Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the who-blacklists-the-blacklisters dept.

The Internet 436

An anonymous reader writes: Wladimir Palant is the creator of the Adblock Plus browser extension, but he often gets asked how it compares to a similar extension for Chrome called Adblock. In the past, he's told people the two extensions achieve largely the same end, but in slightly different ways. However, recent changes to the Adblock project have him worried. "AdBlock covertly moved from an open development model towards hiding changes from its users. Users were neither informed about that decision nor the reasons behind it." He goes through the changelog and highlights some updates that call into question the integrity of Adblock. For example, from an update on June 6th: "Calling home functionality has been extended. It now sends user's locale in addition to the unique user ID, AdBlock version, operating system and whether Google Search ads are being allowed. Also, AdBlock will tell getadblock.com (or any other website if asked nicely) whether AdBlock has just been installed or has been used for a while — again, in addition to the unique user ID." Of course, Palant has skin in this game, and Adblock Plus has dealt with fallout from their "acceptable ads policy," but at least it's still developed in the open.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

None of them. (5, Informative)

Badooleoo (3045733) | about 3 months ago | (#47561453)

Adblock Edge

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561481)

This. I haven't seen an ad on the Internet in nearly a decade.

Re:None of them. (5, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47561509)

Adblock Edge is Adblock Plus without the checkbox on the first page of options menu to enable/disable acceptable ads.

It's literally the exactly same thing in all other aspects of it.

Re:None of them. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561571)

edge sounds cooler. someone needs to make an "Adblock Edge: Bismuth Edition" with every blacklist enabled.

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561585)

And I support Wladimir! He's proven himself in my eyes. I don't enable advertising for him but I support him.

Re:None of them. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561531)

Adblock Edge is just Adblock Plus with the acceptable ads checkbox unchecked for you.

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561553)

This, I switched to Edge few days after they added the checkbox.

Re:None of them. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561693)

Which is pretty retarded because you could have just unchecked the box instead.

Re:None of them. (2, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47561741)

Yeah, but entitlement!

Re:None of them. (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47561777)

How is it entitlement to use a different extension? Does that word have any meaning whatsoever anymore, or does it just mean, "Anyone who criticizes anything, decides not to buy something, or doesn't support the violation of people's rights."? I've seen it used in a number of odd ways.

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561885)

Entitlement = communism = liberalism = atheism = fascism. All these words just mean "bad."

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561573)

Agreed on Adblock Edge.
Screw your acceptable ads, there's no such thing as an acceptable ad.

Re:None of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561609)

It won't be long until refusing requests from your type of use case becomes a mainstream thing.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:None of them. (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47561783)

That will do little other than save people time. You'll instantly know which sites are absolute garbage.

Re:None of them. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562687)

You'll see browser extensions which defeat the anti-adblock scripts while also ensuring that ads are not being shown to the user.

If your business model is to show me advertisements, please go get killed in some type of accident.

Re:None of them. (2)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#47562427)

"Screw your acceptable ads, there's no such thing as an acceptable ad."

You are entitled to your point of view. I personally do not agree.

I like to expose myself to advertising. By seeing what is currently being pushed I know which products to avoid, which is a big time-saver. And the notion that some small payment comes to a website as a result of giving me this information is 100% ok with me.

Yet I almost never see ads. Why? Because I refuse to allow random servers all over the net a free hand to run programs on my computer. And ad companies apparently have some sort of problem with using the web, the only thing they know how to do is javascript, java, and flash.

Re:None of them. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562937)

You might want to pay attention to those ads for those new variable-width fonts that make free-flowing text much easier to read.

Re:None of them. (1)

thieh (3654731) | about 3 months ago | (#47561703)

C'mon, nobody block stuff manually these days now? Saves the trouble of auditing the code and whatnot.

Re:None of them. (2, Informative)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 3 months ago | (#47561829)

Adblocking Hosts file, doesn't matter which browser, even blocks MMO in-game store.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... [mvps.org]

Re:None of them. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 3 months ago | (#47561907)

Exactly.

The nice thing with hosts blocking is that it works across desktops and mobile. You can even do it with custom firmware.

http://superuser.com/questions... [superuser.com]

Re:None of them. (4, Insightful)

Badooleoo (3045733) | about 3 months ago | (#47562101)

Even better is to redirect hosts on the router so it applies to the whole network.

New clients on the network (such as friends and family when they come over) would be covered too.

Re:None of them. (1)

ShaunC (203807) | about 3 months ago | (#47562349)

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice...

Re:None of them. (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 months ago | (#47561873)

Adblock Edge

Fuck Everything. We're doing five blades. [theonion.com]

None of them. (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 3 months ago | (#47562139)

Unfortunately, I cannot use Adblock Edge even though I like to, since I use Chrome. The Adblock Edge developer has shown no interest in making a Chrome version available.

And, yes, please don't tell me I need to be using Firefox - there are plenty of reasons why Chrome is preferable.

I use both (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47561487)

If my customer has Firefox installed, I use Adblock Plus with it. That is also what I have on my own systems.

If they have Chrome instead, I use Adblock. I don't use Chrome, because I don't like its style, but several customers prefer it.

Re:I use both (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 3 months ago | (#47561991)

Didn't Adblock only arise due to delays in getting Adblock Plus ported to Chrome? I don't see Adblock in Mozilla's addon offerings.

I used Adblock with Chrome until ABP became available and then I switched. Perhaps there was enough time lag and/or confusion for Adblock to remain popular on Chrome.

Re:I use both (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47562199)

When I first researched it a little while ago, I think that Adblock was the original version of the addon, made for Chrome. Then Adblock Plus was made by a separate group, as a port to Firefox. Since I use Firefox as my main browser, that is what I am used to seeing.

I could be wrong, and don't care to google it right now. But I consider it that I use the one for each browser that was the original one for that browser. If nothing else, it gives both programs encouragement.

Re:I use both (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562391)

I use Adblock Plus on Chrome AND on Firefox. I leave IE bare in case I want to look at something "bare" for some reason.

genocidal inbred crown royals mutated, spiritless? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561493)

they sure do not think the way we ordinarians do? having come up as abused altered boys without effective mothering has made some of us cold & careless with no visible conscience or peaceful spirit? creation has an app for that,,, momkind our spiritual centerpeace remains on task just like always... do not miss the moms of the nile conference resuming when cairo stops exploding... see you there....

see what we mean by MANic viagrant spiritless fear??: Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down.... (& do what?). WTF?

Adguard Adblocker on Chrome (1)

Kevoco (64263) | about 3 months ago | (#47561547)

Works for me - I gave up on the other two

Re:Adguard Adblocker on Chrome (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 3 months ago | (#47562787)

Same.

Neither (2, Insightful)

NIK282000 (737852) | about 3 months ago | (#47561551)

If the ads on a site are so obstructive or malicious that you want to block them then stop using that site. Blocking ads only encourages site operators to use more aggressive ad serving tactics and resorting to that kind of subsidized assault on the user is usually an indicator that the site doesn't have anything useful on it in the first place.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561589)

If the site is that awful I would rather do everyone a favor and have them bury themselves by escalating their ads until nobody uses the site.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561595)

Exactly! The end result is that such websites will go away anyway once enough users employ adblockers to cut off their revenue stream. It's just all "gimme gimme gimme" from the end users.

Re:Neither (0, Troll)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 months ago | (#47561909)

Such sites SHOULD go away. Here's a hint for website operators: Either give your stuff away for free no strings attached (we do it all the time with open source software - which is way more complex to do than a website), or hide your content using a membership. Ads are pollution, and have zero value.

I, and many other people, don't appreciate the implicit bait and switch where we are being lured into accessing a "free" website, but oh wait you now have to look at ads and we'll track what you do etc. It's dishonest.

If you're going to make free content available to all, then make it truly free. No ads. You'll have lots of people interested in seeing it. It's also fine to have a profit motive, nobody's forcing you to give stuff away if you don't want to, but if that's what you want to do, don't pretend it's free. Except you'll have fewer page views.

Some website operators are greedy, they want the "free" page views and they want the income at the same time. That's evil. Luckily there are plenty of people like me, who have well paying day jobs, and have no problem whatsoever to give away free software to help ordinary people deal with and filter that shit out.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562081)

Ads are pollution, and have zero value.

Ads are also a potential attack venue for hidden drive by infections, block the ads and you also block that malware risk.

Re:Neither (2, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47562087)

The world is not binary. What you want and what everyone else will accept are different. Plenty of people in this world are happy to have ads if it means no money out of their own pocket.

Your entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean your not an idiot.

Re: Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562129)

That's just silly. How about I put a site behind a "paywall" that says I serve annoying ads. Then how about I make the paywall free with no registration. Then how about I make the paywall invisible and expect you to just go away if you don't like the way I've set up my paywall on my site.

Re:Neither (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 3 months ago | (#47562215)

Ads are pollution, and have zero value.

here's what websites / apps, whatever will do: WHATEVER MAKES THEM THE MOST MONEY. they've learned that almost no one will pay then $X a month to access, but almost everyone is happy with having a few ads in the sidebar and accessing for "free".

like it or not, that's what consumers want.

Some website operators are greedy, they want the "free" page views and they want the income at the same time. That's evil. Luckily there are plenty of people like me, who have well paying day jobs, and have no problem whatsoever to give away free software to help ordinary people deal with and filter that shit out.

wanting to get paid for a service you provide is not evil. i assume you provide a service for your day job that you already admitted you get paid for? so you are you evil? no, it's just that you decided the work you do is worth getting paid for. well, great, bully for you then huh?

please.

Re:Neither (1)

pkinetics (549289) | about 3 months ago | (#47562835)

At some point open source code needs revenue. Otherwise things like Heartbleed happen and then everyone complains that the biggest users of the open source aren't contributing back to the program to support it.

I'd rather have a couple of ads than have to remember to pay an annual fee to /., xda, and a bazillion other sites I visit.

Re:Neither (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 months ago | (#47562935)

Yup, even open source projects can do with donations, and I have no problem with that. But a donation is a voluntary thing. It's not an entitlement. And if an open source project is incapable of surviving periods of time solely on a purely voluntary donation system, then the project and its goals should be rethought.

It's no different when a company finds that the market doesn't support all the things it wants to do. Companies with cashflow problems need to make hard decisions. Open source projects with cashflow problems need to choose what they provide too. The difference is that a for-profit company cannot offer _any_ services without an income, while an open source project can, through the pro-bono work by the members of the project.

Re:Neither (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about 3 months ago | (#47561667)

I very rarely run into ads that are aggressive enough to get through AdBlock.

Chrome? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47561557)

The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?

The entire goal of that browser is counter to user Privacy and choice. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, if you don't care about that stuff then I'd same Chrome is probably the best browser out there. But I do value those things, and in fact they are probably my #1 consideration when choosing a browser so I use Firefox despite its many faults.

Re:Chrome? (2)

linuxguy (98493) | about 3 months ago | (#47561631)

Chrome is my primary browser. Why shouldn't people be using Chrome if they value their privacy? Can you provide some concrete reasons, other than "Google is evil"? Some of us need evidence and not accusations.

Re:Chrome? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561801)

Have you looked at the source code?

Re:Chrome? (1)

crioca (1394491) | about 3 months ago | (#47562137)

I haven't; can you answer linuxguy's question?

Re:Chrome? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561965)

Chrome is by design a tool to report your browsing to Google. Why else should they spend money in it ?

It began with Chrome Sync, which sends home your bookmarks, tabs and... passwords, and became better with the "Reduce data usage" option, which directs all your web browsing traffic to Google servers for analysis.

If Google created it, it IS meant to get data about you and sell it afterward, like any other Google creation.

Re:Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562241)

Say's the google employee and/or fan boy (based on previous posts) :-)

Re:Chrome? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562743)

Chrome is closed-source (Chromium isn't Chrome) and made by a company that makes money off the data they have on you.
For instance, anything you type on the address bar is sent to Google.

Reject all proprietary software and "choice" too (1, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | about 3 months ago | (#47561643)

You'd not only rightly reject Google Chrome you'd also reject choice as a reason to favor nonfree software. Chrome is a nonfree browser so that is right out. A choice of nonfree programs doesn't satisfy what computer users need—software freedom [gnu.org] . Choice is easily satisfied in that there's more than one alternative but choice of software says nothing about how well the alternatives address important needs to control one's computer (rather than letting the software control the users). So choice of software is a weak substitute for the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software.

Re:Reject all proprietary software and "choice" to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561803)

If Android has demonstrated one thing about FOSS it is that users do not care. It went from being almost wholly open to then having its core applications closed and now its new features components closed (google play services) and nobody cares.

You can spout this "doesn't satisfy what computer users need" rubbish all you want but the fact is it is demonstrably false. Users didnt get anything substantial out of it being wholly open and they havent lost anything by much of it being closed and the reason is because you FOSS folks sit around complaining and pontificating but when an opportunity to showcase the advantages of FOSS presents itself you do nothing. Stop trying to tell us how great FOSS is and actually show us, you have had ample opportunity to produce a great desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, settop box, etc ... and everytime it is some half-assed, unfinished, also-ran, me-too attempt to copy the proprietary products. I like the philosophy and I would be happy to see it succeed if those advocates were capable of it but the truth is it doesn't seem to work in any practical sense.

Re:Reject all proprietary software and "choice" to (4, Interesting)

sd4f (1891894) | about 3 months ago | (#47562705)

But there is a strong misconception that android is still FOSS. The phrase that comes to mind is the rug has been pulled from under them. I was surprised to learn to what lengths google has gone to lock down android. It was certainly a huge reason as to why a lot of the tech sector was pushing android in the early days (nothing gets the tech sector weaker in the knees than FOSS). While you are right, that users don't care, google has performed a massive bait and switch.

Re:Reject all proprietary software and "choice" to (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562833)

But there is a strong misconception that android is still FOSS. The phrase that comes to mind is the rug has been pulled from under them.

But that is exactly the point: did they notice? No. Google play services has been around for a couple of years now and for all the "evil" and "stealing of freedom" of proprietary software the end result is nothing, it has just been FOSS FUD. Were any great innovations born of free software trampled by this act? Nope.

Re:Chrome? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561715)

I had to switch to Chrome because Firefox's UI "developers" seem incapable of leaving the UI alone. Every year or so they completely re-arrange it, usually to much fanfare. The changes typically add nothing of value ("let's make it look more like Chrome by rounding out this corner) or are muscle-memory breaking ("hey, let's move the stop button to the right end of the address bar").

I persevered for a while, and I'd play "whack-a-mole" (as jwz describes it) in the settings every release, trying to restore the behavior and look/feel of the Firefox that I'd been using for about a decade. Eventually I gave up, they release too often, and not upgrading your browser is kind of dumb given how large of an exploit surface it is these days.

So I switched to Chrome. After all, Google knows what I search for anyway, and I got to use the kind of UI that Firefox kept trying to emulate. The bonus is that the UI is stable, and when Google does change the UI, they do it incrementally and very slowly. So that you never update to the latest and have it look entirely fucking different.

Privacy? I'll take consistency first. Some of us actually use our web browsers to do work.

Re:Chrome? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47561809)

So I switched to Chrome. After all, Google knows what I search for anyway

Stop using Google, then?

Privacy? I'll take consistency first.

How very principled of you. The world needs more people like you, since we clearly didn't have enough unthinking, unprincipled morons already.

Re:Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562003)

So "disagrees with my principles" == "unprincipled" now. Got it.

Re:Chrome? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47562553)

So "disagrees with my principles" == "unprincipled" now. Got it.

Well, this is slashdot afterall. We don't want no stinking dissent from anyone, whether we agree with them or not.

Re:Chrome? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47562845)

Yes, if what you care about is consistency and not privacy, I'd say you're lacking principles.

Re:Chrome? (1)

Forbo (3035827) | about 3 months ago | (#47561753)

Some people like Chromium, the open source version of Chrome. The only reason I stick with that rather than Firefox is that I much prefer the interface for Chromium's ScriptSafe over Firefox's NoScript.

Re:Chrome? (3, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47561889)

But I do value those things, and in fact they are probably my #1 consideration when choosing a browser so I use Firefox despite its many faults.

So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?

The reason I ask is because when I type something into the Firefox search bar in it's default configuration, shortly after it will appear as a suggested search in Chrome's universal address bar.

It's not Chrome leaking user data.

Re:Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562111)

No, it's just you using Google stuff. That doesn't invalidate claims about Chrome's motives, nor it's creator's. There is a difference between Firefox letting you use Google's search engine and Firefox storing the data. They don't. Google does. The very fact that Chrome learns about what you type into Firefox shows that Chrome and Google are the problem, and Firefox is just a petty accomplice at worst.

Re:Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562331)

BlackBerry, IE, Thunderbird on my own ISP that doesn't leave mail on the server very long (a month, not years), and DuckDuckGo. No Apple, No Adobe, No Google, No Problem!

Re:Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562409)

I actuually use Bing, iOS and Yandex e-mail. So yes, it is possible to live outside google's bubble.

Re:Chrome? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47562561)

That's a bit like avoiding the Mafia by joining the Triads.

Re:Chrome? (2)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 3 months ago | (#47561993)

The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?

Well, I keep Chrome installed as my secondary browser because I run Firefox by default in "hazmat suit" mode (ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, RequestPolicy, etc.) which does break a lot of sites. For sites that I trust, oftentimes it is easier to just use Chrome than figure out what I need to whitelist in which plugin using FF. In terms of using it as your only/default browser, I agree with you, but even for a moderate paranoid like me, there is a case to be made for 'ever' using it.

Chrome? (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 3 months ago | (#47561559)

Still? Amongst the folks I work with, Chrome is dead. Listing uTorrent as malware was the straw that broke the camel's back. So, Adblock Plus FTW!

Re:Chrome? (4, Informative)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 3 months ago | (#47561613)

uTorrent IS malware these days. Try installing it without unchecking all the extra crap that gets bundled with it, then come back here and tell me why it shouldn't be flagged.

Re:Chrome? (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 3 months ago | (#47561649)

I agree. As soon as Chrome lists the standard Java updater as malware too, I will believe this point as an argument against my point.

Re:Chrome? (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 3 months ago | (#47562011)

Thankfully, Chrome doesn't require Java to be installed separately, so they've kind of taken care of that problem for us. But yeah, I agree that the Java installer should be labeled as malware. Same with basically anything that comes from Sourceforge ever since they changed the downloads to install programs, complete with bundled crap.

Re:Chrome? (2)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 3 months ago | (#47561867)

uTorrent IS malware these days.

Sadly true. I recently switched to qBittorrent and and though it lacks a few of the bells and whistles, I have not looked back.

Re:Chrome? (1)

xvan (2935999) | about 3 months ago | (#47562155)

I switched too, from transmission, only for the "streaming/download chunks in order" capabilities, and no, I don't care about the swarm health foobar.

Re:Chrome? (1)

linuxguy (98493) | about 3 months ago | (#47561639)

I agree with the other poster. uTorrent is malware. In the instance you cited, Google actually was doing the right thing and protecting your ignorant ass.

Re:Chrome? (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 3 months ago | (#47561737)

I am ignorant about many things. My ass is ignorant to just about everything. However, my response to the other poster needs an answer. You may still be ignorant to that response's contents, but you can remedy that by reading it. Your ass, however, will remain ignorant, as mine does.

Re:Chrome? (2)

syockit (1480393) | about 3 months ago | (#47561861)

My ass was ignorant too, but so was I with regards to Java updater, as I thought it was only the installer that had the checkbox thing. To my dismay, they resorted to bundling it even with security updates!

AB, ABE... and! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561565)

AB [ad block]
ABE [ad block edge]
those are fine and dandy, but when I switched back to opera recently I discovered
HTTPSB [http switchboard]
it has more control but still lacks in some areas, definitely worth checking out if you use noscript+adblock

This makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561575)

This is a donation driven project written by a single developer. Why would he do this? What benefits would come from collecting personal information and hiding it from users?

This makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561623)

You think one person can't sell data to a mining company?

None of them II (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561579)

Just use the hosts file provided by Dan Pollock -> http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts

Or, use a big hosts file (5, Informative)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 3 months ago | (#47561665)

I don't use Adblock, but I've been using this [mvps.org] for years. I rarely see an ad unless it's served directly from the site I'm visiting, and it blocks a lot of malware as well. It has something like 16,000 entries, but doesn't seem to slow things down at all.

Re:Or, use a big hosts file (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 3 months ago | (#47561791)

That's really cool, and I'm gonna try it now. This has gotta be the first post on the Slashdots I've seen about host files not written from some raving lunatic, and actually very useful. Thanks!

Re:Or, use a big hosts file (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562075)

To add to this, I don't use their host file, but I do run my own DNS server based on that list. That way, all the devices in my house are ad-free.

Re:Or, use a big hosts file (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 3 months ago | (#47562147)

Mod parent up. A (properly) modifed /etc/hosts file (in case you're using Linux/Unix, don't know the Windows/Mac equivalent) should be more efficient than a browser based solution. I say more efficient because you effectively cut out one step in the web browsing chain, as links to the "blocked" web sites are simply redirected to localhost (127.0.0.) instead of being first handed over to the OS for DNS resolution and then blocked by browser.

However, compared to a browser extension, the hosts files hack can't do wildcard pattern matching, so if you want to block Facebook, you can't just input "*facebook.com" but every subdomain like www.facebook.com, cdn.facebook.com, etc.

Re:Or, use a big hosts file (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562909)

> However, compared to a browser extension, the hosts files hack can't do wildcard pattern matching,

It also can't easily block the newest trick - DNS aliasing.

For example:
doubleclick.com -- easy to block
doubleclick.espn.com - hard to block

And that's over-simplified to make it obvious, much more likely is that they use a hostname like "a1.espn.com"

It isn't really feasible for smaller sites to use DNS aliasing for their ad-networks. But anybody site that is bigger than a one-man operation can do it.

Adblock got bought by a marketing company? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561677)

Part of the terms of the deal is they can not disclose the that they have new owners, who the new owners are, or any affiliations they have to the new owner, etc? But yes its now a spying tool and should not be trusted.

I have added question marks for legal protection.

Re:Adblock got bought by a marketing company? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 3 months ago | (#47562053)

This is also the case with Ghostery.

Re: Adblock got bought by a marketing company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562077)

Ghostery got bought by a marketing company??

There's only one way to find out ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561697)

... FIGHT!

RequestPolicy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561717)

I consider the default deny blocking of RequestPolicy essential.

Should I do an ad blocker? (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 3 months ago | (#47561759)

I'm behind Ad Limiter [adlimiter.com] , which limits Google search ads to one per page, picking the best one based on SiteTruth ratings. You can set it for zero search ads if you like. It also puts SiteTruth ratings on Google search results. It's a demo for SiteTruth search spam filtering.

This Mozilla/Chrome add on has a general ad-blocking mechanism inside. Unlike most ad blockers, it's not based on regular expressions looking for specific HTML. It finds URLs known to lead to ads, works outward through the DOM to find the ad boundary, then deletes the ad. So it's relatively insensitive to changes in ad code, and doesn't require much maintenance. The same code processes search results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, Bleeko, DuckDuckGo, and Infoseek. (Coming soon, Yandex support, and better handling of Google ads within ads, where an ad has multiple links.)

So, if I wanted to do a better ad blocker, I could do so easily. Should I? Is another one really needed? Are the headaches of running one worth it?

Re:Should I do an ad blocker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562131)

Yes, you should. AdBlockers are notorious for their resource-usage. If you can improve it, and are interested in doing so, then you ought to try. The ad industry treats it as an arms race, so we might as well too.

Mu (5, Informative)

sootman (158191) | about 3 months ago | (#47561837)

/etc/hosts [mvps.org]

Install once, update if you care to, but it's not essential. Requires no configuration after installation, works for ALL browsers on your system with no setup, does not require the browser to "support" it in any way (i.e., extensions), never ever gets broken by browser updates, works on ancient computers with grossly out-of-date browsers. Works with ANY tcp/ip-based app on your system, really, so it lowers vectors for IM apps, Acrobat, etc.

The first computer I used it on was an 800 MHz G3 iBook with 640 MB RAM. Some people may say a large hosts file will slow down your computer, but I've never seen that happen myself in over a decade of using it on literally every computer I have.

It may not block EVERY ad like a dedicated extension does, but it comes really really close, and I like the fact that it works with all browsers and never requires updating. When I get a new computer, I put the hosts file on and pretty much never touch it again. A handful of sites (like hulu) will not work with an adblocker and it's a manual process to edit the file, but for unix types, that's not a problem. It blocks google's sponsored links so you may need to take that out too, for people who google "sears" and click the first (sponsored) link instead of the first actual link.

No reason not to do security in layers and use it WITH adblocking extensions, I suppose, but I've never felt the need to.

Re:Mu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562913)

I had one of the entries in that keep Duke Energy's and T-Mobile's websites from working. I gave up trying to figure it out and flushed it and kept adblock edge, noscript and a few other tools.

Re:Mu (1)

antdude (79039) | about 3 months ago | (#47562931)

Use both. But that one is too much since there are some valid web sites that have problems like YouTube. :(

Only evil people use adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47561983)

Seriously, deprive sites of revenue, how dare you!

I'd much appreciate a way for these stupid ad-blocking apps to be more consequence driven rather than evil-driven.

eg, "this ad was blocked due to the following rule: (DANGER) spawns popups,plays video" rather than deleting the html from the DOM and then having the user not realize why part of a website doesn't work because the site put their core content under a class called "pad" which is tripped because of "ad" in it.

Privacy Badger (1)

virgilcaine (1778646) | about 3 months ago | (#47562031)

I wanted to throw point out Privacy Badger: https://www.eff.org/privacybad... [eff.org] Paid ads support many development teams, which creates/improves websites with better content It's not the ads so much, it's the tracking that I can do with out

Re:Privacy Badger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562529)

I also use Privacy Badger. But I also use Adblock Plus AND NoScript. I don't like getting malicious code from drive by's.

Memory Sucker (1)

v. Konigsmann (808666) | about 3 months ago | (#47562425)

I recently disabled AdBlock Plus --- after just using it for years unthinkingly --- and found my browser memory dropped by a third. Using Icecat ( = Firefox 24, because Firefox just sucks like a minimalistic Chrome twin now ), but also tested on my Firefox installation.

AdvertBan and Ghostery seem to do the same, without sucking RAM.

Proxomitron Forever... (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | about 3 months ago | (#47562435)

Proxomitron [proxomitron.info] was WAY ahead of its' time. It is still installed and running wonderfully on a couple of my systems. If you simply *must* have something which is more recently actively developed then Proximodo [sourceforge.net] may be more up your alley. It is fully compatible with all Proximodo filters, etc. but is lacking SSL support...

ABP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562611)

Who cold war Tech is this???

Thank You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47562869)

I would like to send Wladimir Palant and the entire Adblock team a well deserved thank you for making the Internet a better place.

Mike

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?