated
I use GlimmerBlocker, which is functionally the same as Privoxy, and it works great. What it can’t do, and what I’d love to have, is the ability to lie about my browser (Safari) to defeat Panopticlick style tactics; and I’d like the browser to run certain sites (*.facebook.com) in a silo, so that they can’t leak out and track me. Currently, I use a SSB for Facebook and Google and other creeper sites, but it’d be better if my main browser could do this.
I think the problem with the vendors doing it is that it really is a full time job. I would prefer to have them working on implementing standards and up-and-coming features.
While it’s not meant to be a full ad blocker, Firefox is experimenting with tracking protection to let users block domains that track them across the web.
If you run Privacy Badger you don’t need an ad blocker.
Privacy Badger is based on the ABP code, so I’d expect it to have the same problems described in the article.
I’ve had good luck using adsuck;
it’s nice not having to install things in my browser.
The nice thing about browser integration is I can right click on an ad and create a blocking rule. Futzing around with adsuck config is too much trouble.
One reason I ended up using adsuck is I run it on my router and all my
devices on the network (including mobile) have the rules; I can spend
less time dealing with browsers.
I’ve used Safari for some years without an adblocker. Haven’t had any problems.