5 ms·

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the superior way? Pi-Hole?

by antfarm 1y ago

stefanfisk 1y ago
uBlock Origin as linked.
- antfarm 1y ago
  I see. Your mentioning of Google distracted me, how are they involved?
- colecut 1y ago
  @antfarm: https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/google_v2_eol_v3_rollout/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/google_v2_eol_v3_roll...
  - antfarm 1y ago
    Thanks, but this does not apply to me, not using Chrome is part of my ad blocking strategy.
    - zargon 1y ago
      Safari is limited in the same way as Chrome manifest v3, allowing basically only a URL blacklist. They're crippled compared to uBlock Origin's various other blocking capabilities.
      - gruez 1y ago
        Safari extensions can inject scripts/css as well. That's not as full featured as ubo, but is not "basically only a URL blacklist" either.
  - jama211 1y ago
    I’m also going to add for now you can still manually install ublock on the latest chrome by downloading it from GitHub and installing it under manage extensions. For now.
- tmendez 1y ago
  Also plugging Firefox mobile here if you do any web browsing from mobile. You can add uBlock Origin on Firefox mobile, which you can't do on Chrome mobile.
  - Jalad 1y ago
    But only on Android as far as I know
    - Nursie 1y ago
      Firefox on iOS is a safari wrapper. They do what they can, but they can’t support extensions the same way the Android browser does. It’s a real shame Apple continues to block it from being full-fat.
      - _cenw 1y ago
        Orion can. My guess is that it's just not a priority.
        Nursie 1y ago
        From a quick web search, while it supports installing firefox plugins they may not all work as expected due to limitations/differences in the browser APIs, and ublock origin fails to work properly as a result. So IMHO mozilla are probably choosing "Let's not" rather than "Let's deliver a broken experience" As one user on reddit said - "Orion supports Firefox and Chrome extensions. Yes. And you can install them. Yes. Do they work, though? No, most of them don't. Orion is lying about their extension support. "
AStonesThrow 1y ago
I have found a really amazing way to block ads on websites. It's by not visiting them in the first place. Imagine how well this could work. It's sort of like abstinence and chastity rather than contraception. "Oh you know I love you, let me just have a little for free, and not worry so much about consequences, baby!" Also I found this amazing hack for YouTube and YT Music. I am nearly hesitant to write it down here, lest everyone try it out. I figured out that if I pay them like $20/mo, all the ads disappear from both apps! Can you believe what suckers they are! I fear that this loophole may be closed soon, but for now I'm living high on the hog!
- antfarm 1y ago
  Nothing wrong with paying for a commercial service. I rather pay with money than indirectly by losing time and being annoyed in the best case and manipulated in the worst case. With the sites that I choose to not visit (Facebook, X, TikTok, Instagram) this is not possible, as the attempted manipulation of users is an integral part of the business model. Also, your attempt of being funny is not working, neither is your metaphor.
  - AStonesThrow 1y ago
    > not working No, my friend, what is reprehensible to me is freeloaders who believe that they can just play cat-and-mouse wars by installing software and then scrape whatever web content they want, without giving the company their due expected revenue. This is cheating of the cheapest cheapskate order. It's dishonest, it's disingenuous to say "please send me your web content but only the stuff I like". Perhaps you feel a little guilty, and needed to take a dig at my comment tone in turn? I can understand needing to protect/defend yourself against malice and undue surprises. The web is wild and wooly. I can understand how intrusive and troublesome ads can become. But people with adblockers? They are ruining it for everyone -- raising prices, jacking up the cost to deliver and maintain sites, and in fact, you're to blame for ads becoming more intrusive and more ubiquitous, because how else are they going to get past your damn blockers??? But if you're going to visit a site, and you want to see/read their stuff, then I feel it would be ethical to engage with them on a level playing field. Because how badly do you want their stuff? If the ads turn you off so much, then don't go to the site. I simply find 98% of the Web is not worth my time after this calculus. News sites don't really report news anyway; why should I waste my time. All this Hacker News ethic of cheating with ad blockers and yt-dlp and posting archive.is links to "help you bypass this evil paywall" is just ripping off companies. It is not a victimless crime. It is not working and it is most definitely not funny!
PaulKeeble 1y ago
Pi holes don't swallow everything, in stream ads like on Youtube and Twitch and served by the domain all make it through the Pi hole approach. It also doesn't allow you to turn it off for a particular page or site either, if you want to allow ads on Phronix you can't do it without enabling that advertiser everywhere since it lacks the context of the DNS calls. The advantage is it works with every browser on every device, its network wide and it blocks a tonne of other calls that aren't made by the browser such as telemetry.
int_19h 1y ago
Use a third-party browser with integrated ad blocker - then all this Manifest v3 stuff doesn't matter even if the browser is Blink-based. One example is Vivaldi. Pi-Hole (or better yet AdGuard) is still desirable because it will block ads for other apps and devices. Defense in depth.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the superior way? Pi-Hole?

stefanfisk 1y ago

uBlock Origin as linked.

antfarm 1y ago
I see. Your mentioning of Google distracted me, how are they involved?
colecut 1y ago
@antfarm: https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/google_v2_eol_v3_rollout/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/google_v2_eol_v3_roll...
- antfarm 1y ago
  Thanks, but this does not apply to me, not using Chrome is part of my ad blocking strategy.
  - zargon 1y ago
    Safari is limited in the same way as Chrome manifest v3, allowing basically only a URL blacklist. They're crippled compared to uBlock Origin's various other blocking capabilities.
    - gruez 1y ago
      Safari extensions can inject scripts/css as well. That's not as full featured as ubo, but is not "basically only a URL blacklist" either.
- jama211 1y ago
  I’m also going to add for now you can still manually install ublock on the latest chrome by downloading it from GitHub and installing it under manage extensions. For now.
tmendez 1y ago
Also plugging Firefox mobile here if you do any web browsing from mobile. You can add uBlock Origin on Firefox mobile, which you can't do on Chrome mobile.
- Jalad 1y ago
  But only on Android as far as I know
  - Nursie 1y ago
    Firefox on iOS is a safari wrapper. They do what they can, but they can’t support extensions the same way the Android browser does. It’s a real shame Apple continues to block it from being full-fat.
    - _cenw 1y ago
      Orion can. My guess is that it's just not a priority.
      - Nursie 1y ago
        From a quick web search, while it supports installing firefox plugins they may not all work as expected due to limitations/differences in the browser APIs, and ublock origin fails to work properly as a result. So IMHO mozilla are probably choosing "Let's not" rather than "Let's deliver a broken experience" As one user on reddit said - "Orion supports Firefox and Chrome extensions. Yes. And you can install them. Yes. Do they work, though? No, most of them don't. Orion is lying about their extension support. "

AStonesThrow 1y ago

I have found a really amazing way to block ads on websites. It's by not visiting them in the first place. Imagine how well this could work. It's sort of like abstinence and chastity rather than contraception. "Oh you know I love you, let me just have a little for free, and not worry so much about consequences, baby!" Also I found this amazing hack for YouTube and YT Music. I am nearly hesitant to write it down here, lest everyone try it out. I figured out that if I pay them like $20/mo, all the ads disappear from both apps! Can you believe what suckers they are! I fear that this loophole may be closed soon, but for now I'm living high on the hog!

antfarm 1y ago
Nothing wrong with paying for a commercial service. I rather pay with money than indirectly by losing time and being annoyed in the best case and manipulated in the worst case. With the sites that I choose to not visit (Facebook, X, TikTok, Instagram) this is not possible, as the attempted manipulation of users is an integral part of the business model. Also, your attempt of being funny is not working, neither is your metaphor.
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  > not working No, my friend, what is reprehensible to me is freeloaders who believe that they can just play cat-and-mouse wars by installing software and then scrape whatever web content they want, without giving the company their due expected revenue. This is cheating of the cheapest cheapskate order. It's dishonest, it's disingenuous to say "please send me your web content but only the stuff I like". Perhaps you feel a little guilty, and needed to take a dig at my comment tone in turn? I can understand needing to protect/defend yourself against malice and undue surprises. The web is wild and wooly. I can understand how intrusive and troublesome ads can become. But people with adblockers? They are ruining it for everyone -- raising prices, jacking up the cost to deliver and maintain sites, and in fact, you're to blame for ads becoming more intrusive and more ubiquitous, because how else are they going to get past your damn blockers??? But if you're going to visit a site, and you want to see/read their stuff, then I feel it would be ethical to engage with them on a level playing field. Because how badly do you want their stuff? If the ads turn you off so much, then don't go to the site. I simply find 98% of the Web is not worth my time after this calculus. News sites don't really report news anyway; why should I waste my time. All this Hacker News ethic of cheating with ad blockers and yt-dlp and posting archive.is links to "help you bypass this evil paywall" is just ripping off companies. It is not a victimless crime. It is not working and it is most definitely not funny!

PaulKeeble 1y ago

Pi holes don't swallow everything, in stream ads like on Youtube and Twitch and served by the domain all make it through the Pi hole approach. It also doesn't allow you to turn it off for a particular page or site either, if you want to allow ads on Phronix you can't do it without enabling that advertiser everywhere since it lacks the context of the DNS calls. The advantage is it works with every browser on every device, its network wide and it blocks a tonne of other calls that aren't made by the browser such as telemetry.

int_19h 1y ago

Use a third-party browser with integrated ad blocker - then all this Manifest v3 stuff doesn't matter even if the browser is Blink-based. One example is Vivaldi. Pi-Hole (or better yet AdGuard) is still desirable because it will block ads for other apps and devices. Defense in depth.