µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Hi Reality. In my personal experience, filters for cleaning YouTube work flawlessly with Flash. In my now dead XP, in which I used Flash, the YouTube Other annoyances filter cleaned annotations every time. 100% effective. When my XP died and I started using my W7 for YT (now using HTML5), I came to learn that the YT filter that worked perfectly in my XP with Flash does absolutely nothing for me in W7 with HTML5.
https://youtube.adblockplus.me/en/

Bo

 

Bo,

The only thing I can think of is, did you copy and paste the filter, or did you type it?

Other than that I'm out of ideas.

 

Krusty, the filter is working now. The problem was that after installing UBO, I unticked all filters under 3rd party filters, except Easy list and Easy privacy. When I unticked the filters I also unticked "My filters". Ticking it back fixed the problem. Thanks for the help. You too Realty and Wolfrun.

Bo

 

Ah ha! That's good news. I'm glad you got it sorted.

Cheers,
Dave

 

Glad you've got it sorted now Bo

 

Good to hear Bo, glad it's now working for you.

 

You shouldn't really un-check the default "uBlock filters" lists, these contains filters optimized for uBO as an addendum to EasyList and EasyPrivacy.

 

A quick question, and I'm sure this has been addressed before but 113 pages and counting...

So I run both uBlock and uMatrix, and I notice there is overlap in some of the default rules they come with, Malware Domain List, Malware domains and I think MVPS HOSTS as well, I'm assuming it's bad to have them both active, so which is the better of the two (uBlock or uMatrix) to have them enabled in and disabled in.

 

Hello @Special,

uMatrix is designed to only use hosts files so the best rule of thumb is to put all hosts file based filter lists in uMatrix and not select these in uBlock Origin. If you are using all of the default hosts file lists in uMatrix, do not use them in uBlock Origin. Any other hosts file based lists you may want to use, add them to uMatrix, not uBlock Origin. Keep all of you standard filter based lists in uBlock Origin (they will not work in uMatrix anyways).
HTH...

 

the wiki recommend to use only one list, but it is legal, in which extension. when used both i ever preferred uBlock fully featured and let uM do the rest.

 

Thank you.

 

Replying to a response that has no words is difficult as I have to guess what you mean with the smiles.

If you are unsure why I unticked all filters and only selected Easy list and Easy privacy and you think I should be cautious for doing so. Why? I used those 2 filters for 9 years, I know what they do in the sites I visit, for my case use what I get out of them is more than plenty ad blocking. I dont need nothing else, other than whats needed to get rid of the annotations in YouTube. And believe me when I tell you I visit regularly nasty sites to stream live baseball, football games that need to be tamed like a wild Mustang in order to become usable and safe. Sites I wouldn't visit without using effective ad blocking, NoScript and the sandboxed Firefox.

Bo

 

I ll check them out, gorhill. Thank you.

Bo

 

@puff-m-d

Okay so my gut reaction was right and that's what I already did, just made sense for uMatrix handle them over uBlock.

I'm wondering if there are any performance differences (Firefox) in doing it the other way around, I guess only Gorhill would know the answer for that one. If there are, even if just a tiny performance hit, maybe Gorhill should add a feature to uBlock that could check to see if uMatrix is also installed and uncheck the duplicates host/filters. (This might not even be possible, but they are his babies so he would know if they're doable.)

 

Since I saw your post, I'm trying the Blockzilla filter and it works really well...

 

that will never not possible, neither on firefox or chrome - prohibted by default (security reason). i recommend to set filters - if double - in ublock.

 

Why uBlock and not uMatrix, this is the exact opposite of what I've heard here and elsewhere. I'm hoping @gorhill sees this and can just gives his take on it, then we'll finally have an official answer and no more, well, I do it this way and it seems fine.

 

at least it doesnt matter from my view - but i prefer(ed) uBlock first as a blocker/filter and then to refine with umatrix.

 

No further comment.

 

According to Gorhill, his filters are "an addendum to EasyList and EasyPrivacy". As I have filters now, my browsing is perfect. I dont need extra filters, I dont need an addendum or nothing. I used ABP this way for 9 years and I am using UBO identically, and as a combo with NoScript, I am blocking plenty and experience 0 annoyances.

You are probably using about 20 filters and try new filters when they come out. I am not that way. I hardly ever change anything, but without hesitation or pondering I change if it makes sense to do it for a good reason. For me, switching to UBO now was easy as I started experiencing a constant issue with ABP. But adding filters when I experience 0 annoyances as I have things now doesn't make sense.

Bo

 

The uBlock filters list serves two purposes:
1. gorhill adds filters in cases where, e,g., Easylist/EasyPrivacy break sites or where filters in those lists are missing for specific sites.
2. Many filters in that list are using uB0's extended filter syntax which goes beyond what ABP offers. gorhill communicates and coordinates here with the Adguard developers.

Those changes/enhancements can be followed here.

The second point is the reason why gorhill recently announced the following:

This makes much sense. My experience in the past year or so has shown that ABP's limited filter syntax has not been sufficient to get rid of specific annoying ads. So sticking to something just because you've always done it is not necessarily a clever decision. Just saying ...

 

I can only reiterate to whoever is willing to listen: One should never disable uBO's own filters. These are not a luxury.

If one knew exactly all what these filters do, it would become obvious why they should not be disabled as if a mere luxury.

Just one example: googletagservices.com is not blocked by EasyList nor EasyPrivacy (see raw data here). This is blocked by uBO and a neutered script is used as a replacement so as to prevent web site breakages. There are many such instances of neutered scripts in uBO's own filters to minimize web page breakage, or to work around anti-blockers, to avoid having to resort to exception filters, which oftentimes is the only alternative for ABP users.

These filters exist as a consequence of uBO's core philosophy, as spelled out in the front page of the project:

> Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portions of privacy-invading apparatus entering your browser when you visit most sites nowadays. uBlock₀'s main goal is to help users neutralize such privacy-invading apparatus — in a way that welcomes those users who don't wish to use more technical, involved means.

 

Wrong guess.

 

For my case use, Easy list doesn't break any of the sites I visit regularly/everyday and to be more specific, never has, neither misses filters as I am not seeing any ads.

That was your experience, not mine. I dont do things just because, I do things for a reason, you missed or ignored when I said earlier: "As I have filters now, my browsing is perfect. I dont need extra filters, I dont need an addendum or nothing. I used ABP this way for 9 years and I am using UBO identically, and as a combo with NoScript, I am blocking plenty and experience 0 annoyances." Cant be any clearer than that.

Bo