µBlock for Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#171

Post by aerique » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

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.

I used to run Privoxy for years and then came the time of AdBlock, NoScript, etc. Perhaps it is indeed time to look back again.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#172

Post by gorhill » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

logn wrote: post #29

aerique wrote: post #26

It isn't quite clear to me what add-ons this can replace. Obviously AdBlock, but perhaps also Ghostery and No-Script?

It's a replacement for AdBlock. JavaScript is not blocked unless it's part of an ad. The Easy Privacy list is part of uBlock by default, so there's some effective overlap with Ghostery but they're still different.

You can control javascript execution when enabling "advanced user" mode: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu...

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#173

Post by webwanderings » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

Please get us uBlock for Chrome on Android and iOS.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#174

Post by Kliment » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:28 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #145

fpgaminer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that the ads would be served from the original host. Combined with encrypted URIs and the ad resources become indistinguishable from content resources. Thus thwarting blocking. As others have pointed out, yes this evil trick is incompatible with existing ad networks (which use their own domains). But it wasn't my intention to put forward a viable idea. Just an interesting one (namely, ciphering URIs to pr…

How would the ad network verify metrics under such a regime?

That's their problem. If they have to spy on me to "verify metrics" they can go fuck themselves.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#175

Post by sdfjkl » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:30 PM UTC

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

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.

I've used Privoxy & friends (Glitterblocker on OS X) since the days of junkbusters.com, but with SSL on the rise this no longer works very well for me.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#176

Post by Kliment » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

hurin wrote: post #158

beagle3 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Own itch-scratching I guess.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#177

Post by chdir » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

Can someone familiar with the code explain what's the difference between this & adblock/disconnect etc. Why is this lighter? (a little technical algorithm difference would be good to know)

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#178

Post by justignore » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:57 PM UTC

danielsamuels wrote: post #108

I tried this out for a couple of weeks after the "Adblock makes things slower" article came out, and I found it was blocking more stuff - but not necessarily the right stuff. I was finding that sites were breaking, stuff was disappearing and it was because of uBlock. I think I was trying to log into Medium and the Twitter and Facebook had been hidden, literally breaking the functionality of the site. That's not what…

Agreed - to quote the French Revolution, "an overabundance of zeal."

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#179

Post by innguest » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

davidovitch wrote: post #78

Beltiras wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that journalism is a public good. Having the government fund it sends shivers through my spine. Recently where I live the public broadcasting corp. was threatened with cutbacks due to a perceived slant in coverage. The threats were then carried out after the politician in question was given chairmanship of the parliamentary committee on the budget. That to me is so troublesome I don't consider it viable.

I guess this discussion is way off-topic at this point :-) But I find it interesting enough to keep it going. The real challenge is obviously to have this government funded publication company stay free of direct government interference. The article mentions a sort of tax that is levied before the wage is paid out, and should be delivered directly to the join publication house. Much in the same way as some European s…

The government already funds mainstream media, it's called the FCC, which also means the state has a monopoly on the media it regulates.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#180

Post by hullo » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 5:00 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…

Ad servers keep track of the number of times the graphic (or other asset) for a particular campaign was served. Lots of other "pixels" also get bundled into the calls depending on what kinds of ad tech the advertiser, publisher, or middlemen are running.

How many people (living, breathing, checkbook-possessing people) actually see an ad is an entirely different question from how many it is served to, and there is (of course) a whole 'nother area of ad tech companies working in that space.