9 ms·

Without ublock origin, the internet is simply unbearable. The result is one of the following two: migrate to Firefox, or the biggest web detox ever

geor9e 2y ago
Or the third option "you can still make them work by clicking "Manage extension" and toggling it back"
- lloeki 2y ago
  Until the Manifest V2 code is ripped out. The current situation looks more like a deprecation brownout than a chance at continued support.
  - geor9e 2y ago
    Maybe a lot of things will happen. I'll downgrade when I'm forced to, and not a day earlier.
romanovcode 2y ago
Safari with [0]AdGuard works very well as well. Been using it for around 4 years now without any issues. [0] https://github.com/adguardteam https://github.com/adguardteam
- matwood 2y ago
  It’s not UBO, but it does work well. Safari is my default browser except for Google sites and development.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  Safari does Manifest v3 blocking, exactly the same as Chrome except with fewer filters, and is otherwise worse in every way.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Lot of noise today over Firefox claiming license to use anything you transmit with it ...
qwerpy 2y ago
Brave still works with ublock origin but every month or so they pull a windows and some new Brave feature I don’t want gets turned on or featured in some way. I wonder how long they’ll maintain manifest v2 compatibility. Once they throw in the towel, Firefox will truly be the last stand.
- triyambakam 2y ago
  I never see ads with default Brave. I was under the impression that uBlock was obviated by Brave.
  - yannis 2y ago
    Have been using it for a long time. I am very happy with it.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  What new features? I've been using it for years and it's been very steady, I've switched off their wallet and that's it.
  - panarky 2y ago
    Automatically inserting affiliate links into URLs when users visit certain e-commerce websites. Integration of Web3 features, including cryptocurrency wallets and NFT support. Inclusion of Brave News and sponsored images on the new tab page. Addition of a VPN service within the browser. Feels very scammy and grifty for a project that's supposedly about user privacy.
    - arcticbull 2y ago
      It was always just a crypto grift.
    - chillingeffect 2y ago
      1. Sleazy 2. Weird but not evil 3. 100% acceptable 4. Good, maybe. What vpn?
kernal 2y ago
> Without ublock origin, the internet is simply unbearable Oh please. Change your DNS to AdGuard or NextDNS and job done.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  ISPs make it difficult or impossible if you're using their router.
  - 7bit 2y ago
    What? You can set a DNS server on every OS and device. It works for Windows, Linux, iOS and Android.
    - virtualcharles 2y ago
      But that’s really only viable if you have a very small number of devices and those devices only have one user. Let’s say you have a family of 4, each with smart phones, two tablets, three computers, each with myltiple user accounts… setting DNS on each individually becomes extremely cumbersome. Not to mention all the other connected devices that want to throw ads at you these days, TVs gaming systems, etc. And god help you if you’ve invested in any kind of crazy connected thing like a fridge with a screen on it, setting device level DNS there might be so obfuscated t’s not possible. Point is that using any kind of DNS based blocking is far better at the router level but the above poster is right in that a lot of ISPs these days make it impossible to adjust your router level DNS and even for someone tech minded setting up some kind of downstream secondary router can be become so convoluted that they just give up.
    - 7bit 2y ago
      Fair enough.
- derkades 2y ago
  uBlock origin is so much better than just DNS-level blocking can ever be
achempion 2y ago
Places for which you would need to use ublock origin are ai generated seo spam or funnel to some product, why visiting them in the first place
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  You don’t really believe that, do you?
- spacechild1 2y ago
  Have you ever used YouTube?
  - encom 2y ago
    Or any website in EU. Those idiotic cookie popups are half the reason I have uBlock installed.
- Kilgoremee 2y ago
  [flagged]
b3lvedere 2y ago
Can't say i have big problems using Edge in combination with a pihole, but i do agree that Firefox with the very nice plugins like uBlock origin does look so much better. I mostly use Edge for accessing the big streaming websites and Firefox for everything else. Video runs somewhat better on Edge for me.
- esperent 2y ago
  > Can't say i have big problems using Edge in combination with a pihole I use NextDNS on both my phone and laptop. Much easier setup, and much more portable (e.g. it'll work on cafe wifi).
- bad_user 2y ago
  DNS-level blocking doesn't work very well. It only blocks requests to 3rd party domains; however, publishers can just turn to 1st party solutions, and many do just that. E.g., DNS-level blocking will not block the sponsored links in Google's Search or the ads on YouTube. And while my NextDNS has blocked ads on my Samsung TV, it was unable to block ads on the new Max streaming service (former HBO). I guess it depends on why we're ad-blocking. If it's for privacy, I guess it's fine, but 1st party requests can and do share your data with first parties, with just one more level of indirection. I, for one, block ads because ads can be dangerous for my family and even for myself. I don't want ads because I don't want behavior modification, or malware. I also don't want my son to watch ads for services that should be illegal, such as gambling services. And don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people that actually pays for subscriptions to avoid ads, I'm against freeloading as well. So, DNS-level blocking is just not enough, unless you're happy that you're at least blocking some ads on the scum of the Internet, but then I'm personally not interested in those websites anyway.
  - emberfiend 2y ago
    To your point, ads are brain malware.
  - mopenstein 2y ago
    Not sure what you're using but I found that Google streaming devices hard code their 8.8.8.8 and .4.4 DNS addresses into their products. Blocking those IP addresses at the router forces the device to default to your router's DNS.
flohofwoe 2y ago
Tbf though, UBO Lite works well enough in the 'optimal' filter mode. On the pages I visit regularly I see no difference to UBO.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  Why are you being fair to a company worth billions of dollars that are trying to control your computer and what you see? Do you regularly advocate for the devil as well? Who does that help?
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    The only alternative is giving up web browsing completely, because the 'new' Mozilla isn't any better than Google or Apple.
  - j_maffe 2y ago
    If you're not trying to be fair with your arguments then what's the point of making an argument at all? If you're deliberately introducing a bias to your arguments then you completely invalidate them to anyone seeking to find a grounded understanding. This can cause people to completely discredit any criticisms of products by Big Tech as just whining by the open source community. I hate this kind of mentality and unfortunately you're not the only one.
jessekv 2y ago
Third option is disable JS. Although I wish more browsers made it easier to selectively enable it per site, like Orion.
- redder23 2y ago
  Disable JS in 2025 does NOT work. Petty much every site only works properly with JS, with some exceptions. JS is a core part of the modern web experience. 10 years go MAYBE Noscript would work, I never bothered, you end up having to whitelist a bunch of sites anyway even 10 years ago.
  - account42 2y ago
    That is a huge exxageration except your idea of "works properly" includes a bunch of user-hostile scripts that add nothing to the experience running in the background. Some websites won't work but more will.
  - Anamon 2y ago
    Whitelisting is still practicable. I use NoScript, and if I have to whitelist scripts from two domains of the company operating the site, while keeping those of the 40 other domains blocked, I still gain something.
- lenkite 2y ago
  Goodbye web-components. A W3C spec that mandates the use of JS to keep browser vendors happy. Once upon a time, there was HTML imports which didn't need this, but the ad-boys killed that spec.
  - everdrive 2y ago
    >Goodbye web-components. A W3C spec And good riddance. I really don't get any personal value out of the vast majority of modern web apps. Much, but not all, of what we do on the web could be via a much more basic interface.
    - 2y ago
tim333 2y ago
Anyone tried uBlock Origin Lite, the v3 compatible version?
- tasuki 2y ago
  Yes, it's fine.
- reddalo 2y ago
  But at this point, why not switch to Firefox?
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    Some sites have issues with Firefox, it is rare, but it happens. Some streaming services may not work at full resolution on Firefox because of DRM. You may also want sync with your Microsoft or Google account and not your Firefox account (if you even have one) for whatever reason.
  - tim333 2y ago
    I've got used to the google lens thing. If you click the address bar then the lens icon and then highlight part of the page it visually analyses it, ocr's text, searches for the text, optionally translates it etc. I use it all the time because people will post text in image form.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Oof, bad timing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423 and more... and more...
  - geor9e 2y ago
    It's not really a "switch" type of decision for me. That implies friction or commitment. I have every major browser installed, like a bowl of different flavored jelly beans. I pick whichever I want that day. Firefox isn't my favorite. A bit lower framerate rendering, a few missing features, a bit less extensions that I like. There's currently zero advantages I know of that would compel me to ever open firefox. They could literally release any novel feature that could win me over - I have no loyalty - they just don't have anything special.
exe34 2y ago
I have pihole in a docker container and it works pretty nicely.
anal_reactor 2y ago
> or the biggest web detox ever I'm slowly thinking that this might be the correct way forward. It's difficult, at least for me, because I am addicted to the internet, but recently I realized that I need to be more mindful about my internet time, simply because it became shit, and using it actually has hugely negative impact on my life. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it's not "ah yeah I'll do that someday", but rather "ok, things are getting serious, I am making a decision and starting to follow though right now".
NoLinkToMe 2y ago
Does anyone here know why the pay-to-browse model never really took off? As in, suppose your daily browsing generates about $3 of monthly ad revenue [0]. Instead, you have a (digital) wallet linked to your browser, which could be pre-loaded with credit each month. For each website you visit you may decide to opt-out of ads by paying a fraction of your credits. You could even have a system where you could pay for a model with light-ads (i.e. at most 1 ad per page, 10 seconds of ads per 30min of video), or pay more for zero ads. I understand it's a difficult system to organize and is dependent on a strong network. But I'd expect there to be a solid small market by now. Lots of individual websites have this option (e.g. Netflix, newspapers, Spotify, Youtube Premium) but there's nothing overarching. [0] https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-google-by-staring-at-its-ads-for-20-years https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-go...
- messe 2y ago
  > Does anyone here know why the pay-to-browse model never really took off? Friction. The vast majority of people are not going to go through the effort of setting up a digital wallet to browse, when the existing system allows them to do it for free. Some people would for sure, but then you also need websites and creators to agree to participate in the scheme (or don't, and just unethically redirect ad revenue to yourself, like Brave used to).
  - samiv 2y ago
    And whatever users are willing to pay for not seeing ads someone is willing to pay more for users to see ads. Of course the best would be to let users pay for not seeing ads and then shove them in their face anyway for maximum profit.
    - NoLinkToMe 2y ago
      I don't think so. The fact you see any particular ad instead of another, is because someone put the highest bid for that slot to show you this ad, and nobody else was willing to pay more. By very definition 99% of ads that could be in the slot are not there because someone is not willing to pay that much to show that ad, except for the single one that won the auction. Ads have a maximum cost at which they don't become viable/profitable anymore. The only difference is that now the user could bid on that ad slot himself, to keep it empty. If you look at the average ad revenue, that wouldn't be all that much money. Certainly a fraction of what it costs to become a no-ad subscriber currently in various platforms.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
ethagnawl 2y ago
There are also "upstream" options, like PiHole or NextDNS which block requests to ad/tracking/malicious domains at the network (local machine, router, etc.) level.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  DNS based blocking is a good front-line, but in my experience, it's not sufficient on the modern web.
  - ethagnawl 2y ago
    I can't say I understand why that would be the case -- probably naivete on my part. Are browser/JS apps loading ads via proxies or websockets or something? Is uBlock Origin somehow able to intercept those?
    - Henchman21 2y ago
      IIRC, Firefox at least has its own DNS-over-HTTPS client configured out of the box? So they aren’t using your DNS servers at all?
- _fat_santa 2y ago
  My issue with upstream options is that it prevents ads from coming through but their "place" on the page is still preserved so you still need uBlock to remove the elements.
  - ethagnawl 2y ago
    Personally, I'm happy to see those empty spaces. It's a reminder of what we're up against and that my defenses are holding.
chrsw 2y ago
What about an "AI" browser? You put in a URL, it fetches the page, re-renders the page without ads, cleans up any mess as much as possible, and passes the result to your screen? Could that work?
- layer8 2y ago
  I don’t think this is possible with V2 extensions.
crazygringo 2y ago
> Without ublock origin, the internet is simply unbearable Huh? uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine. I've seen absolutely no difference after switching.
- Kilgoremee 2y ago
  The developers of u-block explain in pretty great detail why this is not opt. I would encourage you to read their explanation.
  - Kilgoremee 2y ago
    *optimal For instance it doesn't block youtube ads. Arguably the single most important reason people have ublock.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      That's false, it blocks all YouTube ads for me. Also, original uBlock Origin didn't always block YouTube ads. Adblocking with YouTube has gone back and forth. It's not about original vs lite.
PKop 2y ago
Use uBlock Origin Lite, it works fine and in some ways is more efficient than the regular extension. Most people won't notice much of a difference if anything. Firefox is debatably less bearable than a Chromium based browser with uBlock Lite at least on Windows.
- postalrat 2y ago
  Once most people run the lite version the trackers will change in a way that v3 extensions can't block.
raverbashing 2y ago
There is a ublock manifest v3 and it seems to be working ok (though you need to change the level and allow the permissions)
groggo 2y ago
What actually changes? ublock origin is still available, right? But it just can't block requests? My understanding is that adblockers: 1. block requests from certain domains 2. block elements matching certain criteria Does this change just affect #1?
bufo 2y ago
Brave.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Ah yes, the crypto shill browser. I'd rather take the thousand buggy stabs of Firefox than get down to that level.
mihaaly 2y ago
Well, with it, it is just barely bearable still, if you do not pull yourself back radically and are paranoidly picky. Crap with ad vs crap without ad is the typical choice nowadays. The web is murdered by those whose livelihood depend on it, like a virus. Leaving alone only tiny safe heavens like this.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  On my work laptop (not an old one), Chrome easily consumes a huge amount of RAM when I go to a page with lots of ads (including this article). I don't have an ad blocker on it. Essentially, if I open 2-3 pages with these types of ads, I run out of RAM (16 GB) and the whole laptop slows down. I simply can't browse the web while working (which may be a good thing!). Of course, part of the problem is Outlook and Teams and some other apps using a lot of RAM, but Chrome is the real bottleneck. So no, not "just bearable". I couldn't even read this article. It's the norm that I just close the tabs without reading because I don't want a laggy PC.

geor9e 2y ago

Or the third option "you can still make them work by clicking "Manage extension" and toggling it back"

lloeki 2y ago
Until the Manifest V2 code is ripped out. The current situation looks more like a deprecation brownout than a chance at continued support.
- geor9e 2y ago
  Maybe a lot of things will happen. I'll downgrade when I'm forced to, and not a day earlier.

romanovcode 2y ago

Safari with [0]AdGuard works very well as well. Been using it for around 4 years now without any issues. [0] https://github.com/adguardteam https://github.com/adguardteam

matwood 2y ago
It’s not UBO, but it does work well. Safari is my default browser except for Google sites and development.
lern_too_spel 2y ago
Safari does Manifest v3 blocking, exactly the same as Chrome except with fewer filters, and is otherwise worse in every way.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Lot of noise today over Firefox claiming license to use anything you transmit with it ...

qwerpy 2y ago

Brave still works with ublock origin but every month or so they pull a windows and some new Brave feature I don’t want gets turned on or featured in some way. I wonder how long they’ll maintain manifest v2 compatibility. Once they throw in the towel, Firefox will truly be the last stand.

triyambakam 2y ago
I never see ads with default Brave. I was under the impression that uBlock was obviated by Brave.
- yannis 2y ago
  Have been using it for a long time. I am very happy with it.
jemmyw 2y ago
What new features? I've been using it for years and it's been very steady, I've switched off their wallet and that's it.
- panarky 2y ago
  Automatically inserting affiliate links into URLs when users visit certain e-commerce websites. Integration of Web3 features, including cryptocurrency wallets and NFT support. Inclusion of Brave News and sponsored images on the new tab page. Addition of a VPN service within the browser. Feels very scammy and grifty for a project that's supposedly about user privacy.
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    It was always just a crypto grift.
  - chillingeffect 2y ago
    1. Sleazy 2. Weird but not evil 3. 100% acceptable 4. Good, maybe. What vpn?

kernal 2y ago

> Without ublock origin, the internet is simply unbearable Oh please. Change your DNS to AdGuard or NextDNS and job done.

SoftTalker 2y ago
ISPs make it difficult or impossible if you're using their router.
- 7bit 2y ago
  What? You can set a DNS server on every OS and device. It works for Windows, Linux, iOS and Android.
  - virtualcharles 2y ago
    But that’s really only viable if you have a very small number of devices and those devices only have one user. Let’s say you have a family of 4, each with smart phones, two tablets, three computers, each with myltiple user accounts… setting DNS on each individually becomes extremely cumbersome. Not to mention all the other connected devices that want to throw ads at you these days, TVs gaming systems, etc. And god help you if you’ve invested in any kind of crazy connected thing like a fridge with a screen on it, setting device level DNS there might be so obfuscated t’s not possible. Point is that using any kind of DNS based blocking is far better at the router level but the above poster is right in that a lot of ISPs these days make it impossible to adjust your router level DNS and even for someone tech minded setting up some kind of downstream secondary router can be become so convoluted that they just give up.
  - 7bit 2y ago
    Fair enough.
derkades 2y ago
uBlock origin is so much better than just DNS-level blocking can ever be

achempion 2y ago

Places for which you would need to use ublock origin are ai generated seo spam or funnel to some product, why visiting them in the first place

iamacyborg 2y ago
You don’t really believe that, do you?
spacechild1 2y ago
Have you ever used YouTube?
- encom 2y ago
  Or any website in EU. Those idiotic cookie popups are half the reason I have uBlock installed.
Kilgoremee 2y ago
[flagged]

b3lvedere 2y ago

Can't say i have big problems using Edge in combination with a pihole, but i do agree that Firefox with the very nice plugins like uBlock origin does look so much better. I mostly use Edge for accessing the big streaming websites and Firefox for everything else. Video runs somewhat better on Edge for me.

esperent 2y ago
> Can't say i have big problems using Edge in combination with a pihole I use NextDNS on both my phone and laptop. Much easier setup, and much more portable (e.g. it'll work on cafe wifi).
bad_user 2y ago
DNS-level blocking doesn't work very well. It only blocks requests to 3rd party domains; however, publishers can just turn to 1st party solutions, and many do just that. E.g., DNS-level blocking will not block the sponsored links in Google's Search or the ads on YouTube. And while my NextDNS has blocked ads on my Samsung TV, it was unable to block ads on the new Max streaming service (former HBO). I guess it depends on why we're ad-blocking. If it's for privacy, I guess it's fine, but 1st party requests can and do share your data with first parties, with just one more level of indirection. I, for one, block ads because ads can be dangerous for my family and even for myself. I don't want ads because I don't want behavior modification, or malware. I also don't want my son to watch ads for services that should be illegal, such as gambling services. And don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people that actually pays for subscriptions to avoid ads, I'm against freeloading as well. So, DNS-level blocking is just not enough, unless you're happy that you're at least blocking some ads on the scum of the Internet, but then I'm personally not interested in those websites anyway.
- emberfiend 2y ago
  To your point, ads are brain malware.
- mopenstein 2y ago
  Not sure what you're using but I found that Google streaming devices hard code their 8.8.8.8 and .4.4 DNS addresses into their products. Blocking those IP addresses at the router forces the device to default to your router's DNS.

flohofwoe 2y ago

Tbf though, UBO Lite works well enough in the 'optimal' filter mode. On the pages I visit regularly I see no difference to UBO.

Larrikin 2y ago
Why are you being fair to a company worth billions of dollars that are trying to control your computer and what you see? Do you regularly advocate for the devil as well? Who does that help?
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  The only alternative is giving up web browsing completely, because the 'new' Mozilla isn't any better than Google or Apple.
- j_maffe 2y ago
  If you're not trying to be fair with your arguments then what's the point of making an argument at all? If you're deliberately introducing a bias to your arguments then you completely invalidate them to anyone seeking to find a grounded understanding. This can cause people to completely discredit any criticisms of products by Big Tech as just whining by the open source community. I hate this kind of mentality and unfortunately you're not the only one.

jessekv 2y ago

Third option is disable JS. Although I wish more browsers made it easier to selectively enable it per site, like Orion.

redder23 2y ago
Disable JS in 2025 does NOT work. Petty much every site only works properly with JS, with some exceptions. JS is a core part of the modern web experience. 10 years go MAYBE Noscript would work, I never bothered, you end up having to whitelist a bunch of sites anyway even 10 years ago.
- account42 2y ago
  That is a huge exxageration except your idea of "works properly" includes a bunch of user-hostile scripts that add nothing to the experience running in the background. Some websites won't work but more will.
- Anamon 2y ago
  Whitelisting is still practicable. I use NoScript, and if I have to whitelist scripts from two domains of the company operating the site, while keeping those of the 40 other domains blocked, I still gain something.
lenkite 2y ago
Goodbye web-components. A W3C spec that mandates the use of JS to keep browser vendors happy. Once upon a time, there was HTML imports which didn't need this, but the ad-boys killed that spec.
- everdrive 2y ago
  >Goodbye web-components. A W3C spec And good riddance. I really don't get any personal value out of the vast majority of modern web apps. Much, but not all, of what we do on the web could be via a much more basic interface.
  - 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

Anyone tried uBlock Origin Lite, the v3 compatible version?

tasuki 2y ago
Yes, it's fine.
reddalo 2y ago
But at this point, why not switch to Firefox?
- GuB-42 2y ago
  Some sites have issues with Firefox, it is rare, but it happens. Some streaming services may not work at full resolution on Firefox because of DRM. You may also want sync with your Microsoft or Google account and not your Firefox account (if you even have one) for whatever reason.
- tim333 2y ago
  I've got used to the google lens thing. If you click the address bar then the lens icon and then highlight part of the page it visually analyses it, ocr's text, searches for the text, optionally translates it etc. I use it all the time because people will post text in image form.
- immibis 2y ago
  Oof, bad timing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423 and more... and more...
- geor9e 2y ago
  It's not really a "switch" type of decision for me. That implies friction or commitment. I have every major browser installed, like a bowl of different flavored jelly beans. I pick whichever I want that day. Firefox isn't my favorite. A bit lower framerate rendering, a few missing features, a bit less extensions that I like. There's currently zero advantages I know of that would compel me to ever open firefox. They could literally release any novel feature that could win me over - I have no loyalty - they just don't have anything special.

exe34 2y ago

I have pihole in a docker container and it works pretty nicely.

anal_reactor 2y ago

> or the biggest web detox ever I'm slowly thinking that this might be the correct way forward. It's difficult, at least for me, because I am addicted to the internet, but recently I realized that I need to be more mindful about my internet time, simply because it became shit, and using it actually has hugely negative impact on my life. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it's not "ah yeah I'll do that someday", but rather "ok, things are getting serious, I am making a decision and starting to follow though right now".

NoLinkToMe 2y ago

Does anyone here know why the pay-to-browse model never really took off? As in, suppose your daily browsing generates about $3 of monthly ad revenue [0]. Instead, you have a (digital) wallet linked to your browser, which could be pre-loaded with credit each month. For each website you visit you may decide to opt-out of ads by paying a fraction of your credits. You could even have a system where you could pay for a model with light-ads (i.e. at most 1 ad per page, 10 seconds of ads per 30min of video), or pay more for zero ads. I understand it's a difficult system to organize and is dependent on a strong network. But I'd expect there to be a solid small market by now. Lots of individual websites have this option (e.g. Netflix, newspapers, Spotify, Youtube Premium) but there's nothing overarching. [0] https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-google-by-staring-at-its-ads-for-20-years https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-go...

messe 2y ago
> Does anyone here know why the pay-to-browse model never really took off? Friction. The vast majority of people are not going to go through the effort of setting up a digital wallet to browse, when the existing system allows them to do it for free. Some people would for sure, but then you also need websites and creators to agree to participate in the scheme (or don't, and just unethically redirect ad revenue to yourself, like Brave used to).
- samiv 2y ago
  And whatever users are willing to pay for not seeing ads someone is willing to pay more for users to see ads. Of course the best would be to let users pay for not seeing ads and then shove them in their face anyway for maximum profit.
  - NoLinkToMe 2y ago
    I don't think so. The fact you see any particular ad instead of another, is because someone put the highest bid for that slot to show you this ad, and nobody else was willing to pay more. By very definition 99% of ads that could be in the slot are not there because someone is not willing to pay that much to show that ad, except for the single one that won the auction. Ads have a maximum cost at which they don't become viable/profitable anymore. The only difference is that now the user could bid on that ad slot himself, to keep it empty. If you look at the average ad revenue, that wouldn't be all that much money. Certainly a fraction of what it costs to become a no-ad subscriber currently in various platforms.

TiredOfLife 2y ago

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...

ethagnawl 2y ago

There are also "upstream" options, like PiHole or NextDNS which block requests to ad/tracking/malicious domains at the network (local machine, router, etc.) level.

NoGravitas 2y ago
DNS based blocking is a good front-line, but in my experience, it's not sufficient on the modern web.
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  I can't say I understand why that would be the case -- probably naivete on my part. Are browser/JS apps loading ads via proxies or websockets or something? Is uBlock Origin somehow able to intercept those?
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    IIRC, Firefox at least has its own DNS-over-HTTPS client configured out of the box? So they aren’t using your DNS servers at all?
_fat_santa 2y ago
My issue with upstream options is that it prevents ads from coming through but their "place" on the page is still preserved so you still need uBlock to remove the elements.
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  Personally, I'm happy to see those empty spaces. It's a reminder of what we're up against and that my defenses are holding.

chrsw 2y ago

What about an "AI" browser? You put in a URL, it fetches the page, re-renders the page without ads, cleans up any mess as much as possible, and passes the result to your screen? Could that work?

layer8 2y ago
I don’t think this is possible with V2 extensions.

crazygringo 2y ago

> Without ublock origin, the internet is simply unbearable Huh? uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine. I've seen absolutely no difference after switching.

Kilgoremee 2y ago
The developers of u-block explain in pretty great detail why this is not opt. I would encourage you to read their explanation.
- Kilgoremee 2y ago
  *optimal For instance it doesn't block youtube ads. Arguably the single most important reason people have ublock.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    That's false, it blocks all YouTube ads for me. Also, original uBlock Origin didn't always block YouTube ads. Adblocking with YouTube has gone back and forth. It's not about original vs lite.

PKop 2y ago

Use uBlock Origin Lite, it works fine and in some ways is more efficient than the regular extension. Most people won't notice much of a difference if anything. Firefox is debatably less bearable than a Chromium based browser with uBlock Lite at least on Windows.

postalrat 2y ago
Once most people run the lite version the trackers will change in a way that v3 extensions can't block.

raverbashing 2y ago

There is a ublock manifest v3 and it seems to be working ok (though you need to change the level and allow the permissions)

groggo 2y ago

What actually changes? ublock origin is still available, right? But it just can't block requests? My understanding is that adblockers: 1. block requests from certain domains 2. block elements matching certain criteria Does this change just affect #1?

bufo 2y ago

Brave.

moffkalast 2y ago
Ah yes, the crypto shill browser. I'd rather take the thousand buggy stabs of Firefox than get down to that level.

mihaaly 2y ago

Well, with it, it is just barely bearable still, if you do not pull yourself back radically and are paranoidly picky. Crap with ad vs crap without ad is the typical choice nowadays. The web is murdered by those whose livelihood depend on it, like a virus. Leaving alone only tiny safe heavens like this.

BeetleB 2y ago
On my work laptop (not an old one), Chrome easily consumes a huge amount of RAM when I go to a page with lots of ads (including this article). I don't have an ad blocker on it. Essentially, if I open 2-3 pages with these types of ads, I run out of RAM (16 GB) and the whole laptop slows down. I simply can't browse the web while working (which may be a good thing!). Of course, part of the problem is Outlook and Teams and some other apps using a lot of RAM, but Chrome is the real bottleneck. So no, not "just bearable". I couldn't even read this article. It's the norm that I just close the tabs without reading because I don't want a laggy PC.