3 ms·
I prefer an ad (and porn, gambling, social media) blocking host file myself.
by Noaidi 4mo ago
I prefer an ad (and porn, gambling, social media) blocking host file myself.
- WesolyKubeczek 4mo agoNecessary, but not sufficient. Sometimes you want to block certain URLs and not whole domains.
- pseudalopex 4mo agoOr certain elements.
- lightedman 4mo agoMany browsers and programs now days ignore HOSTs.
- drdexebtjl 4mo agoA lot of sites serve their ads from the same domains as their actual content nowadays. So if you really don't want to ever see ads again, you need something at the application layer.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago"A lot of sites serve their ads from the same domains as their actual content nowadays." What are some examples I observe the contrary among the sites submitted to HN Without access to other subdomains and other domains plus a Javascript interpreter, the ads and tracking don't work
- drdexebtjl 4mo agoGoogle's sponsored results, ads from streaming services. Usually when the website is not part of an ad network, but instead runs their own ads.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo agoHow many streaming services Are these "sites" as in "websites" Or something more akin to Netflix, endpoints accessed with an "app" on a "TV" The parent comment's HOSTS file method will fall short, for sure But a zone file that functions as an "allowlist", cf. "blocklist", can do the job in most cases If the ads are in the video file then downloading makes more sense than streaming Ads can be removed from the file, or skipped in the video player