Pi-Hole is different from using a hosts file in that, Pi-Hole returns 200 OK with empty content for any requests to the black-listed domains?
how does that work with https?
The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
91–100 of 299 posts
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#92Does anyone know if there are performance penalties associated with using a Raspberry PI as your DNS server? Also, a link[1] to the Pi-Hole page. [1] https://pi-hole.net/
Slightly off-topic, but from the pi-hole page: > Install by running one command: > curl -sSL https://install.pi-hole.net | bash installing arbitrary software off the internet by piping curl output to bash is a terrible idea. At the very least, I would have expected them to sign this script... considering this software has unlimited access to your internal network, and the ability to influence ALL network traffic into…
Immediately below that line on the pi-hole site:
>Our code is completely open, but piping to bash can be dangerous. For a safer install, review the code and then run the installer locally.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#93> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing.
> I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way.
Never understood that concept either. It probably originated with people who were making a quick buck with ads on their sites defending their turf when the winds changed.
For a while advertising was like free money, so that's understandable.
The problem with content providers (news, quality blogs and such) is that they didn't look for a better model earlier. Therefore many were left trapped with this dreadful advertising revenue model.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back. But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control…
> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?
How many sites include in their ToS that you must not block their ads?
How many sites are willing to accept legal liability for malware served up by their ads?
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#95Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slightly off-topic, but from the pi-hole page: > Install by running one command: > curl -sSL https://install.pi-hole.net | bash installing arbitrary software off the internet by piping curl output to bash is a terrible idea. At the very least, I would have expected them to sign this script... considering this software has unlimited access to your internal network, and the ability to influence ALL network traffic into…
Immediately below that line on the pi-hole site: >Our code is completely open, but piping to bash can be dangerous. For a safer install, review the code and then run the installer locally.
And yet piping to bash is being advertised boldly as the 'one-liner install process'
In other news, eating rat poison might kill you, but there's a tiny warning printed on the back so no one will do ever do it.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#97Personally I have no problems with ads per se, it's the tracking, privacy, and security aspect I'm concerned about (and also the unbelievable bloatedness of ad-financed sites lately as ad prices race to the bottom). Personally I'd be fine with ads if we could go back to a content-oriented model where first-party static assets are served as ads rather than the targeted advertising we have now. I know others here who have zero tolerance for any kind of ads, though. Trying to grasp what a feasible business model for content creation could be, including paywalled content/micropayments as almost anything seems better than the clickbait and brainwash crap we have now.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#98> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt. It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals. If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing? If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing? If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing? I think any sane person would definitively say…
Didn't this come up with TiVo commercial skipping? The issue was with TiVo, the customer never even had a chance to see the ad, not that ads are mandatory to watch. Doesn't that apply here?
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#99> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt. It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals. If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing? If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing? If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing? I think any sane person would definitively say…
In the past, when people have asked me about the ethics of using an ad blocker, I always ask the same question: "When you are watching TV, do you wait for the commercial break to go take a leak?" (Not my line, wish I remembered the origin so I could give proper attribution).
The strange thing is it's one of those conversation stoppers, the other person usually gives me a funny look and does not reply at all. This is perfect and I recommend trying it out.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#100I run a similar setup that downloads the blacklist from some guy named Steven Black who wants to make the internet better and then I pipe it through sed to include them on my unbound resolver. The file is configured as an include on unbound.conf.
#!/bin/sh
PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin"
rm -f /tmp/badsites
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h... -O /tmp/badsites
if [ -f /tmp/badsites ]; then
grep '^0\.0\.0\.0' /tmp/badsites | awk '{print "local-zone: \""$2"\" redirect\nlocal-data: \""$2" A 0.0.0.0\""}' > /etc/unbound/badsites.conf
rm /tmp/badsites
rc-service unbound reload