4 ms·

Running Unbound on my gateway with a curated adblock list. Easy setup, network-wide ad blocking on every device / browser.

cmeacham98 2mo ago
Some ads (e.g. I know YT ads used to be this way, haven't looked recently) can't be blocked at the network level because they are served from the same domain/servers as the content.
- NeutralWanted 2mo ago
  Sure, but have YT Premium for the family. Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. And it blocks 90% of ads, the rest are tolerable / go mostly unnoticed.
  - layer8 2mo ago
    You’re just saying that 90% of your internet usage is YouTube?
  - microtonal 2mo ago
    I use a browser with a built-in blocker (Brave Origin) and I don't see ads in YouTube.
    - Izkata 2mo ago
      Same with ublock origin on firefox, been years since I've seen any ads. There was a period where they tried to break through the blocking and occasionally I'd see one, but it kinda seems like they gave up.
  - Cider9986 2mo ago
    >Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. With an adblocker.. Why would you need yt premium with an adblocker?
    - JohnTHaller 2mo ago
      I use uBlock Origin on my Windows, macOS, and Android versions of Firefox but I also pay for YT Premium. It means I can use the official YouTube client on my Android devices without ads. I get YouTube Music. The creators I watch get a share of my monthly fee.
  - soniczentropy 2mo ago
    The funniest part of this is that you're paying to still see 10% of the ads. I use Firefox and see 0% of the ads for free
    - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
      Reading comprehension? I don't see any ads with YT premium. That's the whole point. Plus you get YTM. Great that FF works for you (I also use FF), but I, nor my family sees any ads on any of our PCs, Phones, TVs etc. YT premium is stupid cheap for what it provides.
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. It's easy, we use FF :-)
    - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
      So do I. Now get YT without ads on everything that's not a PC
      - lelanthran 2mo ago
        > So do I. Now get YT without ads on everything that's not a PC I use FF on my phone, tablet and TV too :-/
gruez 2mo ago
DNS based adblockers have strictly worse adblocking capabilities than manifest v3 adblockers. I mean, sure they have their uses (eg. blocking ads/telemetry in apps or whatever), but bringing them up in this context doesn't really make sense.
- hnuser123456 2mo ago
  I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? That DNS blocking is actual blocking, while the extension can only do filtering after the connections are made.
  - gruez 2mo ago
    >I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? No. See: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d... >The chrome.declarativeNetRequest API is used to block or modify network requests by specifying declarative rules. This lets extensions modify network requests without intercepting them and viewing their content, thus providing more privacy.
  - Daedren 2mo ago
    They can block, it just has to be declarative unlike before. It's better than DNS adblockers since you can still do content filtering, CSS/JS injections and whatnot.
- NeutralWanted 2mo ago
  I'd rather have 100% of devices on my network have near 90% of all ads effectively ad blocked than deal with installing ad blockers on all possible clients. Sure, I use an ad blocker on my personal machine with firefox, but none of the phones besides mine does. None of the family that visits do. Barely any of my friends that come over do. None of the TVs and streaming devices and whatnot do. I am blocking more ads from ever reaching my network than the majority of people who only use browser based adblockers do.

cmeacham98 2mo ago

Some ads (e.g. I know YT ads used to be this way, haven't looked recently) can't be blocked at the network level because they are served from the same domain/servers as the content.

NeutralWanted 2mo ago
Sure, but have YT Premium for the family. Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. And it blocks 90% of ads, the rest are tolerable / go mostly unnoticed.
- layer8 2mo ago
  You’re just saying that 90% of your internet usage is YouTube?
- microtonal 2mo ago
  I use a browser with a built-in blocker (Brave Origin) and I don't see ads in YouTube.
  - Izkata 2mo ago
    Same with ublock origin on firefox, been years since I've seen any ads. There was a period where they tried to break through the blocking and occasionally I'd see one, but it kinda seems like they gave up.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  >Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. With an adblocker.. Why would you need yt premium with an adblocker?
  - JohnTHaller 2mo ago
    I use uBlock Origin on my Windows, macOS, and Android versions of Firefox but I also pay for YT Premium. It means I can use the official YouTube client on my Android devices without ads. I get YouTube Music. The creators I watch get a share of my monthly fee.
- soniczentropy 2mo ago
  The funniest part of this is that you're paying to still see 10% of the ads. I use Firefox and see 0% of the ads for free
  - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
    Reading comprehension? I don't see any ads with YT premium. That's the whole point. Plus you get YTM. Great that FF works for you (I also use FF), but I, nor my family sees any ads on any of our PCs, Phones, TVs etc. YT premium is stupid cheap for what it provides.
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  > Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. It's easy, we use FF :-)
  - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
    So do I. Now get YT without ads on everything that's not a PC
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      > So do I. Now get YT without ads on everything that's not a PC I use FF on my phone, tablet and TV too :-/

gruez 2mo ago

DNS based adblockers have strictly worse adblocking capabilities than manifest v3 adblockers. I mean, sure they have their uses (eg. blocking ads/telemetry in apps or whatever), but bringing them up in this context doesn't really make sense.

hnuser123456 2mo ago
I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? That DNS blocking is actual blocking, while the extension can only do filtering after the connections are made.
- gruez 2mo ago
  >I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? No. See: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d... >The chrome.declarativeNetRequest API is used to block or modify network requests by specifying declarative rules. This lets extensions modify network requests without intercepting them and viewing their content, thus providing more privacy.
- Daedren 2mo ago
  They can block, it just has to be declarative unlike before. It's better than DNS adblockers since you can still do content filtering, CSS/JS injections and whatnot.
NeutralWanted 2mo ago
I'd rather have 100% of devices on my network have near 90% of all ads effectively ad blocked than deal with installing ad blockers on all possible clients. Sure, I use an ad blocker on my personal machine with firefox, but none of the phones besides mine does. None of the family that visits do. Barely any of my friends that come over do. None of the TVs and streaming devices and whatnot do. I am blocking more ads from ever reaching my network than the majority of people who only use browser based adblockers do.