3 ms·

Ok, where’s your adblocker test then?

by saagarjha 2y ago

486sx33 2y ago
Right, either release a better quality Adblock tester or stop whining? People need to test somehow.
- dylan604 2y ago
  What do you expect from an advertising blog post? Of course they're going to shit on everyone else while claiming theirs is best in class. Otherwise, what would be the point. Does anyone other than bots/scrapers read these things? This is a classic marketing ploy that's just a twist of "repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth".
outermosthouse 2y ago
They offer some testing sites at the bottom of the article: "Brave will continue to work with legitimate testing sites like https://privacytests.org https://privacytests.org and https://coveryourtracks.eff.org https://coveryourtracks.eff.org"
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Neither of those solve the problem of “is my adblocker on”. Maybe the Brave people should have done some research on why people use these sites rather than making a long blog post explaining why they are bad, actually, while not providing any alternatives for the things people want.
- bitpush 2y ago
  "Will continue to work with" That's like saying bulletproof glass makers working with gun makers. How can you trust either when both are "working together?" This comes across as some sites make Brave look bad, and they are calling them out for whatever reason. -- Also of note - De Beers owns the diamond certification company, which is convinient because why not.
  - dirkragnarok 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that the EFF shouldn't be trusted because Brave works with them to suggest new tests and point out broken ones?
    - bitpush 2y ago
      "broken" you say? I'm curious what Brave would consider to be broken. "Gee, we found one of your tests is _incorrect_, and we think this is the right way to do it"
zen928 2y ago
The article attacks the notion of acceptance testing on websites due to a nebulous fear that good != perfect and testing against the moving target of advertisements is too time consuming and potentially misleading, and instead suggests to test+rate adblockers based on a set of hand picked criteria that suits the product they're advertising. Unsurprisingly, half of the reasons are due to the advantages of adblock being first class native in their product vs a second class extension. It sure isn't hard to be #1 in some category if you get to define it, but the comparison is kind of muddled for me when you consider the significant amount of time and effort towards maintaining and monetizing an entire platform of security vs maintaining an extension on an already popular platform. Harm reduction isn't a zero sum game.
antonok 2y ago
If you really wanted to know, most of the tests for Brave's adblock engine are at https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/tree/master/tests https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/tree/master/tests Those are automated unit and integration tests with controlled filter data as inputs. That's the only practically useful kind of test for an adblocker.

Ok, where’s your adblocker test then?

486sx33 2y ago

Right, either release a better quality Adblock tester or stop whining? People need to test somehow.

dylan604 2y ago
What do you expect from an advertising blog post? Of course they're going to shit on everyone else while claiming theirs is best in class. Otherwise, what would be the point. Does anyone other than bots/scrapers read these things? This is a classic marketing ploy that's just a twist of "repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth".

outermosthouse 2y ago

They offer some testing sites at the bottom of the article: "Brave will continue to work with legitimate testing sites like https://privacytests.org https://privacytests.org and https://coveryourtracks.eff.org https://coveryourtracks.eff.org"

saagarjha 2y ago
Neither of those solve the problem of “is my adblocker on”. Maybe the Brave people should have done some research on why people use these sites rather than making a long blog post explaining why they are bad, actually, while not providing any alternatives for the things people want.
bitpush 2y ago
"Will continue to work with" That's like saying bulletproof glass makers working with gun makers. How can you trust either when both are "working together?" This comes across as some sites make Brave look bad, and they are calling them out for whatever reason. -- Also of note - De Beers owns the diamond certification company, which is convinient because why not.
- dirkragnarok 2y ago
  Are you suggesting that the EFF shouldn't be trusted because Brave works with them to suggest new tests and point out broken ones?
  - bitpush 2y ago
    "broken" you say? I'm curious what Brave would consider to be broken. "Gee, we found one of your tests is _incorrect_, and we think this is the right way to do it"

zen928 2y ago

The article attacks the notion of acceptance testing on websites due to a nebulous fear that good != perfect and testing against the moving target of advertisements is too time consuming and potentially misleading, and instead suggests to test+rate adblockers based on a set of hand picked criteria that suits the product they're advertising. Unsurprisingly, half of the reasons are due to the advantages of adblock being first class native in their product vs a second class extension. It sure isn't hard to be #1 in some category if you get to define it, but the comparison is kind of muddled for me when you consider the significant amount of time and effort towards maintaining and monetizing an entire platform of security vs maintaining an extension on an already popular platform. Harm reduction isn't a zero sum game.

antonok 2y ago

If you really wanted to know, most of the tests for Brave's adblock engine are at https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/tree/master/tests https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/tree/master/tests Those are automated unit and integration tests with controlled filter data as inputs. That's the only practically useful kind of test for an adblocker.