What Ad-Blocker do you use?

Discussion in 'polls' started by Tyrizian, Aug 11, 2014.

?

What Ad-Blocker do you use?

  1. Adguard Free (Browser Extension)

    7.4%
  2. Adguard Premium (Paid)

    13.1%
  3. AdBlock

    2.9%
  4. AdBlock Plus

    36.0%
  5. AdBlock Edge

    11.4%
  6. uBlock

    22.3%
  7. AdFender

    1.1%
  8. AdMuncher

    3.4%
  9. Disconnect

    3.4%
  10. Ghostery

    9.7%
  11. PrivDog

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. Bluhell Firewall

    4.6%
  13. Hosts File

    6.3%
  14. I use a script blocker (NoScript, ScriptNo, HTTP Switchboard, etc.)

    13.1%
  15. 360 Browser with Ad Blocking

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. Maxthon Browser with Built-in Ad Blocking

    1.7%
  17. Other (Not included in Poll)

    7.4%
  18. None

    4.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    It's an enduring myth that "Google wouldn't allow to block [stuff placeholder]". Why not just check, or ask someone like me to check? uBlock and HTTPSB are in Google store, so right there that takes care of a lot of myths (I don't use Google Chrome, other than for testing, I stick to open source as much as I can -- and this means I disable flash when not testing).

    These filters works just fine in uBlock. It's more ABP which makes it difficult to use these filters in other blockers as it doesn't offer a direct links to these. Here is the link for Youtube annoyances:

    https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/yt_annoyances_other.txt

    Works fine, and now that you made me look into it, thanks for this, these in-video annotations can be really annoying. A grand total of only 4 filters to take care of these.
     
  2. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,445
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    You shouldn't thank me, thank Mr Palant:cool:, the necessary ingenuity to come up with the brilliant idea to get this done is his. You ought to send him a "Thank you Email". Later.

    Bo
     
  3. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,879
    Location:
    US
    But does it work on Linux?
     
  4. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,726
    Of course, it's an extension for Chrome/Chromium.
     
  5. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,879
    Location:
    US
    Alright installed it. Gonna give it a try for a month or two. If it is stable and doesn't cause any problems then it will stay. For now ABP has been only disabled and not uninstalled. I have had several issues with other adblockers in the past causing random crashes and slowdowns. ABP has been very reliable for me. But what the heck, since 25% of this forum likes ublock there must be something in it.
     
  6. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    It's being developed on Linux (I launch qemu occasionally to test in Windows).
     
  7. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,879
    Location:
    US
    So it's safe to assume that it will be most stable on Linux?
     
  8. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes.

    Still, it's javascript, using the browser extension's API, so not much wrong can happen. But things went wrong on two occasions: the extension flagged as potential malware on Windows with Chrome dev 37+ (due to a now fixed bug related content verification code in Chromium, which feature ensure extension code has not been tampered with), and a long time ago in HTTPSB, I used a character in a file name which was not friendly to Windows (extension was broken on Windows -- wouldn't install).
     
  9. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,873
    Using µBlock now.
     
  10. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    becuase of uBlock and HTTPSB, i converted from firefox to chrome :) Its lot quicker and provides much better protection (like it has good privacy fetures built in - HTTPSB)

    lets see what happens in future wrt firefox. Will see how tracking protection compares and might be a good combo with noscript. which should be very light for firefox. ofcourse, its toooooo early to predict anything now!!

    Raymond, does uBlock support youtube annoyances? (i.e, support for video annotations). Haven't tested yet.
     
  11. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Well, that's your personal decision. I think that a script blocker is not enough if we're talking about privacy:

    1. Privacy is not only related to scripts being allowed or not - there are also (3rd party) cookies, webbugs, ETags etc.
    2. And even if it comes to scripts, a "simple" script blocker is not enough, IMHO. Example: You have to allow javascript for nytimes.com in order to make that site work properly. But if you do this you also allow scripts like, e.g.,

    Code:
    http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adxrun.html?jsonp= ....
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bi/js/analytics/comscore.js
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bi/js/analytics/webtrends.js
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bi/js/analytics/wtHelperFunctions.js
    which might be used to track you. They can only be blocked by an adblocker with the proper filters. That's why I think that scriptblockers and adblockers complement each other.
     
  12. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, if you have the lists enabled in your custom lists. A while ago I extracted the URLs to the lists, see here. I could possibly support clicking on ABP subscriptions to import lists... Nobody asked yet. Adding them manually is easy enough I suppose.


    Not to nitpick on you in particular, I will just take an the opportunity to express my thoughts about the use of "ad blocker" in general.

    To me ads are the visible subset of a larger set, the third-parties set. It's why I never refer to uBlock as an "ad blocker" but rather just a "blocker", I want to emphasize how uBlock can help improve reduce exposure to that larger set, rather than just primarily a solution for the smaller set, i.e. blocking ads (hence why I enable EasyPrivacy out of the box).

    I know the expression has stuck because historically ad blockers were really just that, but I wish we could find a better expression for "ad blockers" given their now extended role, if only to make people more conscious about that larger third-party set.

    Currently the expression "ad blocker" in conversation will often cause the debate to veer onto whether one should block ads or not, while the debate is larger to me: whether people should expose themselves so easily to any third-parties.
     
  13. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Thanks for confirmation Raymond. Yes, its easy enough to add thourgh custom lists. I am already doing this for Fanboy India lists..
     
  14. guest

    guest Guest

    I thought I'm an infamous privacy ignorant in this forum? =V

    On the serious note, I mainly use script blocker for blocking active content based exploits and as an annoyance killer (that includes ads). Besides, Mozilla is about to integrate tracking protection feature built-in to their web browser anyway. So this should benefit Firefox and most if not all of its forks. I really hope Moonchild (Pale Moon developer) won't turn this feature off by default, or at least still keep the setting to enable it in the options UI.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2014
  15. arsenaloyal

    arsenaloyal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    508
    Using Adguard Premium on the Desktop and AdMuncher Premium on the laptop. No Browser addons in either.
     
  16. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    i voted uBlock.

    i had Ghostery before and tried HTTP SB.
     
  17. tlu

    tlu Guest

    I understand that. But ... hm ... how would you distinguish µBlock semantically and substantially from HTTPSB which isn't a simple "script blocker" but also a "blocker" in that broader sense?
     
  18. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    HTTPSB = matrix-based filtering.

    uBlock = pattern-based filtering -- typically a replacement for ABP et al. If I can at the same time contribute to increase users' awareness about their privacy by referring to it as a "blocker" rather than an "ad blocker", I am happy. Hence I enable EasyPrivacy out of the box, and support even more blocking power through third-party quality hosts files (for which I am willing to provide fixes whenever they break a web site so they can still be used).
     
  19. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Yes, that's pretty obvious for users familiar with your extensions. But I'm afraid that users who haven't tried HTTPSB can't do anything with "matrix-based filtering". I actually meant a more generic distinction between both types of blockers if you want to abandon "adblocker" and "scriptblocker". I think it's difficult to find generally intelligible replacements that describe/characterize more or less precisely what those blockers are doing ...
     
  20. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    840
    Location:
    Canada
    Maybe it's time to invent a new expression to describe a new way of doing something? If we keep using "matrix-filtering", eventually it will stick and what this does will be understood. There is "firewall", but I find it inaccurate for HTTPSB, and this would lead to false expectations (NoScript's ABE is more firewall-like).
     
  21. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Okay - herewith added to my active vocabulary ;)

    But can't ABE be mimicked (to a large extent) in HTTPSB by using domain/site-specific scopes? Ha - we're getting more and more OT here :oops: . I think the question if/how HTTPSB can protect against CSRF attacks is worth a new thread here or an article in the HTTPSB wiki.
     
  22. SouthPark

    SouthPark Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Posts:
    404
    Location:
    USA
    ABP and Disconnect currently, although I've also used Ghostery and Hosts files over the past year.
     
  23. Brocke

    Brocke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Posts:
    2,269
    Location:
    USA,IA
    Adtrap
     
  24. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,525

    a hardware solution...

    an expensive device, another box on your desk
    to do what a browser extension does

    am I exaggerating by seeing this as stupid ?
     
  25. clubhouse1

    clubhouse1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Posts:
    1,124
    Location:
    UK
    AdGuard using the AdGuard filters only: Why has Easylist got so many (60 or 70) Green @@ filters....Very few of them are video related most of them are freaking sites people want to avoid!
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.