µBlock for Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#151

Post by gorhill » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #144

gorhill wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, even with EasyPrivacy and "Fanboy's Social Blocking", you will find that blockers (ABP, AdBlock, uBlock, etc) do not prevent 100% connecting to Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot.[1] This is one of the reasons I see dynamic filtering as a key feature: users have the last word, not the filter lists.[2] For example, I currently block all Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, and any of similarly ubiquitous domains by d…

> do not prevent 100% connecting to Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot // Sounds like more of a job for a filtering proxy or hosts file.

uBlock will do it for you while keeping the point-and-click ability to un-block on a per-site basis. For example, a site which breaks if it can't connect to Facebook.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzB6tESynM

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#152

Post by bsilvereagle » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #144

gorhill wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, even with EasyPrivacy and "Fanboy's Social Blocking", you will find that blockers (ABP, AdBlock, uBlock, etc) do not prevent 100% connecting to Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot.[1] This is one of the reasons I see dynamic filtering as a key feature: users have the last word, not the filter lists.[2] For example, I currently block all Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, and any of similarly ubiquitous domains by d…

> do not prevent 100% connecting to Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot // Sounds like more of a job for a filtering proxy or hosts file.

Browser add-ons allow non-admin users to filter these requests. Installing a proxy or editing the hosts file requires admin privileges.

uMatrix also allows you to quickly and easily see which sites are trying to load what resources, which you lose with a hosts file setup.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#153

Post by tim333 » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:27 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #140

Beltiras wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no law. I work at a newspaper. We are digitally aware and head towards a digital distribution. That means infrastructural changes and that costs money. Those advertisers pay the bills. They provide the means for us to reach you. Subscription models are (currently) not enough. I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything but this will be a an interesting field to watch in the coming years. How will journalism…

So this is a slight digress, but while we're on the subject, how does an advertiser know that an ad has been successfully served or blocked? I've never had that part fully explained to me. If they're just basing it on number of adds clicks, I rather doubt whether I use an ad blocker or not makes much difference, because I can more or less guarantee that in the ~18 years I have actively surfed the web, the number of a…

Not my expertise but to show an ad there is usually a request to the server to send the graphics or similar so I guess they could track if that happens. Not sure if they do in practice. Occasionally a website notices I have an adblocker and moans at me or warns that it may mess up the functionality.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#154

Post by fooqux » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

topdownjimmy wrote: post #85

perlgeek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all websites declared all privacy violations up-front, that might be a viable solution.

Turn off cookies and JavaScript.

>Turn off cookies and JavaScript.

In your first comment, you seemed to be against altering the presentation of websites; you offer a binary choice: go to the site, or do not, based solely on the content. Seemingly advocating that sites should be accepted or rejected whole-cloth with no modification. Yet here, you seem to be just fine with blocking Javascript and cookies, despite the fact that both these technologies are often used as part of ad services to generate revenue.

So which is it?

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#155

Post by fooqux » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:36 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #123

Rovanion wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the deactivation of Google Analytics impact the user negatively?

Not directly, but it will affect the webmasters of non-commercial non-advertising websites if such block-lists become a default. If you've ever implemented GA, you know that Google has put a lot of effort into making their implementation extremely efficient and asynchronous. I personally think they should be rewarded for being considerate towards users' time and resources.

I see no reason to reward a mugger just because they're efficiently taking the money out of my wallet. Yes, they might get me on my way minutes faster than the less-professional muggers out there, but I still don't like the process or end result.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#156

Post by mdellabitta » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead.

I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page.

Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#157

Post by HeXetic » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

It would be nice if the link was to the top of the page, or the start of the Readme, instead of to #installation. A bit presumptuous there.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#158

Post by hurin » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #150

hurin wrote: post #147

I'm curious as to what drives the creation of this multitude of add-blocking projects? What is their income model and what supports their development?

The obnoxious and spying nature of ads.

... I'm not asking about why you'd want one. - I'm asking about why you'd make a new one and who would pay for your work on a new one when others already exist?

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#159

Post by tim333 » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

Beltiras wrote: post #100

colechristensen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like if you're interested in making money online with advertising with "journalism" there's strong pressure to turn yourself into BuzzFeed.... that is, low effort, cheap tricks, information pornography.

No, I am genuinely interested in how to fund real journalism. How do we go about getting money for people to expose the aggregation of wealth and power against the interests of the plebeians. (note: plebeians is used here not as a derogatory)

I'm not sure most of the people exposing the aggregation of wealth and power against the interests of the plebeians are doing it for the money and would probably do it even if unpaid. Though for what it's worth the main guy I read doing that, Krugman, get's paid pretty well by the NYT which makes money from subscriptions which works because some people are willing to pay.

For anyone unfamiliar with Krugman here's an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-...

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#160

Post by debacle » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

topdownjimmy wrote: post #85

perlgeek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all websites declared all privacy violations up-front, that might be a viable solution.

Turn off cookies and JavaScript.

No, silly, they want all of the content and functionality that they developers worked so hard for, they just don't want the developers to be compensated for it.