4 ms·
I'm using my own simplistic adblock at home (mostly because youtube ads driving me nuts) and I don't use any adblock at work (mostly because I'm too lazy to con
by vbezhenar 5y ago
I'm using my own simplistic adblock at home (mostly because youtube ads driving me nuts) and I don't use any adblock at work (mostly because I'm too lazy to configure it). I'm not a fan of using browser extensions, especially those which require full access to every webpage, that's too much of attack surface in my opinion and ads are not that bad on websites I visit.
- titzer 5y agoAdblock Plus, uOrigin, and ghostery lite don't require basically any configuration. Just install the browser extension and enable it.
- red_trumpet 5y agoJust a reminder that Adblock Plus has a pretty shady business model.
- onemoresoop 5y agoYeah, they let some ads pass through. That is quite okay as compared to full on storm of ads. If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoWhat is supposed to be shady about it? Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model. If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?
- lolinder 5y agoThe last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
- diffeomorphism 5y ago> The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
- lolinder 5y agoI never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through. The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one: > Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage. The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...): > Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.
- rightbyte 5y agoAdblock plus disables the blocking if you pay them protection money.
- criddell 5y agoThe ads themselves are an attack vector.
- rnd0 5y agoThey have been for jeez, I think almost 20 years now? That's what pushed me solidly into the adblock (and then ublock) camp; the fact that the advertising industry has never been willing or able to police itself against bad actors and malware.
- simion314 5y agoMozilla could do the right thing and endorse/review critical extensions so we know they are safer, but I don't think they have the guts to do it, or mention the word "adblock". As a power user I also set JS off by default and whitelist specific sites, and also use garbage websites in private mode so their garbage tracking is hopefully purged.
- detaro 5y agoWhat is the "Recommended - Firefox recommends only Add-Ons that meet our standards for security and performance." badge they put on some extensions if not an endorsement? Or the "Adblocker staff picks" on the front page of AMO?
- simion314 5y agoAre those recommendation based on user ratings only? The issue with extensions is they can get hijacked and get malicious. A Mozilla created extension or endorsed would offer the warranty that there is no intentional malicious code in it. After your comment I checked the extensions page, seems there is something claimed about "security" but is too vague IMO. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_content=promoted-addon-badge&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=addons.mozilla.org https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_conte...
- detaro 5y ago... no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees.
- simion314 5y ago>no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees. What this review means? Do you have a link? Is it reviewed by a security developer hired by Mozilla or some community person?
- 5y ago
- derivagral 5y agoRemember that viewing ads at all has also been an attack vector. As ever, make the judgement that best fits your situation.
- tedajax 5y agoAd networks seem like a significantly larger attack surface to me...
- DamnYuppie 5y agoI use Firefox with Ublock Origin, Ghostery, and the YouTube Enhancer plugin. I get zero adds on YouTube with this setup!
- 20after4 5y agouBlock alone seems to do the trick for YouTube.
- crispyambulance 5y agoI think they're talking about in-video ads? I could be totally wrong, but ublock-origin just keeps certain things that match a pattern from appearing in the html. It can't remove the annoying "in-video" ads, right?
- eyeundersand 5y agouBlock Origin blocks in-video ads too! Not sure if this has been referenced elsewhere in the comments but their 'element picker' mode is also fantastic and extremely useful in making webpages with huge banners and popups less annoying. Honestly, being on the web without uBlock Origin (and Vimium) just feels like a sub-par experience.
- RandallBrown 5y agoI block ads on YouTube by paying for YouTube Premium.
- perryizgr8 5y agoI tried this, but it didn't work on the vast majority of videos I watch. They always seemed to have some or the other product placement inside. So I stopped paying, and installed a couple of adblockers.
- gundmc 5y agoHow do adblockers help with native product placement? Or are you saying you might as well not pay for premium if you'll still have to deal with the product placement anyway?
- perryizgr8 5y agoA combination of ublock origin and sponsorblock will make youtube completely ad free. Even the in video adverts are gone.
- vbezhenar 5y agoIt's not available in my country.