Adblockers Performance Study
whotracks.me
Adblockers Performance Study
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#2Can we not have editorialized title please?
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#3Also, how about blocking on the DNS level? Why does this article concerned with in browser ad blocking only? I bet it is much less resource utilisation if you do it in lower layers.
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#4Can we not have editorialized title please?
Yeah... that's barely even what the article is about, based on a brief skim. They seem to disagree with what Manifest v3 is trying to accomplish, but the article doesn't even use the word "bullshit".
(Disclaimer: I work for a non-Google Alphabet company.)
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#5Also, how about blocking on the DNS level? Why does this article concerned with in browser ad blocking only? I bet it is much less resource utilisation if you do it in lower layers.
DNS adblocking sucks because it takes too long to turn off when a website breaks because of ads.
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#6FWIW, Chromium devs have just responded[1] to the massive amount of feedback they got on the mailing list, like [2] and [3].
One of the main pain points raised was the lack of any way to dynamically add rules, as well as the low maximum number of rules allowed (30k). Seems they've decided to support dynamic rule addition, as well as increasing the number of rules, though probably not by orders of magnitude by the sound of it.
Proof is in the pudding though.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...
[3]: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#7Background: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897... : a proposed change to Chrome that would limit adblock extensions.
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#8Can we not have editorialized title please?
Yeah... that's barely even what the article is about, based on a brief skim. They seem to disagree with what Manifest v3 is trying to accomplish, but the article doesn't even use the word "bullshit". (Disclaimer: I work for a non-Google Alphabet company.)
Thank you for the feedback, changed the title to match the title of the blog.
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#9Google, the worlds largest advertising company, abuse market share to crush those that would stand in their way. I stopped using Chrome when this was proposed, and you should too!
Article provides evidence that Google's pretext of performance doesn't hold water.
Re: Adblockers Performance Study
#10Also, how about blocking on the DNS level? Why does this article concerned with in browser ad blocking only? I bet it is much less resource utilisation if you do it in lower layers.
- As pointed out in the previous comment, with DNS based blocking users often have to choose between convenience and privacy.
As an example: Blocking ads on Youtube with DNS blocking is very hard, unless you block youtube* itself.
- It does not give you fine grained permission: Like, if you only want to allow a particular third-party on a specific site.
While DNS based blocking is fast but at the same time it is also difficult for an average user to surf the web anonymously using the same.