If it's the tracking you'd like to avoid, don't use ad blockers! They're the wrong tool for the job. They're for blocking ads. So they'll block ads that are no

If it's the tracking you'd like to avoid, don't use ad blockers! They're the wrong tool for the job. They're for blocking ads. So they'll block ads that are not leaking your info (for your use case, a false positive) and will not (not necessarily) block other means by which you're being tracked (for your use case, a false negative). Use something like RequestPolicy (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy...) or PrivacyBadger (https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger) instead. That way, you're not blocking ads per sé — though a side effect of using RequestPolicy is that you won't see much ads — you're blocking the leakage of information to third parties instead. Using blanket ad blocking sends the wrong signal to site owners, and creates little incentive to do the 'right thing' — it lets the "bad apples" (which I imagine to be something like 99% of the online ad businesses) spoil it for the one percent that does value your privacy, with no way for anyone to improve. Using ad blocking for privacy reasons is not completely effective (false negatives) and worse, it's punishing individuals for the behaviour of the flock. ========================================================= Edit: Found the perfect example of the false-positive and false-negative I'm talking about above: http://www.gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org . Harmless ads — just images inside html <a> anchors, loaded from the domain in the site URL. Not leaking anything. The ads help an organization I support. So what does AdblockPlus do (default settings)? It blocks them. What does RequestPolicy do? It lets them through.