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

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: An update on uBlock

#81

Post by ripdog »

hk__2 wrote: post #44
AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't ublock origin change its name to something else to avoid this confusion?

uBlock Origin shouldn’t change its name just because someone made a scammy website off its name. The issue is the website, not uBlock Origin.

That's not what happened. uBlock Origin was originally (heh) uBlock. Gorhill, the developer, got sick of endless hordes of people posting github issues about unblocked ads (an issue which should be directed at blocklist maintainers), so he gave the uBlock project away to some teenager.

It turned out that the kid didn't have the skills to continue the project. He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website. Gorhill soon returned to the project, but was unable to get the rights to it back, so forked it as uBlock Origin. IIRC this was in 2015 or so. Ever since, Origin has been the only adblocker worth using.

Re: An update on uBlock

#82

Post by ripdog »

gruez wrote: post #52
wolrah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. DNS-based blocking is basically using an oversize hammer to drive nails. It works in some cases, but eventually you're going to run in to either false positives or false negatives depending on how it's configured. It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker. If you use platforms that respe…

>It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker not even. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge... https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aitunes.apple.com+adbl...

Doesn't work in apps, and how much time do you spend in your mobile browser these days? I don't think most people use it much if at all.

Re: An update on uBlock

#83

Post by ripdog »

3ds wrote: post #4

Time for a new fork!

There's no need for a new fork. uBlock Origin is the good adblocker, and it is not related to this announcement. It's still as fantastic as ever, and has not changed hands.

Re: An update on uBlock

#84

Post by eric24234 »

Was a user of "Adblock plus". They partnered with ad agencies and started to whitelist ads. That defeted the whole purpose and also it became clear the for profit organizations can not fight against the ad agencies as they have to partner if they want to make profit.

Ublock origin is so much awesome.Its free software and also very easy to use and its actually much more than adblocker.

Re: An update on uBlock

#85

Post by apple4ever »

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.

I’ve tried using it, but its just not that great. The UI is pretty terrible and its really hard to unblock needed sites.

Re: An update on uBlock

#86

Post by shpx »

skybrian wrote: post #76
bhhaskin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Taboola is one of the companies that paid Adblock Plus millions of dollars to not block their ads[0]. Taboola is the billion dollar company shoveling the "mom's $5 wrinkle tip, doctors hate her" trash[1].

Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopeful" that those people will remove Taboola soon. There's a thread from 2015 asking them to remove it[3]. Convenient.

We both know most people don't spend time reading the options page of their browser extensions. If you download an ad blocker it should block ads. Having to check a check box to get the functionality you paid for is unexpected. Adblock is able to make millions of dollars because most don't know to check it. Most people just want to not see ads, a "selective" ad blocker happens to be the most famous because it was the first popular ad blocker that pivoted into a lucrative rent-seeking operation after becoming a household name. I've heard the euphemism "default opt-in".

According to the author of uBlock Origin it uses less resources[4].

Unless you work for Adblock or Adblock Plus or the companies that paid the bribe there is no reason to recommend it.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-tabo...

[1] https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...

[2] https://help.getadblock.com/support/solutions/articles/60000...

[3] https://adblockplus.org/forum/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&keyw...

[4] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#performance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Re: An update on uBlock

#87

Post by hk__2 »

ripdog wrote: post #81
hk__2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uBlock Origin shouldn’t change its name just because someone made a scammy website off its name. The issue is the website, not uBlock Origin.

That's not what happened. uBlock Origin was originally (heh) uBlock. Gorhill, the developer, got sick of endless hordes of people posting github issues about unblocked ads (an issue which should be directed at blocklist maintainers), so he gave the uBlock project away to some teenager. It turned out that the kid didn't have the skills to continue the project. He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation…

> He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website.

No, he _created_ the website. That’s why I wrote “scammy website”. The domain name was registrated on April 18, 2015 [1]. The homepage has since changed, but at that time, it was begging for donations [2]. It had a donorbox campain, since taken down, that asked for ridiculous amounts such as "$25: Covers hosting the uBlock website for one week".

[1]: http://www.whois-raynette.fr/whois/ublock.org

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002655/https://www.ubloc...

[3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002729/https://donorbox....

Re: An update on uBlock

#88

Post by skybrian »

shpx wrote: post #86
skybrian wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Taboola is one of the companies that paid Adblock Plus millions of dollars to not block their ads[0]. Taboola is the billion dollar company shoveling the "mom's $5 wrinkle tip, doctors hate her" trash[1]. Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopef…

Thanks but a minor correction:

re: "Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"

That link goes to Adblock's page, not Adblock Plus.

Their explanation of why they can't block it ("whitelists always override blacklists") is purely technical and is of course something that could be changed in the code - but maybe their contacts with advertisers say otherwise?

I don't see anything particularly wrong with Adblock or Adblock Plus making millions of dollars, but customers who aren't satisfied with this should of course switch to something else.

Re: An update on uBlock

#89

Post by shpx »

skybrian wrote: post #88
shpx wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taboola is one of the companies that paid Adblock Plus millions of dollars to not block their ads[0]. Taboola is the billion dollar company shoveling the "mom's $5 wrinkle tip, doctors hate her" trash[1]. Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopef…

Thanks but a minor correction: re: "Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads" That link goes to Adblock's page, not Adblock Plus. Their explanation of why they can't block it ("whitelists always override blacklists") is purely technical and is of course something that could be changed in the code - but maybe their contacts with advertisers say otherwise? I don't see anything particularly wro…

Adblock Plus is not Adblock's independently acting "friendly rival". Adblock was sold to a "mystery buyer" in 2015[0]. The first thing that buyer did was turn on "acceptable ads". Come on. It's the same people.

I call "Adblock" "Adblock Plus" to avoid ambiguity with ad blockers in general.

I'm not making value judgments, I'm explaining why saying Adblock and Adblock Plus "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 held hostage to such extensions" is completely accurate and not "misleading". The site you linked that explains their policy is corporate propaganda.

There's no point in even acknowledging their "technical explanation". It's a There are no "satisfied customers" of Adblock Plus. There are only people who heard about Adblock/Adblock Plus in the news or mentioned somewhere else or because it's the first google search result (the first mention of uBlock Origin for "block ads" is on page 11 and it's an unrelated reddit thread in the uBlock Origin subreddit) and don't know about these practices. If you showed them a screenshot of Taboola ads they would not think those are acceptable. That's is why everyone here recommends uBlock Origin.

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off...

Post reply on HN