µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Hey Krusty -- thanks for the fast response. Yes, I always have "block 3rd party cookies" turned on. I cannot figure how & where I picked up this tracking cookie. It's been ages since I visited any sites except Amazon, Ebay, & 4 well-known forums (Wilders, photography, ukulele, guitar).

By the way, do a google on mathtag dot com -- it's rather notoriously well-known.

 

That takes back uBO's function to fight against AAB and some nasty ads, which had been temporaray disabled in your version. But confirming the setting didn't make a change, I can't help you. Sorry for troubling you even after you've already solved your problem.

You can block all 3rd-party requests to mathtag.com using a dynamic pane of uBO. If you wanna block only cookies, use browser's own cookie manager to blacklist them.

 

BTW tho blocking 3rd-party cookies is recommended, users should be aware that this breaks some embedded videos (an example, but many more), music players (e.g. embed.music.apple.com), apps (e.g. glitch.com; only when embedded), and also some payment systems (e.g. past MS Office Business purchase). This makes finding the culprit of breakage a bit complicated when you use an ad-blocker. You can whitelist those cookies if you use Firefox or Chrome, but not Brave. Someone already reported the issue in Brave Community but haven't got any answer so far.

 

By "dynamic pane" I *assume* you mean I should block mathtag.com on UBO's "MyRules" tab? If so, I just now did it. Shazam!

 

uBo can NOT block cookies, you need uMatrix (read-out prohibited). or total block with firefox.

 

I have another weird problem, now nasdaq.com loads very slowly, when uBlock is enabled. I've tested it on Vivaldi, Edge and Firefox. Perhaps you guys can check it out? It doesn't seem to happen when ABP is enabled.

 

Just loaded here from Dubai, it wasn't as slow as you described but it did take 3 seconds before the page started to load.

 

Right.

You should have said uBO can not specifically block cookies. Maybe this is because browsers already can do. If I understand him correctly, @gorhill doesn't like feature creep.

 

I find I have to disable the Firefox native tracking protection on most sites that draw charts and graphs, including nasdaq.com and etf.com. Other than that. I haven't noticed any problems when using uBO.

 

Indeed! If a domain is blocked in Dynamic Filtering, its cookies are blocked as well.

 

there is nothing wrong with my statement: uBo can not block cookies.
but it can block the mechanisms or pages to set some.

 

The second update to #4058: general-purpose English sites whitelist for medium mode. Glad to see some ppl have downloaded it, especially after seeing there is a need. Please freely use, modify, redistribute etc. it. It may be final update as I'm going inactive here again.

[EDIT] added cdn.embed.ly

 

Any particular reason?

 

Thanks for providing those rules. However, I'm a bit surprised that it contains rules like

Code:

* connect.facebook.net * noop
* graph.facebook.com * noop
* www.facebook.com * noop
* fbcdn.net * noop

In order to reliably prevent Facebook tracking all over the net I strongly suggest to use blocking rules instead:

Code:

* facebook.com * block
* facebook.net * block
* fbcdn.net * block

If you're a Facebook user those global rules should be supplemented by local rules like:

Code:

www.facebook.com facebook.com * noop
www.facebook.com facebook.net * noop

or whatever to make it work.

I would apply this logic to other global rules in your list as well.

 

See #4058, the list is not for ppl like you and me. The whole purpose of it is to lower the barrier for average ppl to use medium mode. If your rules were included, all FB share & FB videos won't work, which must be problem for many ppl.

My vacation has ended.

 

OK, so you guys are also getting to see the slowdown. Seriously, it's so stupid, some idiot with nothing to do just had to ruin the Nasdaq site. Luckily the old one is still up, but it's not fully functional.

https://old.nasdaq.com/earnings/earnings-calendar.aspx?date=2019-Oct-09

 

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/10/12/the-end-of-ublock-origin-for-google-chrome/

 

Yes, Google is dependent on advertising money so I was expecting this to happen sooner or later.
Luckily most people I know are not attached to specific browser so moving them to Firefox won't be hard.

 

We still don't know why Chrome rejected uBlock. They claim it's because of some added and obscure functionality. Which I personally don't believe.

 

I don't believe them either. They will probably try removing it from their store and see how users will react. If they won't like it they can still re-approve extension, saying that there was a "glitch" in their vetting system...

 

Neither do I. @gorhill pointed out that v. 1.22.5rc0 is still available in the Chrome Web Store - and the differences between rc0 and rc1 do not justify that rejection at all.

 

I just have to say -
As they are currently looking into this, if it does not get a pass, I will not blink twice before switching to Firefox.

 

From the link above -

(I don't know if I'm allowed to post this here, if not please remove. Just pointing out what everybody can already read in the above link)

 

nasdaq.com (not old) loads w/in a second even in my old laptop, both for Fx and Brave w/uBO. But my setup (what I call medium mode+) is specifically tuned to balance blocking, performance, and usability.
For advanced user (and those who don't care aesthetic), I recommend disabling generic cosmetic hiding which doesn't give any value on security and privacy while being a nearly exclusive cause of slowdown for uBO and often causing site breakage. I made only two semi-generic filters like these to hide place holders:

Code:

com,info,is,media,net,online,~example1.com,~example2.com##.adsbygoogle
biz,com,net,~example3.com##div[id^="div-gpt-ad"]

And handful of site-specific rules for frequently visited sites to hide other remnants and annoyances such as Cookie notice w/out relying on subscription which tend to add tons of unnecessary rules.

 

A very simple test page to find out if cosmetic filtering can be bypassed in your blocker.
http://raymondhill.net/ublock/adbox.html

Cosmetic filtering: Test your blocker

Testing EasyList's ...
##.ADBox

<li>: Should not be hidden
<li class="ADBox">: Should be hidden.
<li class="ADBox" style="display: block !important;">: Should be hidden.

Anyone know what these test results mean?