4 ms·

My solution is to change the DNS settings in my router to set all domains for Facebook to 0.0.0.0. So, *.facebook.com 0.0.0.0 I'm sure the same could be d

My solution is to change the DNS settings in my router to set all domains for Facebook to 0.0.0.0. So, *.facebook.com 0.0.0.0 I'm sure the same could be done with Twitter. This ensures that they cannot track you on e.g. a news site or any other site with a "share" feature. But... This only works if you're willing to entirely live without Facebook/Twitter. Probably not the best choice for the majority of people.

Skunkleton 9y ago
That assumes that all facebook ad traffic starts with a DNS request for *.facebook.com. It may be that all facebook ad traffic is served in this way _today_, but that doesn't stop them from changing it tomorrow. What about other ad networks? What about other ad networks where you like to use part of their services (eg google.com)? What about ad networks that serve their content from a cloud provider? Blocking domains at the DNS level is a partial solution at best.
- __jal 9y ago
  > That assumes that all facebook ad traffic starts with a DNS request for *.facebook.com This is true, which is why you need a better list. Like one of these: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts (There are lots of others out there if one of those doesn't suit your fancy.) These things will never be perfectly inclusive, but they whack the vast bulk of the commercial surveillance shops, and have the great benefit of not being prone to bypass from browser/extension exploits. They also cut the flood of garbage down to a point where it is possible to individually see what bugs are getting through and do something about them. You're right that they're a partial solution, but they are a massively helpful one. If you're going to use one, do glance over the list to make sure you understand what you're blocking.
  - Skunkleton 9y ago
    Yeah, I went down this path with my router. Found some list, wrote a script to keep it up to date, and blocked it at my DNS server. I found that it was ~80% effective, and broke about ~5% of the websites I used. Its super good for targeting a specific ad network, if you dont need anything else from those domains. Some interesting examples where it didn't work: 1. wowhead.com: this site hides the source of all of its assets behind its own proxy, so the content you want, and the ads you dont want come from the same place. A traditional ad blocker works fine here. 2. Google: it is really hard to block google's ad domain, but still use google's services if you are doing it at the DNS level. There is an argument to be made for DNS blocking though. If you want to take the moral high ground, then it is a good method. IE, if you don't like google spying on you, why do you use their services at all?
vaishaksuresh 9y ago
If you have a raspberry pi lying around (probably other *nix machines would work too), you can setup https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net I run it at home and it blocks the ads on my entire network. Work exactly like your method.
j_s 9y ago
In case you genuinely want to block Facebook via DNS, check this discussion nearly a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791052

Skunkleton 9y ago

That assumes that all facebook ad traffic starts with a DNS request for *.facebook.com. It may be that all facebook ad traffic is served in this way _today_, but that doesn't stop them from changing it tomorrow. What about other ad networks? What about other ad networks where you like to use part of their services (eg google.com)? What about ad networks that serve their content from a cloud provider? Blocking domains at the DNS level is a partial solution at best.

__jal 9y ago
> That assumes that all facebook ad traffic starts with a DNS request for *.facebook.com This is true, which is why you need a better list. Like one of these: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts (There are lots of others out there if one of those doesn't suit your fancy.) These things will never be perfectly inclusive, but they whack the vast bulk of the commercial surveillance shops, and have the great benefit of not being prone to bypass from browser/extension exploits. They also cut the flood of garbage down to a point where it is possible to individually see what bugs are getting through and do something about them. You're right that they're a partial solution, but they are a massively helpful one. If you're going to use one, do glance over the list to make sure you understand what you're blocking.
- Skunkleton 9y ago
  Yeah, I went down this path with my router. Found some list, wrote a script to keep it up to date, and blocked it at my DNS server. I found that it was ~80% effective, and broke about ~5% of the websites I used. Its super good for targeting a specific ad network, if you dont need anything else from those domains. Some interesting examples where it didn't work: 1. wowhead.com: this site hides the source of all of its assets behind its own proxy, so the content you want, and the ads you dont want come from the same place. A traditional ad blocker works fine here. 2. Google: it is really hard to block google's ad domain, but still use google's services if you are doing it at the DNS level. There is an argument to be made for DNS blocking though. If you want to take the moral high ground, then it is a good method. IE, if you don't like google spying on you, why do you use their services at all?

vaishaksuresh 9y ago

If you have a raspberry pi lying around (probably other *nix machines would work too), you can setup https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net I run it at home and it blocks the ads on my entire network. Work exactly like your method.

j_s 9y ago

In case you genuinely want to block Facebook via DNS, check this discussion nearly a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11791052