3 ms·
> 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:
by __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 agoYeah, 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?