3 ms·

Another upside is that sites can now just use these banners that Lite cannot block. We can finally block ads in our webpages and have ads! Win-win. This couldn

by wruza 2y ago

Another upside is that sites can now just use these banners that Lite cannot block. We can finally block ads in our webpages and have ads! Win-win. This couldn’t be ever achieved without the truly titanic coordination efforts from google.

LiamPowell 2y ago
Will they though? I don't think they will for 2 reasons: 1. Ad blocking on Safari has worked like this for years and none of the major ad networks have chosen to act on that fact. 2. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried (e.g. server-side embedding of randomly obfuscated JS).
- wruza 2y ago
  Ad blocking on safari is obscure, I regularly see tech threads where people aren’t even aware it exists. Mobile ads blocking for default browsers was always a puzzle. This means too little market share to address. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried Cause arms race with a dynamic blocker is expensive and futile. You are trying to s/UBO/UBO Lite/ in this sentence and convince things will work the same way, they won’t.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  There is absolutely no reason Google would be doing this unless it meant forcing more ads down our throats
kennysoona 2y ago
Can you link to a page with something that can't be blocked by Lite?
- wruza 2y ago
  https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details). https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792688494999155147 https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792688494999155147
  - LiamPowell 2y ago
    The given example has been fixed for what it's worth. You can search for "redirect-rule=noopjs" to find most of the sites that have had anti-adblocking broken, it's a pretty small list: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/main/chromium/log.txt https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/main/chromium... Also note that some of those won't be related to anti-adblock and some sites may use a different method for anti-adblock.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    Quoting a FAQ isn't what I asked for. If you can show a site that definitively displays ads in Lite but not uBo, then proide it.
    - wruza 2y ago
      Oh I apologize for inconvenience. Not really. Not sure why you’re expecting me to dig through the sites and ads networks that don’t use differentiating techniques too often due to basically non-existing ubol userbase to this date. We’ll see how it goes in just a few months, I guess. I’ll be baffled if this fuzz was really about user security and not pushing ads down the throats. I’m also expecting to see more ads on mobile safari for it becoming compatible with the new widespread ad vulnerability.
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        You were referring to ad banners that Lite supposedly cannot block. I'm just asking for an example. If you encounter them sufficiently frequently that they are a problem, you should encounter one over the next 14 days while this discussion is open and be able to share the link. If you can't, then either there is no evidence of the problem you assert exists, or the problem occurs so infrequently as to be of negligible concern.
      - LiamPowell 2y ago
        UBO has 39M users on Chrome while UBOL has 2M, that doesn't seem non-existent. AdBlock and AdBlock Plus also both have slightly more than UBO and have both been using Manifest V3 for a while.

by wruza 2y ago

LiamPowell 2y ago

Will they though? I don't think they will for 2 reasons: 1. Ad blocking on Safari has worked like this for years and none of the major ad networks have chosen to act on that fact. 2. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried (e.g. server-side embedding of randomly obfuscated JS).

wruza 2y ago
Ad blocking on safari is obscure, I regularly see tech threads where people aren’t even aware it exists. Mobile ads blocking for default browsers was always a puzzle. This means too little market share to address. It has always been possible for ads to work around UBO in various ways but no major ad network has even tried Cause arms race with a dynamic blocker is expensive and futile. You are trying to s/UBO/UBO Lite/ in this sentence and convince things will work the same way, they won’t.
whamlastxmas 2y ago
There is absolutely no reason Google would be doing this unless it meant forcing more ads down our throats

kennysoona 2y ago

Can you link to a page with something that can't be blocked by Lite?

wruza 2y ago
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details). https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792688494999155147 https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792688494999155147
- LiamPowell 2y ago
  The given example has been fixed for what it's worth. You can search for "redirect-rule=noopjs" to find most of the sites that have had anti-adblocking broken, it's a pretty small list: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/main/chromium/log.txt https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/main/chromium... Also note that some of those won't be related to anti-adblock and some sites may use a different method for anti-adblock.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  Quoting a FAQ isn't what I asked for. If you can show a site that definitively displays ads in Lite but not uBo, then proide it.
  - wruza 2y ago
    Oh I apologize for inconvenience. Not really. Not sure why you’re expecting me to dig through the sites and ads networks that don’t use differentiating techniques too often due to basically non-existing ubol userbase to this date. We’ll see how it goes in just a few months, I guess. I’ll be baffled if this fuzz was really about user security and not pushing ads down the throats. I’m also expecting to see more ads on mobile safari for it becoming compatible with the new widespread ad vulnerability.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      You were referring to ad banners that Lite supposedly cannot block. I'm just asking for an example. If you encounter them sufficiently frequently that they are a problem, you should encounter one over the next 14 days while this discussion is open and be able to share the link. If you can't, then either there is no evidence of the problem you assert exists, or the problem occurs so infrequently as to be of negligible concern.
    - LiamPowell 2y ago
      UBO has 39M users on Chrome while UBOL has 2M, that doesn't seem non-existent. AdBlock and AdBlock Plus also both have slightly more than UBO and have both been using Manifest V3 for a while.