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

An update on uBlock

ublock.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: An update on uBlock

#71

Post by bpierre »

nasredin wrote: post #67
squarefoot wrote: post #53

I think this Soylent News article summarizes the situation pretty well. https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/17/028245 tl;dr: the real one is Ublock Origin, get it here: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock From the same author I would also suggest uMatrix, sort of a NoScript on steroids which allows a much finer filtering literally ripping pages of a great deal of their junk more selectively, but be aware that…

Nope. Ublock & umatrix still don't block autoplaying videos. You should still use NoScript. IMHO if you push small cosmetic changes in the UI in every update, like Gorhill does, there's a problem. He has a poor attitide IMHO.

Firefox does block auto playing videos and asks the user to explicitly allow it, in the same way access to the webcam / mic / location / notifications is managed.

https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-users-finally-get-option-t...

Re: An update on uBlock

#72

Post by tpush »

newscracker wrote: post #41

Anyone who wants a low overhead and trusted ad blocker should use uBlock Origin. The developer even refuses to take any donations (for some good reasons). For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help. Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be h…

If only gorhill made uBlock Origin for Safari. Safari's got a lot of content blockers but none of them seem to block as much (and well) as uBlock Origin did in Chrome, sadly.

Re: An update on uBlock

#73

Post by mattbit »

It seems like they are just trying to steal the name of uBlock. AdBlock CEO says they “do love the name” [0] and are "investing heavily" into the product, but the commits in the repo [1] are just cosmetic changes and rebranding. Oddly enough, the only active committer is anonymous.

I wonder if this will cause legal troubles to the true uBlock Origin.

[0]: https://twitter.com/judemaier/status/1020034358558670848 [1]: https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/commits/master

Re: An update on uBlock

#74

Post by kertis »

newscracker wrote: post #41

Anyone who wants a low overhead and trusted ad blocker should use uBlock Origin. The developer even refuses to take any donations (for some good reasons). For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help. Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be h…

But why donation is bad? Wikipedia also asks for donation but it doesn't mean that companies/people influence on it in a bad way.

Re: An update on uBlock

#76

Post by skybrian »

bhhaskin wrote: post #65
skybrian wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Adblock Plus ad policy seems to be somewhat different: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria I mean, sure, uBlock origin is most often recommended around here. But let's not be misleading about products we don't like.

I don't think that description is misleading at all. Adblock Plus does not block all ads and they control which ads are displayed and which aren't. If anything the name Adblock is miss leading.

Yes, it's true that they don't block all ads by default; apparently this is a setting.

And in selective mode, they control the policy for which ads get displayed, which would be the whole point of installing a selective ad blocker. It's not inherently wrong to do that; if you more or less agree with their policy, maybe that's the setting you want?

Re: An update on uBlock

#77

Post by makecheck »

nasredin wrote: post #67
squarefoot wrote: post #53

I think this Soylent News article summarizes the situation pretty well. https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/17/028245 tl;dr: the real one is Ublock Origin, get it here: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock From the same author I would also suggest uMatrix, sort of a NoScript on steroids which allows a much finer filtering literally ripping pages of a great deal of their junk more selectively, but be aware that…

Nope. Ublock & umatrix still don't block autoplaying videos. You should still use NoScript. IMHO if you push small cosmetic changes in the UI in every update, like Gorhill does, there's a problem. He has a poor attitide IMHO.

So you’re saying that someone investing tons of free time in software that greatly benefits countless people, and then gives it away for free, has problems because of a minor update you don’t like and have absolutely zero right to complain about?

Re: An update on uBlock

#78

Post by jeffvogelsang »

tpush wrote: post #72
newscracker wrote: post #41

Anyone who wants a low overhead and trusted ad blocker should use uBlock Origin. The developer even refuses to take any donations (for some good reasons). For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help. Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be h…

If only gorhill made uBlock Origin for Safari. Safari's got a lot of content blockers but none of them seem to block as much (and well) as uBlock Origin did in Chrome, sadly.

Have a look at: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari. Available for download in the Safari extensions gallery.

Re: An update on uBlock

#79

Post by heavymark »

jeffvogelsang wrote: post #78
tpush wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only gorhill made uBlock Origin for Safari. Safari's got a lot of content blockers but none of them seem to block as much (and well) as uBlock Origin did in Chrome, sadly.

Have a look at: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari . Available for download in the Safari extensions gallery.

When installed, under settings for that plugin Safari shows a warning saying, "This extension will slow down your web browsing." Other content blockers such as 1Blocker do not show that warning by Apple.

Re: An update on uBlock

#80

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #68
wolrah wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you defang Windows 10 properly, it doesn't need to reach Microsoft servers. Something has to get the updates in the first place, even with the local P2P sharing. If you're one of those "I never update my Windows install" people at this point you're beyond hope..

Yes, but the server that gets and shares those updates need contain no PII. I do not trust Microsoft. And so, when I need to use Windows 10, I do it in a very careful way. I start with an anonymously obtained installer. I install and update in a VM, with Internet connectivity through a nested VPN chain. Then I clone the VM, and work in the clone, with *.microsoft.com blocked. When necessary, I update another fresh cl…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN