5 ms·

Why is anyone not using uBlock Origin? Raymond's proven so far he won't be shady, and has made a tool that's incredibly resilient to anything the server side c

Why is anyone not using uBlock Origin? Raymond's proven so far he won't be shady, and has made a tool that's incredibly resilient to anything the server side can do. The adblocker wars cannot be won by the serving side. There will always be a way to browse the Web without ads, or there will simply be fewer people using the Web; they will move onto other protocols where they can avoid ads.. at least until the marketers catch on. Our culture needs to confront the fact that people are tired of their attention being diverted from their goals every day just so some dumb companies can remind us they exist. Is there nowhere in society considered sacred enough to not litter it with advertising filth?

mikpanko 3y ago
Does it work with the new Youtube ad blocker wall?
- blahyawnblah 3y ago
  I use uBlock origin, privacy badger, and pihole and have had no issues with youtube with firefox
  - user764743 3y ago
    privacy badger is redundant and unnecessary
    - sudhackar 3y ago
      privacy badger is useless at best and can do a disservice. uBlock origin can do everything privacy badger does and more. Also it has been known that having both privacy badger and uBlock origin causes conflicts and issues.
      - ghostwords 3y ago
        Hello! Privacy Badger dev here. uBlock Origin is indeed an excellent privacy tool. However, uBlock Origin is not a replacement for Privacy Badger (nor is Privacy Badger a replacement for uBlock Origin). For one, uBlock Origin uses manually compiled ad blocker lists, while Privacy Badger automatically learns using heuristics. Both approaches have their pluses and minuses. Our FAQ goes into what makes Privacy Badger different here[1] and here[2]. > Also it has been known that having both privacy badger and uBlock origin causes conflicts and issues. As far as I know, the two extensions work well together. Could you point me to some of these issues? [1] https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f... [2] https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with-other-extensions%2c-including-other-adblockers https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        Which websites have issues with both uBO and Privacy Badger installed? Privacy Badger uses heuristics, so it is possible to get it wrong, but it gives you a UI to toggle with things and correct its heuristics. Since uBO uses manual filters, you rely on list maintainers for your blocking instead of a heuristic that can deal with new threats that manual lists haven't accounted for yet. Using both in tandem should be better because you get the adblock lists and something on the lookout for more trackers. Please, if the issues are there, let's see them.
- moxvallix 3y ago
  Yes, largely. There was a time where you had to force refresh the filter lists every day or so, but I haven’t had to for a while now. Ublock Origin will be your best bet against Youtube ads, apart from just paying of course.
- stop50 3y ago
  They update the fikters as fast as they can
- desertrider12 3y ago
  It doesn't for me - first I got warning popups, and eventually videos wouldn't load at all. I found a different extension called Ad Speedup that basically plays ads at infinite speed, so the ad's first frame loads, but then the video resumes. This is working reliably so far. I would also be interested to know if it still gives revenue to the channel because technically, the whole ad plays (just not at 1x speed).
  - goalonetwo 3y ago
    are you using Firefox? I have issues with Chrome (to be expected), but not with Firefox.
    - desertrider12 3y ago
      Oh yeah, chrome. I was thinking the anti-block was tied to my account since clearing cookies and updating ublock's filter list didn't fix it, but I'll give firefox a try.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Yes. There were a few days where they were using odd hueristics that managed to detect uBlock, but after following instructions to clear my cache and update my lists, I re-enabled other lists one-by-one, realizing I needed fewer than I had to begin with, and Youtube's worked ad-free since. Some people are coming up with one-liner Javascript functions to fool scripts on the page as well, but I have to question the durability of that approach. It should work until their JS code changes, in theory.
  - robbiep 3y ago
    What browser are you using? I heard a whisper (presumably on here, somewhere) that people had had their accounts blocked for using chrome
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      ooh I think I know what you're talking about. I'm on Firefox, no Google account. Would not surprise me to see them bully account holders.
- elvis10ten 3y ago
  I find it funny that you are discussing how to block YouTube ads —- when you can just get YouTube premium. Makes me ask the age old question: how can creators supposed to eat?
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    they can get a job??
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Do you worry how the actors eat in the shows you watch? If at any point a "content creator" can't sustain their video production, they can do what every other failed entrepreneur does and move on to another job, or re-assess the business model and adapt. So far, nothing's been put on the table for me to feel compelled to buy video access, or videos themselves, for. If Youtube paywalls tomorrow, I'll go somewhere else. I got by on the Web before Youtube and I'll get by after them, too.
whynotmaybe 3y ago
The name. Because when non techies hear about "ad blocker" they install the product that has a similar name. I'm never even sure about the "ublock" or "youblock" or "μBlock" so when I install it, I search "origin".
- diego_sandoval 3y ago
  uBlock Origin is a terrible name, specially when you consider that there is a different extension simply called "uBlock", that at this point has little to do with uBO.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    There is a historic reason for this. uBlock was handed over to another entity, who then engaged with ad networks and did "Acceptable Ads" BS. gorhill's fork appears to have been immediately after the hand-off, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock
goalonetwo 3y ago
Installing ublock origin is the first thing I do whenever I get a new computer. It is wild to me that 99% of people are just browsing internet without knowing that this simple trick would make their life so much better.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It's wild to me that there are people who can use the web without some kind of blocker. Without one, I find most of the web to be simply unusable.
  - jareklupinski 3y ago
    i purposely dont put an adblock on my work computer so I know when I'm stumbling into parts of the internet that aren't productive
safety1st 3y ago
> Is there nowhere in society considered sacred enough to not litter it with advertising filth? Yes, there is still a last bastion of focus, productivity and anti-distraction. It's the terminal, which is why I find myself using TUI apps more and more as time goes on. There are specifically a few principles we need to preserve to prevent the marketers from ever getting a foothold in the terminal. They are: general computing, text-based UI, and composability. What that means is we need control over which programs we can run, we need to work with programs that view/input/output primarily text, and with programs that are modular (so that if a marketer injects their filth we can run it through grep and strip the filth out). In other words, our modern needs are not much different from the old UNIX philosophy. That is the technical remedy. From a sociocultural standpoint, though, the best way to avoid advertising is simply to be esoteric. Be interested in weird stuff which is too small to attract the interest of marketers and their filth.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Nice to see this sentiment on a mainstream site. :) There is some risk of ads on other protocols, but yes, text-based ones are the most flexible and powerful. Even if a gopher server starts getting ads, a gopher client can be configured to sed/grep/whatever certain URLs or domains, just like uBlock is for web browsers. Staying esoteric, and in self-hosted community spaces, is how I've best stayed away from corporate communications.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  Funny you say that, I was just thinking earlier today back to the core-js drama. In short: the creator of a NPM package that is used by approximately everyone, everywhere, was facing a legal battle. He had been developing this package full time for years and did not have the cash on hand to hire a lawyer. He added a console log that ran on installing his package that said something like "If you're using core-js please consider donating". Queue an absolute shitstorm of people screaming at him in the GitHub issues and him eventually going to prison for around 10 months. It can be a rough world out there for the folks building for the "focus, productivity and anti-distraction" platform. Luckily he seems to be back on the grind nowadays, with a decently robust cross-platform donated slush fund to boot (~200k USD across Pateron, Open Collective, Bitcoin). https://github.com/zloirock/core-js https://github.com/zloirock/core-js
grogenaut 3y ago
I would actually argue that "can't be won from the server side" is completely untrue. However ad companies don't trust websites to serve ads and report and so there are obvious to block setups because of that distinction, which is what makes ublock work. If there was trust between ad networks and sites it'd be a lot harder to block. I find it pretty ironic. and I continue to be surprised how completely terrible ad networks are from a tech standpoint. All of this makes sites spam the average user with more and more ads while tech savvy users continue to not see ads. Its fun.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  That's a good point, but you also explained why it's not too much of a concern. There are ways to fully control it, but it's all server side. The best protected content is the content never served. They're stuck in a situation where the business model is pissing off (some of) their users, and they want to turn ad blocking users into either ad viewers (not going to happen) or paying customers (limited but possible success). Paywalling is the ultimate solution, but if Youtube does that, its status as the place to host video disappears within 6 months. This is why it's a pointless war; every effective solution to force ads or control content to restrict revenue loss will result in lower exposure and/or popularity. Ad companies can do a lot to build trust by no longer shipping Javascript-enabled bullshit, and stop selling scams. None of the bytes coming down the wire from an ad company are trustable, or do they contain anything actually useful. Why should we enable these designs or accept connections from those servers? All arguments boil down to half-assed moralizing about how we owe it to companies to help them profit. I'm not convinced. Markets are simple: provide value and you will find customers.
  - grogenaut 3y ago
    You're both correct and also missing nuances that make it a lot more complex than what you're thinking. Ask yourself Why is paywalling different than ads that makes it more effective, then question if it actually is and if ads could be just as effective? I'm sadly not going to be able to explain more. Otherwise this would be a fun discussion. I do know with a low ad rate you could have people who block ads watch ads with an effective delivery system. Like everyone it's the right balance of ad rate with content rate, or you know just charging directly.
charcircuit 3y ago
>or there will simply be fewer people using the Web Most people will want to access the value provided by sites on the web, so I don't see why they would stop using it. >they will move onto other protocols Why would a new protocol need to be made for websites that have ads that are blockable? Why wouldn't they just use HTTP to serve those sites?
wilsonnb3 3y ago
> Is there nowhere in society considered sacred enough to not litter it with advertising filth? There are all kinds of digital places where there are no ads, ads are actually pretty easy to avoid without an adblocker. Wikipedia, hacker news, text.npr.org, craigslist, pbs.org, lite.cnn.org, cbc lite, nitter Spotify, youtube, reddit, netflix, hulu, etc if you pay for them. esoteric stuff like gopher and gemini or questionably legal stuff like scihub or anna's archive.
elvis10ten 3y ago
> Our culture needs to confront the fact that people are tired of their attention being diverted from their goals every day just so some dumb companies can remind us they exist. This seems like an argument against non-targeted/contextual ads only? Because goals and ads can align.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  > Because goals and ads can align. If one is a rube, sure. Psychologically savvy people won't fall to such obvious attempts to manipulate.
kjeksfjes 3y ago
While it's hard to disagree, I'd like to remind everyone about that in many cases the alternative is to pay for services. The suckers who don't use AD blockers are effectively paying for our content.

mikpanko 3y ago

Does it work with the new Youtube ad blocker wall?

blahyawnblah 3y ago
I use uBlock origin, privacy badger, and pihole and have had no issues with youtube with firefox
- user764743 3y ago
  privacy badger is redundant and unnecessary
  - sudhackar 3y ago
    privacy badger is useless at best and can do a disservice. uBlock origin can do everything privacy badger does and more. Also it has been known that having both privacy badger and uBlock origin causes conflicts and issues.
    - ghostwords 3y ago
      Hello! Privacy Badger dev here. uBlock Origin is indeed an excellent privacy tool. However, uBlock Origin is not a replacement for Privacy Badger (nor is Privacy Badger a replacement for uBlock Origin). For one, uBlock Origin uses manually compiled ad blocker lists, while Privacy Badger automatically learns using heuristics. Both approaches have their pluses and minuses. Our FAQ goes into what makes Privacy Badger different here[1] and here[2]. > Also it has been known that having both privacy badger and uBlock origin causes conflicts and issues. As far as I know, the two extensions work well together. Could you point me to some of these issues? [1] https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f... [2] https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with-other-extensions%2c-including-other-adblockers https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Which websites have issues with both uBO and Privacy Badger installed? Privacy Badger uses heuristics, so it is possible to get it wrong, but it gives you a UI to toggle with things and correct its heuristics. Since uBO uses manual filters, you rely on list maintainers for your blocking instead of a heuristic that can deal with new threats that manual lists haven't accounted for yet. Using both in tandem should be better because you get the adblock lists and something on the lookout for more trackers. Please, if the issues are there, let's see them.
moxvallix 3y ago
Yes, largely. There was a time where you had to force refresh the filter lists every day or so, but I haven’t had to for a while now. Ublock Origin will be your best bet against Youtube ads, apart from just paying of course.
stop50 3y ago
They update the fikters as fast as they can
desertrider12 3y ago
It doesn't for me - first I got warning popups, and eventually videos wouldn't load at all. I found a different extension called Ad Speedup that basically plays ads at infinite speed, so the ad's first frame loads, but then the video resumes. This is working reliably so far. I would also be interested to know if it still gives revenue to the channel because technically, the whole ad plays (just not at 1x speed).
- goalonetwo 3y ago
  are you using Firefox? I have issues with Chrome (to be expected), but not with Firefox.
  - desertrider12 3y ago
    Oh yeah, chrome. I was thinking the anti-block was tied to my account since clearing cookies and updating ublock's filter list didn't fix it, but I'll give firefox a try.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Yes. There were a few days where they were using odd hueristics that managed to detect uBlock, but after following instructions to clear my cache and update my lists, I re-enabled other lists one-by-one, realizing I needed fewer than I had to begin with, and Youtube's worked ad-free since. Some people are coming up with one-liner Javascript functions to fool scripts on the page as well, but I have to question the durability of that approach. It should work until their JS code changes, in theory.
- robbiep 3y ago
  What browser are you using? I heard a whisper (presumably on here, somewhere) that people had had their accounts blocked for using chrome
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    ooh I think I know what you're talking about. I'm on Firefox, no Google account. Would not surprise me to see them bully account holders.
elvis10ten 3y ago
I find it funny that you are discussing how to block YouTube ads —- when you can just get YouTube premium. Makes me ask the age old question: how can creators supposed to eat?
- smegsicle 3y ago
  they can get a job??
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Do you worry how the actors eat in the shows you watch? If at any point a "content creator" can't sustain their video production, they can do what every other failed entrepreneur does and move on to another job, or re-assess the business model and adapt. So far, nothing's been put on the table for me to feel compelled to buy video access, or videos themselves, for. If Youtube paywalls tomorrow, I'll go somewhere else. I got by on the Web before Youtube and I'll get by after them, too.

whynotmaybe 3y ago

The name. Because when non techies hear about "ad blocker" they install the product that has a similar name. I'm never even sure about the "ublock" or "youblock" or "μBlock" so when I install it, I search "origin".

diego_sandoval 3y ago
uBlock Origin is a terrible name, specially when you consider that there is a different extension simply called "uBlock", that at this point has little to do with uBO.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  There is a historic reason for this. uBlock was handed over to another entity, who then engaged with ad networks and did "Acceptable Ads" BS. gorhill's fork appears to have been immediately after the hand-off, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock

goalonetwo 3y ago

Installing ublock origin is the first thing I do whenever I get a new computer. It is wild to me that 99% of people are just browsing internet without knowing that this simple trick would make their life so much better.

JohnFen 3y ago
It's wild to me that there are people who can use the web without some kind of blocker. Without one, I find most of the web to be simply unusable.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  i purposely dont put an adblock on my work computer so I know when I'm stumbling into parts of the internet that aren't productive

safety1st 3y ago

> Is there nowhere in society considered sacred enough to not litter it with advertising filth? Yes, there is still a last bastion of focus, productivity and anti-distraction. It's the terminal, which is why I find myself using TUI apps more and more as time goes on. There are specifically a few principles we need to preserve to prevent the marketers from ever getting a foothold in the terminal. They are: general computing, text-based UI, and composability. What that means is we need control over which programs we can run, we need to work with programs that view/input/output primarily text, and with programs that are modular (so that if a marketer injects their filth we can run it through grep and strip the filth out). In other words, our modern needs are not much different from the old UNIX philosophy. That is the technical remedy. From a sociocultural standpoint, though, the best way to avoid advertising is simply to be esoteric. Be interested in weird stuff which is too small to attract the interest of marketers and their filth.

zlg_codes 3y ago
Nice to see this sentiment on a mainstream site. :) There is some risk of ads on other protocols, but yes, text-based ones are the most flexible and powerful. Even if a gopher server starts getting ads, a gopher client can be configured to sed/grep/whatever certain URLs or domains, just like uBlock is for web browsers. Staying esoteric, and in self-hosted community spaces, is how I've best stayed away from corporate communications.
dumbo-octopus 3y ago
Funny you say that, I was just thinking earlier today back to the core-js drama. In short: the creator of a NPM package that is used by approximately everyone, everywhere, was facing a legal battle. He had been developing this package full time for years and did not have the cash on hand to hire a lawyer. He added a console log that ran on installing his package that said something like "If you're using core-js please consider donating". Queue an absolute shitstorm of people screaming at him in the GitHub issues and him eventually going to prison for around 10 months. It can be a rough world out there for the folks building for the "focus, productivity and anti-distraction" platform. Luckily he seems to be back on the grind nowadays, with a decently robust cross-platform donated slush fund to boot (~200k USD across Pateron, Open Collective, Bitcoin). https://github.com/zloirock/core-js https://github.com/zloirock/core-js

grogenaut 3y ago

I would actually argue that "can't be won from the server side" is completely untrue. However ad companies don't trust websites to serve ads and report and so there are obvious to block setups because of that distinction, which is what makes ublock work. If there was trust between ad networks and sites it'd be a lot harder to block. I find it pretty ironic. and I continue to be surprised how completely terrible ad networks are from a tech standpoint. All of this makes sites spam the average user with more and more ads while tech savvy users continue to not see ads. Its fun.

zlg_codes 3y ago
That's a good point, but you also explained why it's not too much of a concern. There are ways to fully control it, but it's all server side. The best protected content is the content never served. They're stuck in a situation where the business model is pissing off (some of) their users, and they want to turn ad blocking users into either ad viewers (not going to happen) or paying customers (limited but possible success). Paywalling is the ultimate solution, but if Youtube does that, its status as the place to host video disappears within 6 months. This is why it's a pointless war; every effective solution to force ads or control content to restrict revenue loss will result in lower exposure and/or popularity. Ad companies can do a lot to build trust by no longer shipping Javascript-enabled bullshit, and stop selling scams. None of the bytes coming down the wire from an ad company are trustable, or do they contain anything actually useful. Why should we enable these designs or accept connections from those servers? All arguments boil down to half-assed moralizing about how we owe it to companies to help them profit. I'm not convinced. Markets are simple: provide value and you will find customers.
- grogenaut 3y ago
  You're both correct and also missing nuances that make it a lot more complex than what you're thinking. Ask yourself Why is paywalling different than ads that makes it more effective, then question if it actually is and if ads could be just as effective? I'm sadly not going to be able to explain more. Otherwise this would be a fun discussion. I do know with a low ad rate you could have people who block ads watch ads with an effective delivery system. Like everyone it's the right balance of ad rate with content rate, or you know just charging directly.

charcircuit 3y ago

>or there will simply be fewer people using the Web Most people will want to access the value provided by sites on the web, so I don't see why they would stop using it. >they will move onto other protocols Why would a new protocol need to be made for websites that have ads that are blockable? Why wouldn't they just use HTTP to serve those sites?

wilsonnb3 3y ago

> Is there nowhere in society considered sacred enough to not litter it with advertising filth? There are all kinds of digital places where there are no ads, ads are actually pretty easy to avoid without an adblocker. Wikipedia, hacker news, text.npr.org, craigslist, pbs.org, lite.cnn.org, cbc lite, nitter Spotify, youtube, reddit, netflix, hulu, etc if you pay for them. esoteric stuff like gopher and gemini or questionably legal stuff like scihub or anna's archive.

elvis10ten 3y ago

> Our culture needs to confront the fact that people are tired of their attention being diverted from their goals every day just so some dumb companies can remind us they exist. This seems like an argument against non-targeted/contextual ads only? Because goals and ads can align.

zlg_codes 3y ago
> Because goals and ads can align. If one is a rube, sure. Psychologically savvy people won't fall to such obvious attempts to manipulate.

kjeksfjes 3y ago

While it's hard to disagree, I'd like to remind everyone about that in many cases the alternative is to pay for services. The suckers who don't use AD blockers are effectively paying for our content.