µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

I can reproduce the broken layout, there is no strict blocking involved. It appears to be geo dependent. I can reproduce the breakage with a US IP on the first page load. No breakage if I use a EU IP.

Code:

@@||guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId$css,script,domain=techcrunch.com

fixes the issue.
I can only reproduce the breakage after I delete cookies and I can simply reload and the site works fine, so I am not sure if the exception is really necessary.

 

I have the same feeling too, I mentioned it only because I thought it may be what @Rasheed187 experienced, but given he is inside EU probably not. Thank you for taking your time for confirmation.

 

Same here from U.S. ISP. Breakage resolves on page reload.

 

Confirming .... Annoyances moves on new installs, for me. 1.24.2

 

= Error 404.

 

Sorry, I deleted the post because of that. I was getting an Adblocker pop-up that kept me from reading a review of the moto g7. I noticed that ublock filters - Annoyances was not checked and tried that which got rid of the popup.

 

Does anyone know of a filter I can use to get rid of the pop-under banner at foxnews?

 

No banner viewing that site with NoScript enabled.

 

Not reproduced on Firefox 72.0.2/Brave 1.2.43 w/ uBO 1.24.2 default settings tested from Japan, US, France, and German IP but you seem to use AdGuard for Windows, not uBO. A filter for uBO does not necessarily work for AG so you asked in wrong place. Anyway not reproduced on AG extension v3.3.4 too w/ Base filter & Tracking Protection filter only.

 

I can't reproduce but the banner looks familiar.
Does adding

Code:

foxnews.com##+js(nostif, removeChild, 100)

to your filter list work for you?

Edit: OK, if you are using Adguard as mentioned by 142395 that won't work obviously.

Code:

@@||foxnews.com^$generichide

might do the trick.

 

Depending on what filters he uses (I mean, generic or not), that can make the site quite ugly. Maybe he can test AG version of your first filter:

Code:

foxnews.com#%#//scriptlet("prevent-setTimeout", "removeChild", "100")

[EDIT] I found actually AGBF replaced some of generic cosmetic filters on Foxnews in EL with non-generic filters.

 

Wow. Thank you! That filter seems to work.

 

You're right about yahoo.com, but the only way I can make techcrunch.com load correctly with sidebar and news articles when you scroll down, is by enabling yimg.com, so the box must be green. Don't ask me why, I don't know if it's blocked by my personal filters or some filter list.

Perhaps you're right, but what I meant is that even with these tweaks, it still looks ugly. DuckDuckGo looks way better, I believe this is a huge blunder that Google made.

Actually, I switched from uMatrix to uBlock Origin because it was way too complex for me. I have to say that uBlock almost never causes any big problems. I've also noticed that anti-adblockers can spot Adblock Plus much easier than uBlock.

 

And that's a HUGE PLUS because those dirt sucking dogs are always actively trying to prove they can slip thru and throw up some ignorant confirmation to our AdBlocking efforts.

 

I doubt you can't test it by turning on and off each filter list. As @summerheat suggested, never ever take reporting a problem means throwing your homework to others; you yourself must also make effort to find or narrow down the cause of the problem.

BTW you replied in wrong thread.

 

Yes, I replied twice, my mistake. But like I said, allowing yimg.com is the only way I can unbreak techcrunch.com. So are you saying that on your machine you don't have this problem? Like I said, I have no clue why this is the case, I'm no expert on this subject.

 

I don't have and apparently most of others not too. I meant you can turn on and off each filter list (e.g. EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc.) one by one to at least narrow down the cause, then we can evaluate that filter. Note allowing yimg.com means any ads and tracker from that domain on the site, not only the one causing your problem, will not be blocked.

 

uBlockO legacy v1.16.4.16 Released (January 26, 2020)

 

I'm looking for somebody to explain this to me.

Using Chrome I login to https://www.gumtree.com.au/. If after using Gumtree I immediately logout I am logged out of Google, so no sync, Gmail or Calendar. However, if I don't log out of Gumtree but close Chrome Google remains logged in on restart.

Using Brave to login I can logout of Gumtree immediately and Google remains signed-in.

What do I need to allow in Ublock for Chrome to work like Brave? What do I need to look for?

 

not sure if uBo can solve your isses - because uBo cant work on cookies or webstorage.

 

So you used Sign in with Google. It doesn't sound like a uBO issue. Turn "Allow Chrome sing-in" off under Privacy and Security setting in Chrome. Disabling "Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar" at chrome://flags (#account-consistency) may also help. If they didn't work, ask in either Chrome or Brave thread.

 

FWIW I've put the latest version of dynamic rules I posted in past onto my Github repo:
https://github.com/142395/adblock

 

I've checked it out and this stuff happens on both Vivaldi and Edge, but not on Firefox. Like I said, yimg.com needs to be allowed to run, otherwise techcrunch.com won't load correctly. But apparently you also don't have an explanation for this. But it's not a big deal, main thing is that it's fixed.

 

has anyone figured out a way to prevent the new trend which is "delayed" popups.

So I load a page, and there will either be a timed delay e.g. 10 seconds for a popup to appear, or a interactive delay where it waits to detect either scrolling or movement of the mouse, this new practice generally circumvents all popup blockers. Also its not a traditional popup where it makes a new browser window but rather a new frame on the site which steals focus.

I am guessing maybe needing to block first party XHR in umatrix?

 

That's called modal overlay/window and not strictly a new trend tho I also feel more and more sites use it nowadays. They are addressed by annoyance filters. What should be blocked depends, sometimes it's XHR, more often scripts, other cases only cosmetic/HTML filtering (or scriptlet injection) works.