3 ms·

this seems like a massively overcomplicated exercise. dns-blocking is evil, no matter who does it. stop lying to yourself and install contentblocker on your d

this seems like a massively overcomplicated exercise. dns-blocking is evil, no matter who does it. stop lying to yourself and install contentblocker on your devices

otabdeveloper4 2y ago
DNS is a kind of content. You seem to be quibbling over semantic technicalities.
- sulandor 2y ago
  not really. it's about the blocking occurring in reach of the user (client) or not (infrastructure quirk that has to be worked around)
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    DNS isn't "infrastructure". It's just a simple key-value store, like Redis or something.
    - sulandor 2y ago
      dns more or less was infrastructure for the last 30 years. nobody cared. the fact that for-profit shops wanted a piece of the intelligence within made it surface and now the webheads are shitting on it like there is no tomorrow
      - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
        Nah, BIND is just really shitty software, so everybody thought that DNS must be mystical and special. Run a better DNS server and see for yourself that there isn't any man behind that curtain.
creesch 2y ago
> dns-blocking is evil, no matter who does it. You really ought to expand on that line of reasoning in order to get anyone to take this comment seriously.
- sulandor 2y ago
  see my other comment itt more or less about trustworthy infrastructure
  - creesch 2y ago
    Assuming I am looking at the right comment, you didn't really expand/explain all that much. If I am correct, your argument boils down to blocking happening outside the direct control of the user. This technically is true, as you don't have an icon in your browser like you would have with an extension. At the same time, it being outside the control of the user is not really true if the user is also the person in control of the blocking solution. I don't know how it works with AdGuard, although I assume it is the same. Pi Hole offers extensive insights in what requests are being blocked, from which client and when. This can even be adjusted on a per client level. Making that argument a more theoretical rather than a practical one.
    - sulandor 2y ago
      it's a practical argument as soon as someone else has to use it
      - creesch 2y ago
        Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all. Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well. Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on router basis and really a per-client basis. The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. But that is pretty far removed from the context of this article.

this seems like a massively overcomplicated exercise. dns-blocking is evil, no matter who does it. stop lying to yourself and install contentblocker on your devices

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

DNS is a kind of content. You seem to be quibbling over semantic technicalities.

sulandor 2y ago
not really. it's about the blocking occurring in reach of the user (client) or not (infrastructure quirk that has to be worked around)
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  DNS isn't "infrastructure". It's just a simple key-value store, like Redis or something.
  - sulandor 2y ago
    dns more or less was infrastructure for the last 30 years. nobody cared. the fact that for-profit shops wanted a piece of the intelligence within made it surface and now the webheads are shitting on it like there is no tomorrow
    - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
      Nah, BIND is just really shitty software, so everybody thought that DNS must be mystical and special. Run a better DNS server and see for yourself that there isn't any man behind that curtain.

creesch 2y ago

> dns-blocking is evil, no matter who does it. You really ought to expand on that line of reasoning in order to get anyone to take this comment seriously.

sulandor 2y ago
see my other comment itt more or less about trustworthy infrastructure
- creesch 2y ago
  Assuming I am looking at the right comment, you didn't really expand/explain all that much. If I am correct, your argument boils down to blocking happening outside the direct control of the user. This technically is true, as you don't have an icon in your browser like you would have with an extension. At the same time, it being outside the control of the user is not really true if the user is also the person in control of the blocking solution. I don't know how it works with AdGuard, although I assume it is the same. Pi Hole offers extensive insights in what requests are being blocked, from which client and when. This can even be adjusted on a per client level. Making that argument a more theoretical rather than a practical one.
  - sulandor 2y ago
    it's a practical argument as soon as someone else has to use it
    - creesch 2y ago
      Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all. Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well. Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on router basis and really a per-client basis. The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. But that is pretty far removed from the context of this article.