4 ms·

I did run into the same issue as mentioned in the article and the Easylist forum is full of publishers having complaining that their site doesn't work anymore.

by patd 7y ago

I did run into the same issue as mentioned in the article and the Easylist forum is full of publishers having complaining that their site doesn't work anymore. I started working on http://blockedby.com http://blockedby.com , a monitoring tool to warn you when a rule would impact your website. But after contacting a few websites that did have the issue on the forum, I couldn't find any that actually wanted to prevent this. A few discussions with publishers told me that they're more interested in convincing their users to give up on ad blockers rather than face the fact that people are not going to abandon ad blockers.

eli 7y ago
This looks interesting. We had problems with AdBlocks breaking functionality on the parts of our pages that talk about ads. Super annoying. We basically had to rename all the assets and file paths to words with no meaning. I'll be taking a closer look at the tool.
GordonS 7y ago
I had an issue with this recently, where buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages were being blocked. I'm no fan of obtrusive, JavaScript laden ads, and have used adblockers myself for years, but why block "legitimate" content? I didn't know how to get removed from the list (and assumed it wouldn't happen anyway), so changed a couple of class names and it was working again. But I don't know how long the issue was there before I realised it :/
- Kalium 7y ago
  Depending on how they're implemented, buttons linking to your Twitter and Facebook pages can double as trackers for Twitter and Facebook. Anyway. People rarely intend to block legitimate content. At the same time, it's not always easy to tell what is and isn't legitimate when you're writing fairly general rules.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    These were just: `<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>`
- nodja 7y ago
  > buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages were being blocked Was everything hosted on your domain there? If they have images hosted by twitter/facebook that's enough for them to track users which is what these lists don't like.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Yes, they really were just: `<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>` The block rules were purely based on very generic CSS class names - I forget exactly, but something like "social-twitter", "social-facebook"
- mtberatwork 7y ago
  Sounds like it was a pattern matching issue rather than being on an actual block list.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  My users were complaining they couldn't see some avatars on my forum. I realized it's because I generate a UUID for each upload and bucket the files into folders such that a hex ID of "ad73a7a8b9" has the URL of "/ad/ad73a7a8b9". I realized the blunt force approach of various adblockers will block anything on "/ad/...". Some would even block "/ad...". I found that a bit annoying.
  - jcoffland 7y ago
    You should fix it. You would be helping in the fight against ads.
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  Fanboy's social list was explicitly crafted to block social media buttons a few years ago: https://www.ghacks.net/2013/07/31/how-to-configure-adblock-plus-malware-social-media-button-and-tracking-blocking/ https://www.ghacks.net/2013/07/31/how-to-configure-adblock-p... It's now part of a bigger "annoyances" list so maybe that was included somewhere in one of the filterlists.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    The name "fanboy" sounds familiar, so it might have been that. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me personally. I absolutely want to block intrusive ads and tracking, but this was a bit OTT. It also must have been included by default with uBlock Origin, as I didn't add it myself.
- thiagomgd 7y ago
  Buttons as in CSS stylized anchor elements point to twitter.com/whatever, or loading javascript, added dynamically, etc? Because most social media buttons have trackers, so...
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Nope, I'd understand that. See my other replies - it was pure HTML, simple `a` and `img` tags, with locally hosted images. The block rules were based purely on very generic CSS class names, which is a bit silly IMO.
- targonca 7y ago
  >buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages So, was it simple <a> elements linking to your Twitter/Facebook page? Or was it maybe a metric ton of obfuscated JS fetched from a Twitter/Facebook CDN, that would relay every bit of data about your visitor, and as a side-effect display a button?
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Nope, see my other replies - it was pure HTML, simple `a` and `img` tags, with locally hosted images. The block rules were based purely on very generic CSS class names, which is a bit silly IMO.
sterkekoffie 7y ago
Getting a 500 error from /start, fyi.
- patd 7y ago
  Fixed it

by patd 7y ago

eli 7y ago

This looks interesting. We had problems with AdBlocks breaking functionality on the parts of our pages that talk about ads. Super annoying. We basically had to rename all the assets and file paths to words with no meaning. I'll be taking a closer look at the tool.

GordonS 7y ago

I had an issue with this recently, where buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages were being blocked. I'm no fan of obtrusive, JavaScript laden ads, and have used adblockers myself for years, but why block "legitimate" content? I didn't know how to get removed from the list (and assumed it wouldn't happen anyway), so changed a couple of class names and it was working again. But I don't know how long the issue was there before I realised it :/

Kalium 7y ago
Depending on how they're implemented, buttons linking to your Twitter and Facebook pages can double as trackers for Twitter and Facebook. Anyway. People rarely intend to block legitimate content. At the same time, it's not always easy to tell what is and isn't legitimate when you're writing fairly general rules.
- GordonS 7y ago
  These were just: `<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>`
nodja 7y ago
> buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages were being blocked Was everything hosted on your domain there? If they have images hosted by twitter/facebook that's enough for them to track users which is what these lists don't like.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Yes, they really were just: `<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>` The block rules were purely based on very generic CSS class names - I forget exactly, but something like "social-twitter", "social-facebook"
mtberatwork 7y ago
Sounds like it was a pattern matching issue rather than being on an actual block list.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
My users were complaining they couldn't see some avatars on my forum. I realized it's because I generate a UUID for each upload and bucket the files into folders such that a hex ID of "ad73a7a8b9" has the URL of "/ad/ad73a7a8b9". I realized the blunt force approach of various adblockers will block anything on "/ad/...". Some would even block "/ad...". I found that a bit annoying.
- jcoffland 7y ago
  You should fix it. You would be helping in the fight against ads.
Mathnerd314 7y ago
Fanboy's social list was explicitly crafted to block social media buttons a few years ago: https://www.ghacks.net/2013/07/31/how-to-configure-adblock-plus-malware-social-media-button-and-tracking-blocking/ https://www.ghacks.net/2013/07/31/how-to-configure-adblock-p... It's now part of a bigger "annoyances" list so maybe that was included somewhere in one of the filterlists.
- GordonS 7y ago
  The name "fanboy" sounds familiar, so it might have been that. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me personally. I absolutely want to block intrusive ads and tracking, but this was a bit OTT. It also must have been included by default with uBlock Origin, as I didn't add it myself.
thiagomgd 7y ago
Buttons as in CSS stylized anchor elements point to twitter.com/whatever, or loading javascript, added dynamically, etc? Because most social media buttons have trackers, so...
- GordonS 7y ago
  Nope, I'd understand that. See my other replies - it was pure HTML, simple `a` and `img` tags, with locally hosted images. The block rules were based purely on very generic CSS class names, which is a bit silly IMO.
targonca 7y ago
>buttons simply linking to our Twitter and Facebook pages So, was it simple <a> elements linking to your Twitter/Facebook page? Or was it maybe a metric ton of obfuscated JS fetched from a Twitter/Facebook CDN, that would relay every bit of data about your visitor, and as a side-effect display a button?
- GordonS 7y ago
  Nope, see my other replies - it was pure HTML, simple `a` and `img` tags, with locally hosted images. The block rules were based purely on very generic CSS class names, which is a bit silly IMO.

sterkekoffie 7y ago

Getting a 500 error from /start, fyi.

patd 7y ago
Fixed it