Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

µBlock for Firefox

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 273 posts

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#241

Post by gorhill »

Well while this is being seen by many, I just want to take the opportunity to reiterate what is said in the README of the project:

> Without the preset lists of filters, this extension is nothing. So if ever you really do want to contribute something, think about the people working hard to maintain the filter lists you are using, which were made available to use by all for free.

Specifically, EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy Social, Malware domains, and a many more are the basis of many other blockers: Adblock Plus, AdBlock, AdGuard, BlueHell, and many others I am sure.

It seems such a tedious amount of work to maintain these lists, this needs to be acknowledged -- none of the above blockers would do very well without these lists.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#242

Post by Torgo »

driverdan wrote: post #207
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.

What about when you're doing development work on a site that uses content you'd normally block (Analytics, ads, etc)? When I spend a day working I don't want to have to toggle Privoxy every time I want to search for something.

You really probably want to use a separate browser profile with no plugins installed. It really sucks when you're trying to debug a problem and it turns out it's some combination of extensions you have installed causing the problem.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#244

Post by G2P »

hbbio wrote: post #53
whizzkid wrote: post #5

I have been using µBlock for 3 weeks now.(previously adblock plus). There is one irritating thing it has that almost makes me go back to adblock again. It is often blocking the false positives. So if developer has named one of their assets file with social media names like "twitter/facebook/etc", it blocks the file right away. Since it does not have custom configuration options for each site, you can either disable µ…

Have to downvote. You have powerful editing rules, so you could certainly tune all rules and lists to your liking: " List of your dynamic filtering rules. Rule syntax: source destination type action. " followed by a GitHub wiki link to the doc.

It's possible in theory. I have customized my ABP rules a ton, switching off rules I didn't want (impossible in uBlock), adding targeted rules for anything from annoying animated avatars to slow domains or bloated mastheads you can't scroll past (shit's almost as bad as modal pop-ups), and I've been unable to do any of it in uBlock because it's way, way too much hassle.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#245

Post by lars_francke »

exadeci wrote: post #205
lars_francke wrote: post #200

I've never had an (Ad) blocker as I'm relatively happy with most sites but there are some that are not behaving well. When I last looked (at least two years ago) there wasn't a single blocker that supports a blacklist-only mode. Meaning: Allow everything unless I block a certain domain. Does anyone have an idea if something like this exists now?

Well if you disable all the filters of Ublock and add your block list to the "My filters" tab that should do what you want :)

Thanks but that's not what I'm looking for.

I don't want to maintain any block lists myself. I want to use all the 3rd-party Filters available but I only want them to be active on certain spammy websites. As far as I can tell ublock doesn't let me do that either.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#246

Post by lars_francke »

Tobu wrote: post #212
lars_francke wrote: post #200

I've never had an (Ad) blocker as I'm relatively happy with most sites but there are some that are not behaving well. When I last looked (at least two years ago) there wasn't a single blocker that supports a blacklist-only mode. Meaning: Allow everything unless I block a certain domain. Does anyone have an idea if something like this exists now?

Just don't enable any filter lists. A while back you had to add them manually; now I think it's a matter of unchecking them in the first-run dialog. ABP also makes it easy to create very specific rules: only block a particular resource when accessed from the current domain.

Thanks but that's not what I'm looking for. I want them all enabled! But I only want to enable the addon for certain blacklisted sites.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#247

Post by arthurfm »

exadeci wrote: post #214
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.

Did you manage to make it work with skype ? (it seems that skype doesn't use the proxy parameters for ads)

To disable the banner ad you could add https://apps.skype.com/ to your restricted sites list.[1]

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/27dihm/lpt_you_...

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#248

Post by ps4fanboy »

chii wrote: post #38
ps4fanboy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EULA's dont usually hold up in court because contracts normally require consideration, most of the time you cant implicitly enter into a contract.

the consideration is the content of the website. EULA haven't been tested in court, sure, but i think against the average person, they won't be able to do battle against a large corporation should they decide to enforce it.

What is the consideration of the user?

Contract Consideration - Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#249

Post by INTPenis »

G2P wrote: post #209

I've been using this port instead of Adblock Plus for a few weeks. I like the low overhead, but usability is bad. - It's hard to list what filters are applied (though not impossible, if you like pain: hunt for the right icon using hovertext, find an empty page, hunt for icons again this time without hovertext; one icon will trigger something that will fill up a log, but it stalls a few seconds first and there's no pr…

I hear what you're saying but to me the advantage of ABP has been never having to see its preferences. I've used it for many years and I can't remember ever going into the preferences for any reason.

I've said this before but being a habitual user of noscript I feel that all I really need from an adblocker is to skip those annoying youtube commercials. Everything else noscript handles pretty well. So I'll have to see if uBlock can do that for me.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#250

Post by scholia »

01Michael10 wrote: post #224
ultramancool wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disconnect is an open alternative to Ghostery as Ghostery has some sketchy sponsors.

Unfortunately, Disconnect (new version is $5/month for any protection) is not as good as Ghostery and the sketchy part of it is Ghostrank which is easily disabled. Your answer was unrelated to my question... mdellabitta stated he was running Disconnect with ABP and Ghostery all together which is redundant and I was asking why he would be doing that.

Ghostrank is easily disabled, but it's off by default so you don't need to....
Post reply on HN