3 ms·

Random, but I don't understand why anyone would choose a "block ads and trackers" DNS server as a default. Even if it's configuring something for boomer family

Random, but I don't understand why anyone would choose a "block ads and trackers" DNS server as a default. Even if it's configuring something for boomer family, that sounds like a recipe for "why is this website not working"?

Scroll_Swe 4mo ago
Because to me even as an IT person it sounds like a good idea on the surface. To have no connections to/form ads, malware, c2. But yes, then you happen upon your first false positive. And you switch back to a non filtered DNS OR one that you can whitelist or control, still annoying.
vachina 4mo ago
Because it is very useful on mobile. App typically use an advertising SDK for their monetisation, which means we can BLOCK THEM ALLLLLLL
TacticalCoder 4mo ago
> Random, but I don't understand why anyone would choose a "block ads and trackers" DNS server as a default. I use a "block known malware and known porn sites" and then, on top of that, I use gigantic blocklists blocking known ads and trackers. But then I've got a whitelist of allowed domains, which I updated on-the-go if that one site wife really needed wasn't working due to overzealous filtering. The reason is simple: browsing with ads and trackers blocked at the DNS level feels not just a bit but much snappier (and there's not need to play cat and mouse with browsers' extensions). And privacy. I've got a pretty advanced unbound DNS server, blocking ads, trackers, known porn, known malware and shitloads of homoglyph attacks. Took some time to set up but after that it's smooth sailing. My old Pi 3 running unbound stays always on. The only time I turn it off is when I leave for vacation. It's just that stable. Gen Xer here, not a boomer.
- ValentineC 4mo ago
  > But then I've got a whitelist of allowed domains, which I updated on-the-go if that one site wife really needed wasn't working due to overzealous filtering. That's fine. I'm just puzzled why people would want to use a "block ads and tracking" DNS server without a whitelist feature.

Scroll_Swe 4mo ago

Because to me even as an IT person it sounds like a good idea on the surface. To have no connections to/form ads, malware, c2. But yes, then you happen upon your first false positive. And you switch back to a non filtered DNS OR one that you can whitelist or control, still annoying.

vachina 4mo ago

Because it is very useful on mobile. App typically use an advertising SDK for their monetisation, which means we can BLOCK THEM ALLLLLLL

TacticalCoder 4mo ago

> Random, but I don't understand why anyone would choose a "block ads and trackers" DNS server as a default. I use a "block known malware and known porn sites" and then, on top of that, I use gigantic blocklists blocking known ads and trackers. But then I've got a whitelist of allowed domains, which I updated on-the-go if that one site wife really needed wasn't working due to overzealous filtering. The reason is simple: browsing with ads and trackers blocked at the DNS level feels not just a bit but much snappier (and there's not need to play cat and mouse with browsers' extensions). And privacy. I've got a pretty advanced unbound DNS server, blocking ads, trackers, known porn, known malware and shitloads of homoglyph attacks. Took some time to set up but after that it's smooth sailing. My old Pi 3 running unbound stays always on. The only time I turn it off is when I leave for vacation. It's just that stable. Gen Xer here, not a boomer.

ValentineC 4mo ago
> But then I've got a whitelist of allowed domains, which I updated on-the-go if that one site wife really needed wasn't working due to overzealous filtering. That's fine. I'm just puzzled why people would want to use a "block ads and tracking" DNS server without a whitelist feature.