3 ms·

> For uBlock Origin users on Chrome, there’s uBlock Origin Lite. However, the Lite version “allows some tracking, its blocklist is a fraction of what the origin

> For uBlock Origin users on Chrome, there’s uBlock Origin Lite. However, the Lite version “allows some tracking, its blocklist is a fraction of what the original blocked, and it can't perform the dynamic filtering that made the original effective,” https://www.pcmag.com/news/googles-next-chrome-update-will-finally-kill-support-for-ad-blockers https://www.pcmag.com/news/googles-next-chrome-update-will-f...

bastawhiz 4mo ago
I guess that's what the GP and I are both saying we didn't feel. I have no idea what benefit "dynamic filtering" provides. It sounds good on paper but having tried both versions, I can't tell the experiences apart. I don't see ads, pages load fast, and that seems like enough? Actually, I'll take that back. I used to see far more stuff get blocked (e.g., when clicking links) than with Lite. Which is to say, Lite feels like it has fewer false positives.
- GeekyBear 4mo ago
  When sites attempt to block users who use ad blocking extensions, dynamic filtering allows well written ad blockers to continue to work. For instance: > Last year, Google/YouTube ramped up its efforts against ad-blockers, preventing playback for users with the software installed on their devices, coercing them to disable it. Users continued to exploit loopholes in browsers and third-party extensions, such as Firefox, that allowed them to bypass YouTube's ads while watching videos. However, the tech giant has seemingly doubled down on its efforts against ad-blockers, closing the few remaining loopholes https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/streaming-video/ad-blockers-are-not-allowed-google-escalates-its-battle-against-ad-blockers-to-push-youtube-premiums-usd14-month-subscriptions https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/streaming-video...
no-name-here 4mo ago
Are there any URLs where you actually saw any difference?
ranger_danger 4mo ago
[dead]

bastawhiz 4mo ago

I guess that's what the GP and I are both saying we didn't feel. I have no idea what benefit "dynamic filtering" provides. It sounds good on paper but having tried both versions, I can't tell the experiences apart. I don't see ads, pages load fast, and that seems like enough? Actually, I'll take that back. I used to see far more stuff get blocked (e.g., when clicking links) than with Lite. Which is to say, Lite feels like it has fewer false positives.

GeekyBear 4mo ago
When sites attempt to block users who use ad blocking extensions, dynamic filtering allows well written ad blockers to continue to work. For instance: > Last year, Google/YouTube ramped up its efforts against ad-blockers, preventing playback for users with the software installed on their devices, coercing them to disable it. Users continued to exploit loopholes in browsers and third-party extensions, such as Firefox, that allowed them to bypass YouTube's ads while watching videos. However, the tech giant has seemingly doubled down on its efforts against ad-blockers, closing the few remaining loopholes https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/streaming-video/ad-blockers-are-not-allowed-google-escalates-its-battle-against-ad-blockers-to-push-youtube-premiums-usd14-month-subscriptions https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/streaming-video...

no-name-here 4mo ago

Are there any URLs where you actually saw any difference?

ranger_danger 4mo ago

[dead]