Discussion in 'other software & services' started by gorhill, Jun 23, 2014.
I see no reason why it cannot be used alone. Perhaps gorhill meant it's not meant to be standalone because it does not offer much protection, but meant to support those 2 filters that will offer the main protection
Ublock annoyances has 5486 lines
Adguard annoyances has 21650 lines
Fanboy's annoyances has 48089 lines
That said, some filters are present in both, such as:
So yeah, as far as I can tell (and you free to explain if I'm wrong) it can be used alone and I see no reason why not to, other than if u wanna have more filters, but I think adguard and fanboy annoyances block too much stuff. Maybe I will make my own custom filter with only the stuff I wanna block, they are split into categories, for example I don't wanna block cookie notifications, one day
You need to think for yourself @imdb and not blindly follow things
i'm not telling anybody to do anything. it's all up to the users. i'm just saying that's how @gorhill meant it to be used. and i think he would know! no need for thinking here, 57.
I see, you lack the technical knowledge to understand so you blindly follow what someone you perceive to be knowledgeable says (im not saying he isnt but u get me)
yep, you got that right. i blindly follow the very author of the extension i use on my browsers.
The ublock origin filters from my screenshots from the ublock annoyance list are actually just very simple css selectors for html elements
Anyone who has used a bit of html and css will be able to modify and read the filters with ease, as well as create new ones. Such as that guy who asked about how to block the video. I showed a cosmetic filter (that was quite poor), but the proper way to do it would be a network filter to block the video in the first place~
Some more rules syntax:
## - this is a cosmetic filter, it does not block the request but simply hides it
@@ - means the filter is an Allow filter, not a Block filter (meaning an exception filter for unbreaking stuff)
,important (at end of filter) - ignores @@ exception filters, meaning this filter will work even if there is an exception filter telling it not to
It is really quite simple, if you open the ublock logger, open details of a rule and click on static filter and fiddle, u can quite easily tell what's going on
And as expected, because most stuff is like this, ublock origin doesn't work either with forced dark mode, very annoying when u can't see stuff because there is no dark mode version, is it so hard to change background to black and change text to white... You are supposed to be able to see the input fields but because the text is not changed inside em they are the same colour so they camouflage and you can't see it until you click the input field...
In fact, adblock plus explain it much better than me https://adblockplus.org/filter-cheatsheet
Many of the rule syntax is copied by ublock origin, so don't worry that the site is adblockplus, it's the same for ublock origin, mostly
For dailymail video popout player use
On the adguard annoyance filters, I have turned off for now after the report it is also blocking cookies, my reason is that on iplayer, by default they dont give you functional cookies, I enabled those so it remembers autoplay, volume etc. But I noticed they not working so I wonder if adguard has blocked them because they non default cookies. I will report back if I find out this is true.
On a VM I browsed a news site withut any filtering, and it really reminded me why we all use ad filters now.
It had a big animated ad that when it finished then auto loaded a new ad, so ads were been cycled, took about a 1/3 of the page, there was also the new trend of a autoplaying video, which of course when finished autoplayed the next video in the playlist, this went on for the 30 minutes I left it until i closed the tab. The web feels like how it was in the early 2000s where it was completely oversaturated with ad popups etc.
You can make your own filter from adguard's filter, just copy everything except the section for blocking cookies. No auto update tho...
You could however write a script that daily launches (such as by using task scheduler), which will fetch the adguard filter page, see if there's anything new, and if there is, it will add it to your filter file, which then you will import into your ublock filter. It's not auto update but it's close enough.
Hell even better, use your own cloud server (AWS or whatever), or just free file hosting with API, your script will fetch the adguard filter page, modify your own filter page (using your server or the file hosting or whatever's API), and you won't have to import in ublock origin since you can add your own filter list as a link to your filters (not locally)
If I decide I need it again I will do that idea, and might post the link here if anyone is interested in a feed modified without the cookie stuff.
Sure, would save me some time
In this page i cannot find a way to view the video under the text and the only solution is to disable ublock for this page
Thanks in advance for any help.
there is no video below text, only image.
Video is a youtube link.
video only right sidebar.
OK I see, I honestly thought that this stuff was blocked from loading. But now I understand why I sometimes see network traffic even though I have blocked certain stuff. Would be cool if you could also block this stuff if you run websites from the local disk.
BTW, I was looking at permissions that extensions have and with uBlock you will see "read your browsing history" and "change your privacy related settings." But Adblock Plus also has the permission to "read and change all your data on the websites you visit." So how can this be, doesn't uBlock need to also do this?
BTW, this is what I encountered. It was a so called "browser locker", but the strange thing is that I couldn't click it away because my mouse cursor was hidden. I couldn't even access the Windows Taskbar, so I was about to terminate Vivaldi via the Task Manager but before I could do it, Vivaldi crashed itself.
Floyd - ublock is not designed to block cookies. cookies were blocked when the domain or setting script is blocked. when a cookie is set ublock can prevent reading out the cookie, its script based.
umatrix is also not able to block setting cookies, but it can prevent reading them out.
ofc any browser is able to keep a blacklist of domains against cookies. but it makes more sense to have the browser untouched and let a cookie extension do that work.
ublock for the ads, cookie extension for the rest. this is my best experience. granular filtering or creating more granular filters is nothing for the masses.
Did you disable ublock for the page. If you do you will find a playable video under the text.
to your filter list or update the uBO-unbreak list.
I noticed that the vast majority of bad domains ended in .win, .monster, .site, and .fun. I block the following TLDs in uBO with no breakage at all on the Anglophone web, except for one legitimate domain that I whitelisted:
I don't block .xyz because many legitimate websites are using it.
Regarding uBO on Microsoft Edge: I had previously observed significant ad reinsertion with earlier versions of uBO on Chrome Edge, but recently had occasion to try uBO while troubleshooting another extension. I was pleased to see that uBO for Edge (from the Microsoft store) now works perfectly, so I decided to keep it.
Thanks a lot.
Turns out I need the adguard annoyance filter, so I am starting work on duplicating the list but with cookies removed.
OK cool, I have added it to my filter, it will hopefully block other annoying ads also.
BTW, too bad that uBlock can't block "first party cookie tracking"! This feature only works on Firefox.
Also feel free to add my Grayware Filterlist at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/VernonStow/Filterlist/master/Filterlist.txt. I've been adding suspicious domains and aggressive ad-reinsertion URLs to it over the last 2-3 years. I was happy to see that it's one of the lists linked at https://filterlists.com/
Separate names with a comma.