µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Because the changes may result in an undesirable effect. You may find, as I have, that too much "garbage" content is required to render enough "necessary" content on a site. In these cases, I refuse to make permanent changes and will usually avoid the site going forward because of its policy of forcing garbage content on the visitor in order to view it properly.

Not a good idea because of the reason I state above. One also has to be careful in trying to allow only exactly what's needed for proper viewing, otherwise they allow too much unnecessary 3rd-party content. I find I can view the majority of sites I visit allowing less than 50% of domains listed in uBlock's dashboard. There are some that require more than that, but not too many.

 

Actually the majority of sites should be viewable without allowing any 3rd party scripts/frames.

The so called lazy approach of mine is to locally noop all 3rd party scripts for a site. Without even bothering to go whitelisting specific domains. That is of course for a temporary allowance.

 

I agree and also like this approach. I wish that disabling/enabling uBlock on specific site would follow the same logic.

 

I don't know why you're asking the same question again which was already answered by gorhill himself.

 

I forgot about that people use script-blockers in different ways. My aim is to only block third party scripts, this will usually almost never break stuff. That's why I liked Ghostery so much. So this basically means that I use uBlock to block other annoying stuff. And besides, uBlock let's you make rules per site, so you don't have to block or allow stuff on a global level. So what I'm trying to say, when I block or allow stuff it needs to be permanent. It's very unhandy having to click on the "lock button" each and every time.

Yes, I know he answered it, but I'm disagreeing with this current approach.

 

Well, I find his reasons quite convincing:

1. prevent rule pollution (particularly for sites you might open just once in your life)
2. using dynamic filtering is often a matter of trial and error, hence it makes sense to only save rules that really work.

 

Well, I find my reasons also convincing. But it basically comes down to how you use script-blockers. If you keep having to allow stuff to make things work, then I can imagine that you don't always want to make permanent rules. But my aim is to block only the third party trackers, which will almost never break stuff. If needed, I will also block first party scripts per site. So my focus is on blocking, not on allowing.

 

From what I understand Rasheed is not using the default deny policy of blocking scripts. It is very difficult to understand sometimes when someone = he, chooses to use different terminology that just confuses the readers.

I think his policy is not of blocking 3rd party scripts at all except in exceptional cases. And those cases he wants not to be needing to press the save rule button = padlock. That kind of policy is very different to what almost all scriptblockers (blockers in general) are designed.

uBO can of course be used that way too, but the basic design is for default deny policy. And using mainly whitelisting.

EDIT:
(As a reply to post # 2059 below.) I think the talk was of what is called dynamic filtering in uBO. In such cases it is best to posts like yours mention your basic configuration of uBO. Which differs totally from what most other users have. To avoid confusion.

It is not polite to expect other readers have read your previous posts, where that setup I think has not been expressed either so clear.

I am not familiar with Ghostery. If it is based on blacklists, then it would work quite the same as uBO in basic installation mode using the so called static filtering. Static filters.
From your words it seems to have also some kind of "dynamic" blocking interface.

uBO is a very flexible script/frame controller and even more, though there is uMatrix that offers much more with the cost of being more difficult/impractical in many situations of casual surfing. uBO can be used for both blacklisting and whitelisting. The save button to make permanent rules as have been discussed is very much needed for the medium mode setting or in any default deny setting. Less so in your rare case. But i don't, can't, truly see even in it something to complain. Just one click as a habit.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't Ghostery a third party script blocker? And I'm not using default deny of ALL scripts, that would break too much. I have explained this several times now, I don't see how this is confusing. I mainly use tools like NoScript and uBlock to block annoyances. Some sites are loading slowly with certain first party scripts enabled, so that's why I block them.

 

I wish that too and also for blocking popups and remote fonts. But gorhill wants to keep things same for "non advanced" and "advanced users". So no save button for those features.

 

Absolutely not. I would like to understand how you came to believe so: you have a reliable source for this?

When you install Ghostery, the settings makes it clear it's a blacklist-based blocker, just like ABP, uBO (in default mode), Disconnect: it says in the "Blocking Options" section that there are a bit over 2000 filters. So not only is Ghostery a blacklist-based blocker (no default-deny), it is a close-ended blacklist-based blocker, in that you can't add more blocking rules, you have to rely strictly on those which Ghostery picked.

 

Blocking stuff is also a matter of trials and errors -- there is no guarantee that what you block won't cause page breakage, in which case using temporary rules is also a convenience. Once you confirm there is no page breakage, save your rules using the padlock.

 

@Rasheed187 When your hobby is making micro managed blocking rules, bite the bullet and learn how to use uBlock Origin. uBlock is the best combi of advertisement and script blocking. On the other with Chrome (or Firefox with Sandboxie) there is really little added security benefits in blocking scripts. When you want to stay away from malvertising Adguard with build in Google, Yandex and WOT blacklists is a better and easier to use choice.

 

I think it's a matter of definitions. To me a third party script-blocker blocks only certain scripts that are mostly used by advertising companies. So yes, that's exactly what Ghostery does. I assume you can do the same with uBlock, but it doesn't let you see which trackers are being blocked, so that's why I use the Ghostery + uBlock combo.

I think this is unhandy, other tools like NoScript and ScriptKeeper will save changes immediately, so it's a matter of habit and preference. If you see that the page breaks, with one click you can allow them again. BTW, to give some examples, I block first party scripts on imdb.com and dailymail.co.uk, which will break some functionality, but most of the site keeps working.

It isn't about learning how to use it, at this point. And you're correct, I'm not using it for security, I use it for speed and annoyance blocking.

 

BTW, does anyone know how to block the new "Log In" pop-up when you're not logged into FB?

https://www.facebook.com/ICanMakeYouASupermodel/

 

i already told you to uninstall ghostery as it is useless beside uBlock and its buggy also.

as raymond stated its a stupid blocker with a given list - ublock can filter by lists and by elements.
ghostery lists is nearly same as hosts file list given in ublock.

you discuss about (given) facts you still dont understand or not willing to understand.
you have been advised so many times to read the ublock FAQ but at least myself miss your questions about.
you still decide by your stomach instead listening to the people giving explanations to you.
Jarmo and summerheat did so many times.

for your latest problem - try to use the pipette right NOW
if people always tell you solutions you wont learn.

i am not sure if ublock is the right extension for you!

 

The logging is superb and let's you monitor a lot

 

as mentioned read the FAQ (ok, wiki)

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/The-logger

 

Guy's its father's day in the EU. have some mercy with each other.

 

I already understand why Gorhill has chosen this approach, so I don't know what you're talking about. This hasn't got anything to do with "learning how to use it", it's a simple discussion about if it makes sense to automatically save changes or not. You can look at it from different point of views. If you don't understand this, it's best to stay away from these kind of discussions.

I'm sure you know what I meant with my comment. Ghostery is designed to block ONLY third party trackers, so no wonder that it's very good at showing this info, while uBlock and NoScript will not clearly indicate if it's a tracker or not.

 

On this note of yours, maybe it's a good idea to use a different color to represent content that's been blocked by one of the 3rd-party filters, as opposed to that which has been blocked by Dynamic filters? The user could easily know if a domain is blocked by Static filtering or Dynamic filtering. Not sure if gorhill could add this or not. As it stands now, only a noop rule will indicate in yellowish color that Static filtering is enforced while overriding Dynamic filtering.

 

@Rasheed187

I'm pretty sure even Ghostery only guesses what they mean by "trackers", going by the look of their (very shallow) blocklist.
Going from this perspective, are you 100% sure you're NOT being tracked by, say imgur.com, when there's a single image from them on your favorite websites ?

 

there is nothing you need to discuss about - raymond has made his decision about at this time.
you have made your suggestion - either you now wait for an option that changes are saved automatically or you have to go with it.

the more you bother the less you will get satisfaction. pretty simple, aint it?

dont know noscript - but uBlock will indicate reason in its logger (which list)
its again up on you to investigate or to take it as given.

same thought again. ublock is descent and much more complex, not that simple and stupid as ghostery or similar.
if you feel not comfortable with ublock then uninstall.

its not that i think about that you are overstrained, but those are pointless discussions at any time.
raymond may change it for "you" but at this time i would not count on that too much as the majority has no problems with the current status of ublock.

 

Would be an interesting idea, because that's basically the only reason why I use Ghostery. It's probably uBlock which does all the blocking.

I'm not sure what you mean? Ghostery has simply made a list of trackers, similar to Disconnect and other anti-tracking lists that uBlock is capable of using?

The discussion was already over in case you didn't noticed, so I have no clue why you're making such a fuzz about it. And I'm not saying that Gorhill must change it, but I was trying to explain why it didn't make any sense to me.