22 ms·
> "So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?" On a philosophical level: I support the ABP strategy of "acceptable ads". I think it's a good way to
by mgbmtl 9y ago
> "So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?"
On a philosophical level: I support the ABP strategy of "acceptable ads". I think it's a good way to legitimize the development of adblocking extensions. They also make it easy to disable those ads.
Technically: For a long time, ABP blocked more ads than uBlock. Maybe this is not as true today. For example: some adblockers didn't block ads in videos. I also appreciated the "Element Hiding Helper" extension (which has not been ported to webextensions). ABP was usually one step ahead of everyone else.
On performance: Firefox had ups and downs with regards to performance, and ABP was part of the problem. I remember reading a few blog posts from Firefox about the work they did to improve that. These days, I don't notice any difference, especially with Quantum/webextensions.
- shakna 9y agoEvery major ad network has been caught distributing malware at one time or another. How do you weigh the risk of exposing yourself through acceptable ads?
- mgbmtl 9y agoI wonder if that has happened from ABP's approved networks. From what I recall, their criteria are rather strict, and I would expect a network to get banned if that happens. To be honest, pretty much the only ads I notice are sponsored results from Google (static text). I also use uMatrix for untrusted sites.
- shakna 9y ago> I notice are sponsored results from Google (static text). Google's AdSense has delivered malware in the past. And nobody is about to ban them. It doesn't matter if it's just a "text ad" either. They allow a script, which means a malware payload can get delivered. Google do a fair effort stopping malware, something like 400,000 malware ads try and host themselves through their network every day. But some do get through.