Adblock Sold to Mystery Company • Hacker News Board

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#91

Post by ddp » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

newscracker wrote: post #21

lorenzhs wrote: post #9

To anyone who is concerned by this change, I recommend taking a look at μBlock Origin [1,2]. It's blazingly fast, very flexible, and under active development. I made the switch about a year ago and it has served me very well. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

The only disadvantage, if one could call it that, is that uBlock Origin does not have a version for Safari, which uBlock has. I have read a bit about the controversies between uBlock Origin vs. uBlock. I prefer uBlock Origin wherever available.

uBlock 0.9.5.2 is available for Safari. It looks an awful lot like µBlock Origin on Chrome.

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#92

Post by newscracker » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 4:57 PM UTC

ddp wrote: post #91

newscracker wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only disadvantage, if one could call it that, is that uBlock Origin does not have a version for Safari, which uBlock has. I have read a bit about the controversies between uBlock Origin vs. uBlock. I prefer uBlock Origin wherever available.

uBlock 0.9.5.2 is available for Safari. It looks an awful lot like µBlock Origin on Chrome.

I know uBlock has a version for Safari, which I mentioned in my comment. However, uBlock Origin does not, which I also mentioned. Is there something unclear about what I said above?

Both uBlock Origin and uBlock have similar code bases because they were "born" from the original uBlock (now called uBlock Origin).

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#93

Post by philtar » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 4:59 PM UTC

Curious why I can't offload this task to a DNS server?

If such a solution truly doesn't exist (and I don't mean OpenDNS), would anyone like to talk about building something like that?

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#94

Post by BinaryIdiot » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

gorhill wrote: post #75

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I had no idea that would prevent it from working. I wish they made that clear. Thanks!

> I wish they made that clear I agree, I opened an issue to address this: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/773

Oh I had no idea you were the author. Very cool; thanks!

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#95

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

on_ wrote: post #77

lorenzhs wrote: post #9

To anyone who is concerned by this change, I recommend taking a look at μBlock Origin [1,2]. It's blazingly fast, very flexible, and under active development. I made the switch about a year ago and it has served me very well. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

I like uBlock a lot. With default deny 3rd party, or even some other settings enabled, I find it breaks the back button often, or I have to reload the page at google to search again. ANyone else have these issues.

Haven't run across this. What sites?

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#96

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

beastman82 wrote: post #62

raldi wrote: post #18

This Business Insider article seems to be a thin layer of blogspam around its more-informative source, http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/02/trust-us-we-block-ads/

with a cringe-worthy, grammatically incorrect title

It's a little sloppy, but I don't think "got sold" is actually incorrect.

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#97

Post by jlarocco » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

on_ wrote: post #77

lorenzhs wrote: post #9

To anyone who is concerned by this change, I recommend taking a look at μBlock Origin [1,2]. It's blazingly fast, very flexible, and under active development. I made the switch about a year ago and it has served me very well. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

I like uBlock a lot. With default deny 3rd party, or even some other settings enabled, I find it breaks the back button often, or I have to reload the page at google to search again. ANyone else have these issues.

I've been using it for a while in Chromium (a lot), Opera (not as much), and a bit in Safari, and have not had that issue.

Sounds annoying, though.

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#98

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

dantillberg wrote: post #4

I'm glad to see this here. I saw this update yesterday, and the text was so typical of a company-acquisition-I-should- not -trust. Excerpt: "I believe this is a great thing for you users". Yet this is not accompanied by anything that suggests how users will possibly benefit from any of this. Can someone suggest alternatives to Adblock that aren't controlled by dubious/secret/obviously-sketchy third parties?

uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#99

Post by eli » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #26

lorenzhs wrote: post #9

To anyone who is concerned by this change, I recommend taking a look at μBlock Origin [1,2]. It's blazingly fast, very flexible, and under active development. I made the switch about a year ago and it has served me very well. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

Works great on Firefox for Android, too. No more app store popups!

Thanks to Google, those full-screen app store ads are going to go away soon: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-fr...

Re: Adblock Sold to Mystery Company

#100

Post by gorhill » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #85

gorhill wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish they made that clear I agree, I opened an issue to address this: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/773

Hi gorhill, Love the app, by the way. It's the single reason I have Firefox on my Android device instead of Chrome. Do you happen to know WHY the leak breaks Hangouts? I'm assuming Hangouts now leverages the webRTC for connection--that's fine. But I was under the impression that the local IP leak was an unintended side-effect of webRTC, not a 'required component', if you will. Does having that checkbox on effectively…

> I was under the impression that the local IP leak was an unintended side-effect of webRTC, not a 'required component'

Same here. My understanding is that the breakage of Hangout is unintended, as the original Chromium issue for the IP address leakage states[1]:

> This change causes WebRTC traffic to be forced through the same path that HTTP traffic would, i.e. the traffic follows the default route to the destination site.

In other words the purpose of the setting is strictly to prevent IP address leakage, not to prevent WebRTC from working.

[1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=333752#c...