Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is actually very easy to solve. When someone wants to run an ad on your ad network. The vetting process should be more than "how much money you got?" If not for their own sakes anyway. Ad block needs to continue to run rampant over this "internet economy" because advertisers need to come to terms with the fact that now a days users get to choose what they see and how they see it. Maybe one day it will occur to someon…
It's not easy, because there isn't really much of a vetting process on most ad networks; everything possible is automated. You may not mind seeing that industry die, but until you start paying for visiting websites, you'll have to amend that to say "I don't mind seeing the internet die".
Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
381–390 of 419 posts
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#382People are using µBlock now for precisely this reason. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
Together with umatrix ( https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/ ) are the best chrome extensions Since I went back to firefox those are the only extensions I really miss, there is policeman ( https://github.com/futpib/policeman/ ) but it's not as good as them yet To whoever develop extensions, please don't focus only on chrome, firefox during the last months has become must better that it was before, if developers only c…
I've tried a couple of times to work with uBlock and uMatrix. I ended up going back to ABP each time. The 'block an ad on this page' feature is one of its best and most useful. That, and it doesn't go too far in blocking useful item on-page.
As I said in a similar thread on Reddit a few weeks ago, uBlock has some way to go before it can be considered user-friendly (at least, for the user who isn't familiar with the intricacies of how browsers work). I would love to be able to use it, though. ABP is an enormous resource hog on my system, but more to the point, pages render so slowly when it's switched on.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#383I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.
I should note that I have no qualms about blocking ads I would never click anyway. I don't harbor ridiculous puritanical notions that I must suffer in exchange for "free" content. Nor do I abide by the notion that anyone else has the right to sell my attention merely because they make content. Monetization should be cooperative, not coercive (and I also support content creators directly quite often).
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although we like Disconnect, Adblock Plus, Ghostery and similar products (in fact Privacy Badger is based on the ABP code!) Privacy Badger most likely has the same issue that this article is talking about.
The problem is not Adblock Plus engine, it's ABP injecting 4 MB CSS to every single page, while Privacy Badger doesn't, so it is not a problem.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually this very rarely happens. I a DNS server on my router which has zone that routes all ad hosting & other wanted stuff to an IP which is then rejected by the firewall. I also have a transparent proxy rewriting all web pages removing IFRAMEs - this does ocassionally break things, but it's extremely rare to find a site that actually has a use for them other than serving ads.
Both the DNS and the transparent proxy sound like an interesting way to improve the web at home (I'm thinking specifically of an iPhone on my WiFi) -- do you have more information about how you did these things?
include "/etc/bind/adblock.conf";
That file is generated by a script that uses a hosts file maintained on http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
the script is something like: #!/bin/bash
cat /etc/bind/adblock.conf | xz -z - > /etc/bind/adblock.conf-$(date "+%Y%m%d-%H%M%S").xz
echo "" > /etc/bind/adblock.conf
curl -o - http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ | sed -rn 's:^127\.0\.0\.1 ([^ #\t]+).*$:\1:p' > /tmp/addrs.txt
cat /tmp/addrs.txt | while read line; do
! egrep -i $line /etc/bind/whitelist.txt >/dev/null \
&& echo 'zone "'${line}'" IN { type master;notify no; file "/etc/bind/pri/adblock.zone";};' >> /etc/bind/adblock.conf
done
which can be called from cron or similar (if you do you need to reload/SIGHUP bind to reload its condiguration)
you can whitelist stuff by adding a FQDN to /etc/bind/whitelist.txtThe file /etc/bind/pri/adblock.zone contains something like:
@ 1 IN SOA localhost. root.localhost. (1000 7200 120 1209600 3600)
@ 259200 IN NS localhost.
* 259200 IN A X.X.X.X
@ 2 IN A X.X.X.X
where X.X.X.X is an IP on different (but private and not internet routable) subnet, and iptables rules
something like: iptables -N DNSBLACKHOLE
iptables -A DNSBLACKHOLE -j LOG --log-prefix "DNSBLACKHOLE ::"
iptables -A DNSBLACKHOLE -j REJECT
iptables -A OUTPUT -p all -d X.X.X.X -j DNSBLACKHOLE
iptables -A FORWARD -p all -d X.X.X.X -j DNSBLACKHOLE
Transparent proxying is accomplished by iptables rules redirecting port 80 and 443 through SQUID which essentially performs
a MITM, you can find out how to do this here:http://blog.davidvassallo.me/2011/03/22/squid-transparent-ss...
Edit: it's also worth mentioning I transparently redirect all DNS traffic the router sees to my own bind instance, so untrusted devices are unable to use an alternative dns server.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find ublock breaks many more websites than ABP. I usually wouldn't notice a broken website with ABP, but with ublock I see something wrong at least once a week.
iirc, ublock also blocks api.google.com (i guess it's the analytics javascript files?), which incidentally, also breaks a lot of sites that uses the google common javascript library CDN (which servers stuff like jquery etc). I whitelisted it and it seems to unbreak some stuff.
There is no filter which matches "api.google.com", so this can't be blocked, unless you have a custom filter which does that.
> also breaks a lot of sites that uses the google common javascript library CDN
uBlock uses third-party filter lists such as EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, etc. It won't block more than what is spelled out in these lists. Un-select whatever filter lists which you think should not be selected.
As I have said countless times now, uBlock will block as much as ABP blocks when using same filter lists.
As always, if you think something is blocked which should not be (for example if ABP with the same lists has a different behavior), I need a URL, a test case in order to be able to infirm/confirm that the problem is with uBlock and not with the filter lists. On that ground, uBlock has been quite stable for a while now, I don't remember the last time something was blocked which should not have been blocked (or vice versa) as per filter lists.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
"hover over it to find out what it does" does not constitute good UX unless you're talking about a toolbar with a multitude of icons which cannot all (by sheer numbers) be "intuitive".
I'm not claiming it's the best UX, and I have no particular affinity to this program, but it's really not hard to tell what it does, especially for the demographic here.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sites are you encountering those ads on? You could blacklist them, rather than universally denying revenue.
This is what I've never understood about the people claiming that "they have no choice" or that they feel morally justified in denying revenue to authors and other content creators. I don't use ABP, but it's really not that much effort to have to see bad ads on each "bad" domain _once_, and then blacklist and not have to deal with that entire domain and their bad ads ever again. I do something quite similar with a JS…
I don't want to download a trojan from a malicious ad-server. Not even once.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#389I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.
I would be ok with some (not-too-intrusive) ads to make the internet go around. But every single website now links to 30 trackers that try to track and profile your every move on the internet, with no accountability anywhere. In addition to the NSA, GCHQ, SVR RF, Mossad and other n-letter agencies, there are some 30 corporations that know everything about what and where you browse, keep that data not-very-secure, sel…
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#390> In Nethercote’s testing, he found that TechCrunch used around 194MB of RAM without ABP enabled 194MB for a single webpage that should mainly be text communicating a message. Does anyone else than me find this crazy?