Thanks for the article Ron. Interesting! It's a sad state of affairs. I understand the need to generate revenue (nothing is or can be truly free) but until ads are less invasive and safe from exploits, I don't see much of a choice for anyone wanting to have some privacy and computer safety but to continue blocking ads as best they can.
Yes, let's hope that these companies will succeed. I hope they are not dumb enough to think that people will put up with annoying ads. For me it's very simple, if a site becomes slow to load and annoying to read, I just stop using the site.
Rupert Murdoch is on top of this. http://nypost.com/content-control.html But you can breath a sigh of relief cuz this tactic has not yet been implemented on The National Enquirer,also part of the Murdoch Empire. So if you want to read what, is in effect, a printed version of Fox News your in trouble, but if you'd prefer to read salacious gossip about Hollywood and political celebrities your still OK with an ad-blocker.
These anti-adblocker companies are advised to tread lightly or risk violating 18 U.S.C. § 1030 : US Code - Section 1030: Fraud and related activity in connection with computers. Under Section a)(5) (A) of The Act it is a crime to "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;" [NB: virtually any computer connected to the internet is a "protected computer."] Under The Act "the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;" I guess if the ad is inherently safe and thus can not be detected by the ad blocker its ok. But if code is first sent to deteremine if the initially intended ad is blockable then The Act could come into play since code was transmitted that impaired the integrity or availability of a program. Best to focus on preventing ads containing malicious/data mining scripts from being included in an ad network. Ad Blockers don't kill revenue, malicious ads that force the visitor to use an ad blocker to protect themselves do.
Simple using ScriptBlocker for Chrome to block third party (allow same domain). Not for security, but because blocking third party effectively blocks most advertisements and trackers. When a site does not function properly I simply whitelist it. When it has anti-adblock scripts running I simply put it on the blacklist. This prevents same domain (first party) scrypts to run, including the ad-block detection script
It can sometimes help to Ad-Block: http://www.aranzulla.it/come-rimuovere-foto-da-facebook-26344.html you must manually change the filter ___________________________________ Ublock Origin = Script inline
You need to check the website the next day. If there is a malfunction best to use Script Inline function:
uBlock is ------- for some fun to play with, for others (like me) way to much effort, but every man to his own preference. EDIT ----- text removed
Interesting, I use Ghostery and the blocked webpage is only this link, all the articles and webpages open just fine.
With uBlock you can tweak it how deep you want to go with it. That doesn't mean, its can't be used with minute effort. It just provides more granularity! I agree it is up-to every ones preference!! (And u doesn't stand for micro-management, and i dont think the name says it ) For example, like script blocker for chrome, this particular detection script (inline actually), can be blocked with a single click in uBlock too However, doing so, will break web-site functionality in both Script-blocker and uBlock. And uBlock can circumvent it (At-least in Firefox easily) by blocking only the offending inline script, not just blanket blocking all inline scripts Code: nypost.com##script:contains(_sp) Edit: It looks like, this anti-adblock comes into play only, iff the user is blocking scripts from wp.com . So, i don't think any users with default blocking in uBlock Origin would ever encounter this anti-adblock thing! Might explain why ghostery has no problem. Its not blocking wp.com
I use Anti Adblocker Killer (Reek) along with Ublock Origin and it blocks those paywalls and anti adblockers. If it doesnt work in a specify site, I just dont bother and dont visit it anymore. For me it is simple, I wont disable Ublock, I prefer to stop using some sites.
I just stop using sites that take all day to load even with an adblocker. If a site won't let me use it because I have an adblocker, I just don't use the site. I understand the need for advertising, but until the intrusive 'in yer face' adverts that block entire pages cease they will lose me. Which kind of defeats their own object in the first place.
hi this is for chrome , under firefox i haven't the left panel , i can click on "vai al registro delle richieste" but i don't get the left panel why? i use the last version of firefox and ublock origin 1.7.0 thanks
uBlock was originally μBlock Micro- (symbol μ) is a unit prefix in the metric system denoting a factor of 10−6 (one millionth). Confirmed in 1960, the prefix comes from the Greek μικρός (mikrós), meaning "small". The symbol for the prefix comes from the Greek letter μ (mu).
It's misleading. The default settings, which you get at first install, there is nothing to micro-manage. The micro-management is entirely opt-in.
You are the author, so I take your word for it and won't dispute your answer: uBlock was originally μBlock, the μ did not stand for mikros?
Yes, I think the reason for this name is that uBlock is very light, consuming few resources than other ad blockers. uMatrix is the extension that needs micro management.
Well let's ask the one who knows: Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaymmmmmmmmooooond Hillllllll AKA @gorhill Micro- (symbol μ) is a unit prefix in the metric system denoting a factor of 10−6 (one millionth). Confirmed in 1960, the prefix comes from the Greek μικρός (mikrós), meaning "small". The symbol for the prefix comes from the Greek letter μ (mu).