11 ms·

Which is better, Adblock or Adblock Plus?

336 points by XzetaU8 12y ago

avani 12y ago
Since a lot of people are running out to download Adblock Plus, you guys might want to contact Google to try and get the spam app "Adblock Plus" from exgam.com removed from the store. Apps typically show up above extensions, so I've already seen several people download the wrong one :/ .
motters 12y ago
Adblock Edge is the better version, since it genuinely blocks ads, whereas Adblock Plus still lets some through by default.
sogen 12y ago
I'm loving ublock https://github.com/gorhill/ublock https://github.com/gorhill/ublock
- sudorank 12y ago
  Sounds interesting, might check it out tonight.
  - sogen 12y ago
    really do, I've found it's the easiest to use, and lightweight too.
- dublinben 12y ago
  I really wish this was available for Firefox.
- jobu 12y ago
  That looks pretty interesting, but Holy Options Batman! There are almost 50 filter lists plus a bunch of other settings. Thanks for recommending this - looks a little less shady than some of the AdBlock variants.
diminoten 12y ago
Ooh, whitelisting of ads via partnerships. That's shady as fuck for an ad blocking company.
- eik3_de 12y ago
  see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversy_over_ad_filtering_and_ad_whitelisting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversy_over... I'd never use Adblock Plus, that's more than shady
  - mer10z 12y ago
    Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web, without sponsored ads whitelist.
  - jobu 12y ago
    Not sure why you were downvoted. Assuming that wikipedia entry is correct (which is sometimes questionable) then it looks like both AdBlock and AdBlock Plus are being shady as hell with their "strategic partners".
- Gracana 12y ago
  I don't like it either, but on the other hand, ABP works pretty well, and I can uncheck the "allow unobtrusive advertising" on the main settings page. Is it worth making a stand on this issue? What should I do or use instead? [edit] Hmm, I'm not just talking to myself here, the post I replied to is gone. Not sure how that happens, but in any case I was responding to a comment about how ABP whitelists certain ads (such as those from the companies that support the ABP servers, apparently.)
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Well, I'd suggest using nothing (or noscript if you're actually just concerned about exploits), but if this Internet community is like any other Internet community, I'm probably in a very small minority. I actually have pretty strong opinions on the matter, but they're entirely tangential and irrelevant, and not really in the spirit of HN, so I'll keep them to myself.
leephillips 12y ago
Privoxy.
- Theodores 12y ago
  I think you are right. However not a lot of people use privoxy compared to the many users of adblock-whatever. Also there aren't many people putting together their own squid3 build with custom list of sites to block. Neither of these tools take that much effort to setup on a linux machine if you know what you are doing and have a rough idea of how the internet works. Consequently, for people that cannot be bothered to invest the 10-20 minutes to get privoxy working, the less than perfect solutions offered by the adblock-whatever freebees are okay by me.
  - leephillips 12y ago
    Everything you say is quite sensible. I mentioned privoxy here because obviously a large fraction of the HN audience would be comfortable setting it up. It's worth at least knowing about because of its generality: it filters and transforms the incoming data before it gets to your browser, so it's irrelevant which browser you're using. It can run on your local machine or you can put it on a server and connect through an ssh tunnel, bypassing web filters and snooping (very good for frequent travelers). When used remotely it can compensate for slow local connections by, for example, compressing images.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  I run privoxy locally on OSX and I like that it runs in a separate process (AB+ with a few dozen tabs open really sucks up RAM) and blocks ads on other things too (twitter clients come to mind) when set up as a system proxy. It's not the most straightforward thing to configure, but once you figure it out it's pretty great. I've never seen it donk up my pages like some of the old proxies used to; this stuff has come a long way in the past decade. There are also a few scripts around that will fetch AB+-format lists and convert them into privoxy lists. Here's a decent intro: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/privoxy https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/privoxy Also https://hackage.haskell.org/package/adblock2privoxy https://hackage.haskell.org/package/adblock2privoxy On a router: http://blog.vanutsteen.nl/2014/01/05/installing-privoxy-with-adblock-filters-on-openwrt/ http://blog.vanutsteen.nl/2014/01/05/installing-privoxy-with...
beaumartinez 12y ago
I've posted this on previous ad blocking threads, and I'll post it again because I think it's very relevant— > "Adblock without the plus" isn't the original Adblock (from which Adblock Plus was forked), it's an extension created for Google Chrome once Google Chrome enabled support for extensions. Very disingenuous name. It piggy-backed on the work already done for Adblock Plus (for Firefox). > Adblock Plus for Google Chrome came much later. Nowadays, I use and recommend HTTP switchboard[0]. It's fully open[1], and offers very powerful customization on what exactly to block on a site. [0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/http-switchboard/mghdpehejfekicfjcdbfofhcmnjhgaag?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/http-switchboard/m... [1] https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard
- aen0 12y ago
  I highly recommends HTTPS Switchboard or uBlock (same author). They are both faster and better than any Adblocker out there.
  - wernercd 12y ago
    This looks like something worth playing with. How does this overlay with other tools like Ghostery? Are there any other tools worth mentioning?
    - ac29 12y ago
      In my experience, you wont need other privacy/ad-blocking tools. See here: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/How-does-HTTP-Switchboard-compares-to-AdBlock-%2C-Ghostery-or-Disconnect-concerning-privacy%3F https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/How-does-HTT...
  - webwanderings 12y ago
    Giving ublock a try. Going to turn off Adblock Plus while I run it. Will see how it goes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
leeoniya 12y ago
i havent used Adblock Plus in some time. A combination of Noscript blocking third party js (with some domains/cdns whitelisted) and Ghostery takes care of 90% of annoying stuff without bloating mem usage and improving page load speed drastically.
callesgg 12y ago
I have a long /etc/host file with many of the worst tracking/ad services that i have found. Blocks of a very large portion of the stuff that i do not like.
- freshyill 12y ago
  I would love to see this list! Could you post it in a Gist or somewhere?
  - mayneack 12y ago
    Here's one: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
  - wernercd 12y ago
    http://www.abelhadigital.com/hostsman http://www.abelhadigital.com/hostsman Good tool for adding lists to your hosts file.
  - callesgg 12y ago
    https://gist.github.com/callesg/fd9fd96a741da5e779be https://gist.github.com/callesg/fd9fd96a741da5e779be Was probably a year since i last touched it, so it could probably use some updating.
- DrJokepu 12y ago
  Sadly, that wreaks havoc with zsh autocompletion.
- josho 12y ago
  I've been tempted to one up this approach by running a local DNS server that will direct all those ad hosts to a local server, then write a simple web app that will handle all those requests by serving up motivational quotes instead of ads. The upside here is it becomes an effective adblock for iOS when on the local network. I'm not sure how to extend this so that it will work when my iPhone is on an LTE network.
  - 12y ago
miah_ 12y ago
Adblock Edge, since it doesn't contain the 'paid for exemptions' (aka ads). https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ "Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. This fork will provide the same features as Adblock Plus 2.X and higher but without "acceptable ads" feature. Adblock Edge was primarily branched off from Adblock Plus 2.1.2 source code package "http://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tgz" http://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tg... created by Wladimir Palant."
- mhaymo 12y ago
  There's a setting in Adblock Plus that allows you to turn the "unintrusive ads" whitelist off. You don't need a separate add-on. I haven't felt the need to change the setting.
  - miah_ 12y ago
    Ya, I'd rather not give them money if their policy is to allow some ads if given $.
    - mhaymo 12y ago
      ABP's free. Getting on the whitelist is also free for "all small- and medium websites and blogs". https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky.
      - zz1 12y ago
        Yes, but whitelist is supposed to be for unobtrusive and not tracking ads. Then Google pays and… it is on whitelist! I cannot help but think that by using ABP instead of Adblock Edge you are giving ABP developers means to blackmail advertising companies. And not getting the protection you want in the first place.
plicense 12y ago
Without a doubt, Adblock.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Oh, I heard something like this on Reddit and I still got them confused because I started using "Adblock" instead of "Adblock Plus". Reading this today I realize that I should have been using "Plus". I think I'm going to abandon both of them and try out some of the alternatives listed here (ublock, http switchboard).
616c 12y ago
If people prefer more extreme solutions: I eventually moved to Conkeror (think Firefox, but with Emacs bindings and Emacs-like extension via javascript; I know cue the egg throwing). I was looking at other browsers to replace Firefox, as I got sick of it, and I picked Conkeror. Conkeror has a neat little feature called content-policy. I can block kinds of crap per session or site (Flash, JS, Fonts, Object tags, Images, you name it). I use this and by default all our blocked completely. I can reload a buffer when I need it (even on HN I leave all this crap off). I used NoScript before and I like this as more basic and defensive tool built into the browser core. Check it out. For when I do use Javascript (this is on Linux of course), I uses hostsblock[0] to redirect all blacklisted sites in /etc/hosts to a local DNS proxy on 127.0.01 on my laptop (dnsmasq, which we all probably know, and you could set it up upstream on a router or server for a group of people). Then I use kwakd as recommended to serve white space for all these redirected domains. The end result, now I open up JS when I need, and like 100,000 domains are blocked. I check when certain shady domains are mentioned to look for stones unturned, and I rarely see exceptions that are not listed (by default even no cookie YouTube domains are blocked, so JS-less pages give you a blank YouTube box on sites a lot). So why all this effort? Because this is the second or third time I read "ad-blocking company not as dedicated as you think to your principles" articles. And people who argue "my website needs your ad revenue" you ask? Honestly, fuck 'em. I can't be bothered. Be adults, as you do not believe in legislation on Minority Report-like ads following me around in realtime while I walk in public or forcing my eyes open to read newspaper and billboards just for ads, I think I have the right to voluntarily ignore them as I will not buy your shit or shill for you anyway and it is waste of both of our time. I do not mandate everyone look away, but give me the privilege too thank you very much. And I know a company cannot be trusted long term to defend this right as it is not in their interest, especially if it is their core model ad companies (all mentioned here Adblock, Ghostery, disconnect.me will change their tune if they have not already say). In short, do not use corporate-backed tools for this. Said companies always change their mind. [0] More info here: http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ UPDATE: Fixed cue typo. Thanks for pointing it out, Thomas, whoever you are.
- fonosip 12y ago
  DNS based Adblock, profile and Malware block. Make your Internet Faster and Safer with free http://BA.net/adblock http://BA.net/adblock
Vanayad 12y ago
I keep seeing people complaining about some ads being not filtered by ABP...why not just right click those ads and block them. No more ads. Haven't had any with it on for some time (except on some sites where I want to see the ads to help those specific communities)
rkrkrk21 12y ago
I use both of them so i wont care reading this post. All that matters to em to me is the I should not be wasting 15 seconds of my life in watching ads on youtube videos and the combo of ad block and ad block plus does it well for me.
emrikol 12y ago
What I've wanted for some time, and it seems hard for me to find, is a good ad blocker that only works on blacklists. I don't mind ads on some sites as long as they're non-intrusive. Once they start getting in the way of the content though, I want to blacklist the site. Everything I've seen so far (although I haven't put a LOT of time into searching) only works on all sites by default and you have to whitelist the ones you want to have ads enabled on.
- walden42 12y ago
  This is the feature I'm missing from the Firefox Adblock Plus. One of the Adblocks for Chrome has this (can't remember which one) and it was great. I only blocked ads on the site I wanted to. Hopefully they'll make it for Firefox.
- nathan_long 12y ago
  You can do this with AdBlock for Chrome - just unsubscribe from all the lists and add your own custom filters. The simplest way to block something yourself is just to right-click it and go through the menu.
andyl 12y ago
A great solution is to run DNSMASQ on your local network, and configure it to block unwanted domains. That way it works on any connected device automatically, with no plugins or browser overhead. There are plenty of guides - google it!
modzoo 12y ago
THE POINT OF THE AD BLOCKER IS TO BLOCK ADS. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. THE AUTHORS OF BOTH ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. its like supplying weapons to both sides of a war. and guys cut the "internet needs ads" crap. i have a couple of businesses and apps and make a profit because people value them and value the support i provide for them and recommend them. kind of like why hackernews works -- its legit recommendations, not some a$$w$%^ paying money for their article to float to the top...
- ryandvm 12y ago
  I wouldn't go as far as to say "the internet needs ads", but clearly if you're running an ad blocker, the sites you visit do need ads. Ad blocking is textbook prisoner's dilemma. As long as it's only being done by a minority, it's no big deal - but if we all do it, we're fucked.
  - modzoo 12y ago
    i was harsh.. i do in fact know some people who depend on ad revenue to keep servers running. but ads on the internet are generally out of control and i think its a huge bubble, even the ad revenue that my friends rely on is just garbage that i would never want anybody to click on... anyway the main point stands - if you publish an ad blocker it should block ads. suddenly a simple concept gets really complicated when there is an "application process" and set of "criteria" by which ads can be whitelisted -- who defines this criteria? is it always published? am i donating to a project that is actually commercially supported? etc also was anybody else confused by this (from https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers): "Over 50 percent [of applicants] rejected because ads not acceptable. In all, we accepted only 9.5 percent of applicants." That math seems weird...
    - mhaymo 12y ago
      > who defines this criteria? is it always published? The ABP developers define and publish them here: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria The "acceptable ads" whitelist is accessible here: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx... > That math seems weird... From the page you linked: The actual acceptance rate is only 9.5 percent – there are a good amount of fake applications or communication breakdowns that account for this discrepancy.
dbg31415 12y ago
Changing your hosts file will work great. * http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
crb 12y ago
Isn't Disconnect.me broadly, another "tracking-blocker"? How would Adblock be able to 'monetize' through installing it?
wreegab 12y ago
I pretty much all agree with all of Wladimir Palant's post. But I also have one problem regarding Adblock Plus' "acceptable ads" openness. When I read about their "acceptable ads" approach, I am led to believe the "acceptable ads" list contains all the sites which are whitelisted for purpose of "acceptable ads". I am invited to consult the list to see for myself which sites qualify.[1] Problem is, many web sites are not whitelisted through that publicly available list, but through the x-adblock-key HTTP header (which is not something disclosed up front to users). So in fact there is really a public list and a private list it appears (through the x-adblock-key header), while the public list is presented as all there is to "acceptable ads". [1] https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list
- martin56 12y ago
  No, there is no private list. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104070
heromat 12y ago
He surely just forgot to mention that Google allegedly payed 25 million € to Eyeo GmbH, the company behind Adblock Plus, in order to participate in the "acceptable ads" program, a "feature" which is turned on by default and allows users to "surf more comfortably". And that he is (or at least was) one of the directors. I'm most certain that there are people out there who would call this business model "blackmailing", but I could also be wrong. Source (in german): http://www.welt.de/wall-street-journal/article124441049/Googles-fragwuerdiger-Deal-mit-Adblock-Plus.html http://www.welt.de/wall-street-journal/article124441049/Goog...
- apetresc 12y ago
  > I'm most certain that there are people out there who would call this business model "blackmailing", but I could also be wrong. They would be wrong. It's not a great practice, but it's certainly not blackmail.
- cdr 12y ago
  Corrupt, yes, but blackmail isn't quite right. More like private security offering to look the other way if you can pay enough to make it worth their while.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kefka 12y ago
    It honestly looks like a mixture of blackmail and Tortious interference. Blackmail: pay us or we will cut your advertising revenue. Tortious interference: Your company counts on (double_digit)% ad revenue. We're going to harm you in significant ways... unless you pay.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      >Blackmail: pay us or we will cut your advertising revenue. As others have said, not blackmail, but extortion. Blackmail would be the threat of revealing embarrassing or financially harming information. >Tortious interference: Your company counts on (double_digit)% ad revenue. We're going to harm you in significant ways... unless you pay. Another name for that here in the US is racketeering, or running a protection racket. It's the classic "pay us X dollars or we'll destroy your store/break your kneecaps/kill your family" only with a digital/financial threat.
modzoo 12y ago
Reply from Wladimir Palant: "whitelisting websites if they serve only acceptable ads turned out unrealistic – nobody would do that right now. There needs to be more incentive to use acceptable advertising first." https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers
rurban 12y ago
"Privacy Badger" is the only option nowadays. No whitelisting, and no corrupt companies behind, doing the whitelisting.
conesus 12y ago
Adblock is the #1 culprit for bugs on NewsBlur. I get at least one report a day where some functionality is broken (sharing stories, saving stories, loading a user's feed list, etc). First thing I do now is ask them to disable Adblock. Doesn't even matter if they've told me if they have Adblock installed. I just assume if some random functionality is broken on my single-page site, it's Adblock's fault. I suppose I should look for a way to identify if a user is using Adblock, though I bet they've made that as difficult as possible. And if I identify a user using Adblock, I should let them know it's the cause of any bugginess.
- fournm 12y ago
  It hadn't even occurred to me that it might be causing my issues (minor annoyances so I didn't even think to report them, as a pentadactyl and vimium user I'm used to stuff randomly breaking). I'll have to remember to disable it on newsblur.
- freehunter 12y ago
  As an Adblock user, I always assume that any errors on any site are the result of Adblock, and my first troubleshooting step is to turn it off. It almost always is.
  - visarga 12y ago
    I use AdBlock Plus and Disconnect Me on Chrome and my first step is to whitelist the site in Disconnect Me when it fails to work correctly.
  - GhotiFish 12y ago
    I'd recommend against this strategy, in general, why would some core functionality of a website depend on the ability to contact ad servers? Sounds like a way to pressure people into not using ad blockers, and the threat needs to be responded to (and can be responded to) by that ad block. It's a really shitty game they are playing, because content providers can't win, but they can make the internet much worse.
    - 12y ago
discardorama 12y ago
I wouldn't mind ads if they didn't completely destroy the viewing experience on many sites. From the long load times (oftentimes the browser rendering will hang because some stupid JS from an ad server has trouble loading), to the distracting ads, it's a huge mess. That is why I use Ad Blocking.
msoad 12y ago
Maybe it sounds stupid, but I have both on my Chrome so whichever whitelists the other will remove. Problem solved! I have never ever seen ads since then
recursive 12y ago
I don't have this problem because I just choose not to use sites that have disrupting advertising.
nimish 12y ago
Use HTTP Switchboard. Faster, more powerful, and honest.
junto 12y ago
Although the naming of the two projects appears to be problematic at first, I'm guessing that many users will pick the Adblock PLUS over the Adblock, simply because 'Plus' feels like a superlative.
dudus 12y ago
<rant> Blocking ads is such a dick move. This should be made illegal. You are not entitled to change a website to your contempt and cut their main revenue source. If you want to use a website/app and it was made available with the Ad, then just suck it in or use a different one. To my eyes this is not very different than piracy. Where you use a software without paying for it's price. Advertising is the price you pay to use a service. Targeting is a technology to make that Ad as much relevant to you as possible. And yet there's a lot of negativity in here towards both. It's supposed to be a win-win-win solution for advertisers, publishers and users and yet are met with negativity and FUD. If you are here in HN you should think the same, because advertisement is what funds the industry you are in. </rant>
- ntumlin 12y ago
  While I agree that ads are a good thing for the internet as a whole, I certainly have the right to change what my computer does and shows me. The idea of making it illegal to block ads and modify webpages locally is so absurd I can't wrap my head around it. I don't even see how that could be enforced.
  - goblin89 12y ago
    > The idea of making it illegal to block ads and modify webpages locally <…> I don't even see how that could be enforced. Say, modifying page source acquires questionable legal status (like port scanning or jailbreaking) and is removed from every major browser. Sadly, to me personally this doesn't seem too unlikely to happen in near future.
- wreegab 12y ago
  > Blocking ads is such a dick move. This should be made illegal. A law to enforce one very specific business model is a terrible idea. If only I could tip $2 the author for that video I watched and liked (like say, 10,000 other viewers) with as little overhead as possible... No donations, no subscriptions, just a tip with no further obligations. You think ad brokers would welcome this business model?
  - 12y ago
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Adblock Plus is malware. Period. Besides blackmailing advertisers into whitelisting their ads for money, last year it added a "typo correction" feature that would intercept "mistyped" url's and redirect you to the correct one. Except it blatantly redirected existing domains to that of competitors, and added referrer affiliate ID's to the URL so Palant could cash in. Despite claims to the contrary, that "feature" was initially on by default. That is pure malware, it has nothing to do with blocking ads. Palant is someone who's words should not be trusted. He's basically a successful malware blackmailer.
forgotAgain 12y ago
Since Chrome added "click to play" in plug-in settings I haven't used an ad blocker. With Flash ads no longer playing, my need for the blocker went away. The changeover to canvas ads is happening quickly and that may bring back my need. When I don't want to be tracked I rely on incognito mode.
gorhill 12y ago
I see Wladimir Palant has again commented on µBlock in his comment section [1]: > clear tendency to trade performance for memory use This has been a pattern with Wladimir Palant with regard to my work. Outright misrepresentation [2], or criticism through vague statements while never specific enough to understand what part of the code he is referring to. Nowhere in the code did I trade memory for CPU, both have always been of highest concern. Given that my benchmarks show µBlock does significantly better than ABP on both memory and CPU count, vaguely stating that "clear tendency to trade performance for memory use" is just plain nonsense. [3] I did ask him to be specific about his statement regarding how I implemented element hiding without injecting gigantic CSS stylesheet in every page and frame, but never received a response, and it is understandable why: he was misrepresenting. [4] [1] https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus#c000761 https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adbl... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus... (bottom of the page) [3] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c39 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c39 Edit: added reference to CPU/mem benchmarks
e15ctr0n 12y ago
AdBlock Plus also increases the amount of memory used by Firefox, to the order of 60–70 MiB + about 4 MiB per iframe. https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-plus...
ksec 12y ago
Are there any other reason to use Ad Block software other then privacy and speed of surfing the internet?
cubbage 12y ago
Gabriel from AdBlock here. Here is AdBlock's response to Wladimir's post: http://blog.getadblock.com/2014/07/adblock-and-privacy.html http://blog.getadblock.com/2014/07/adblock-and-privacy.html

336 points by XzetaU8 12y ago

avani 12y ago

Since a lot of people are running out to download Adblock Plus, you guys might want to contact Google to try and get the spam app "Adblock Plus" from exgam.com removed from the store. Apps typically show up above extensions, so I've already seen several people download the wrong one :/ .

motters 12y ago

Adblock Edge is the better version, since it genuinely blocks ads, whereas Adblock Plus still lets some through by default.

sogen 12y ago

I'm loving ublock https://github.com/gorhill/ublock https://github.com/gorhill/ublock

sudorank 12y ago
Sounds interesting, might check it out tonight.
- sogen 12y ago
  really do, I've found it's the easiest to use, and lightweight too.
dublinben 12y ago
I really wish this was available for Firefox.
jobu 12y ago
That looks pretty interesting, but Holy Options Batman! There are almost 50 filter lists plus a bunch of other settings. Thanks for recommending this - looks a little less shady than some of the AdBlock variants.

diminoten 12y ago

Ooh, whitelisting of ads via partnerships. That's shady as fuck for an ad blocking company.

eik3_de 12y ago
see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversy_over_ad_filtering_and_ad_whitelisting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversy_over... I'd never use Adblock Plus, that's more than shady
- mer10z 12y ago
  Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web, without sponsored ads whitelist.
- jobu 12y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted. Assuming that wikipedia entry is correct (which is sometimes questionable) then it looks like both AdBlock and AdBlock Plus are being shady as hell with their "strategic partners".
Gracana 12y ago
I don't like it either, but on the other hand, ABP works pretty well, and I can uncheck the "allow unobtrusive advertising" on the main settings page. Is it worth making a stand on this issue? What should I do or use instead? [edit] Hmm, I'm not just talking to myself here, the post I replied to is gone. Not sure how that happens, but in any case I was responding to a comment about how ABP whitelists certain ads (such as those from the companies that support the ABP servers, apparently.)
- diminoten 12y ago
  Well, I'd suggest using nothing (or noscript if you're actually just concerned about exploits), but if this Internet community is like any other Internet community, I'm probably in a very small minority. I actually have pretty strong opinions on the matter, but they're entirely tangential and irrelevant, and not really in the spirit of HN, so I'll keep them to myself.

leephillips 12y ago

Privoxy.

Theodores 12y ago
I think you are right. However not a lot of people use privoxy compared to the many users of adblock-whatever. Also there aren't many people putting together their own squid3 build with custom list of sites to block. Neither of these tools take that much effort to setup on a linux machine if you know what you are doing and have a rough idea of how the internet works. Consequently, for people that cannot be bothered to invest the 10-20 minutes to get privoxy working, the less than perfect solutions offered by the adblock-whatever freebees are okay by me.
- leephillips 12y ago
  Everything you say is quite sensible. I mentioned privoxy here because obviously a large fraction of the HN audience would be comfortable setting it up. It's worth at least knowing about because of its generality: it filters and transforms the incoming data before it gets to your browser, so it's irrelevant which browser you're using. It can run on your local machine or you can put it on a server and connect through an ssh tunnel, bypassing web filters and snooping (very good for frequent travelers). When used remotely it can compensate for slow local connections by, for example, compressing images.
seanp2k2 12y ago
I run privoxy locally on OSX and I like that it runs in a separate process (AB+ with a few dozen tabs open really sucks up RAM) and blocks ads on other things too (twitter clients come to mind) when set up as a system proxy. It's not the most straightforward thing to configure, but once you figure it out it's pretty great. I've never seen it donk up my pages like some of the old proxies used to; this stuff has come a long way in the past decade. There are also a few scripts around that will fetch AB+-format lists and convert them into privoxy lists. Here's a decent intro: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/privoxy https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/privoxy Also https://hackage.haskell.org/package/adblock2privoxy https://hackage.haskell.org/package/adblock2privoxy On a router: http://blog.vanutsteen.nl/2014/01/05/installing-privoxy-with-adblock-filters-on-openwrt/ http://blog.vanutsteen.nl/2014/01/05/installing-privoxy-with...

beaumartinez 12y ago

I've posted this on previous ad blocking threads, and I'll post it again because I think it's very relevant— > "Adblock without the plus" isn't the original Adblock (from which Adblock Plus was forked), it's an extension created for Google Chrome once Google Chrome enabled support for extensions. Very disingenuous name. It piggy-backed on the work already done for Adblock Plus (for Firefox). > Adblock Plus for Google Chrome came much later. Nowadays, I use and recommend HTTP switchboard[0]. It's fully open[1], and offers very powerful customization on what exactly to block on a site. [0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/http-switchboard/mghdpehejfekicfjcdbfofhcmnjhgaag?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/http-switchboard/m... [1] https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard

aen0 12y ago
I highly recommends HTTPS Switchboard or uBlock (same author). They are both faster and better than any Adblocker out there.
- wernercd 12y ago
  This looks like something worth playing with. How does this overlay with other tools like Ghostery? Are there any other tools worth mentioning?
  - ac29 12y ago
    In my experience, you wont need other privacy/ad-blocking tools. See here: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/How-does-HTTP-Switchboard-compares-to-AdBlock-%2C-Ghostery-or-Disconnect-concerning-privacy%3F https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/How-does-HTT...
- webwanderings 12y ago
  Giving ublock a try. Going to turn off Adblock Plus while I run it. Will see how it goes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

leeoniya 12y ago

i havent used Adblock Plus in some time. A combination of Noscript blocking third party js (with some domains/cdns whitelisted) and Ghostery takes care of 90% of annoying stuff without bloating mem usage and improving page load speed drastically.

callesgg 12y ago

I have a long /etc/host file with many of the worst tracking/ad services that i have found. Blocks of a very large portion of the stuff that i do not like.

freshyill 12y ago
I would love to see this list! Could you post it in a Gist or somewhere?
- mayneack 12y ago
  Here's one: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
- wernercd 12y ago
  http://www.abelhadigital.com/hostsman http://www.abelhadigital.com/hostsman Good tool for adding lists to your hosts file.
- callesgg 12y ago
  https://gist.github.com/callesg/fd9fd96a741da5e779be https://gist.github.com/callesg/fd9fd96a741da5e779be Was probably a year since i last touched it, so it could probably use some updating.
DrJokepu 12y ago
Sadly, that wreaks havoc with zsh autocompletion.
josho 12y ago
I've been tempted to one up this approach by running a local DNS server that will direct all those ad hosts to a local server, then write a simple web app that will handle all those requests by serving up motivational quotes instead of ads. The upside here is it becomes an effective adblock for iOS when on the local network. I'm not sure how to extend this so that it will work when my iPhone is on an LTE network.
- 12y ago

miah_ 12y ago

Adblock Edge, since it doesn't contain the 'paid for exemptions' (aka ads). https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ "Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. This fork will provide the same features as Adblock Plus 2.X and higher but without "acceptable ads" feature. Adblock Edge was primarily branched off from Adblock Plus 2.1.2 source code package "http://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tgz" http://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tg... created by Wladimir Palant."

mhaymo 12y ago
There's a setting in Adblock Plus that allows you to turn the "unintrusive ads" whitelist off. You don't need a separate add-on. I haven't felt the need to change the setting.
- miah_ 12y ago
  Ya, I'd rather not give them money if their policy is to allow some ads if given $.
  - mhaymo 12y ago
    ABP's free. Getting on the whitelist is also free for "all small- and medium websites and blogs". https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements If you're ok with blocking ads, I don't see how allowing companies to pay a fee to have them unblocked hurts anyone. If it feels icky then maybe ad blocking is icky.
    - zz1 12y ago
      Yes, but whitelist is supposed to be for unobtrusive and not tracking ads. Then Google pays and… it is on whitelist! I cannot help but think that by using ABP instead of Adblock Edge you are giving ABP developers means to blackmail advertising companies. And not getting the protection you want in the first place.

plicense 12y ago

Without a doubt, Adblock.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

Oh, I heard something like this on Reddit and I still got them confused because I started using "Adblock" instead of "Adblock Plus". Reading this today I realize that I should have been using "Plus". I think I'm going to abandon both of them and try out some of the alternatives listed here (ublock, http switchboard).

616c 12y ago

If people prefer more extreme solutions: I eventually moved to Conkeror (think Firefox, but with Emacs bindings and Emacs-like extension via javascript; I know cue the egg throwing). I was looking at other browsers to replace Firefox, as I got sick of it, and I picked Conkeror. Conkeror has a neat little feature called content-policy. I can block kinds of crap per session or site (Flash, JS, Fonts, Object tags, Images, you name it). I use this and by default all our blocked completely. I can reload a buffer when I need it (even on HN I leave all this crap off). I used NoScript before and I like this as more basic and defensive tool built into the browser core. Check it out. For when I do use Javascript (this is on Linux of course), I uses hostsblock[0] to redirect all blacklisted sites in /etc/hosts to a local DNS proxy on 127.0.01 on my laptop (dnsmasq, which we all probably know, and you could set it up upstream on a router or server for a group of people). Then I use kwakd as recommended to serve white space for all these redirected domains. The end result, now I open up JS when I need, and like 100,000 domains are blocked. I check when certain shady domains are mentioned to look for stones unturned, and I rarely see exceptions that are not listed (by default even no cookie YouTube domains are blocked, so JS-less pages give you a blank YouTube box on sites a lot). So why all this effort? Because this is the second or third time I read "ad-blocking company not as dedicated as you think to your principles" articles. And people who argue "my website needs your ad revenue" you ask? Honestly, fuck 'em. I can't be bothered. Be adults, as you do not believe in legislation on Minority Report-like ads following me around in realtime while I walk in public or forcing my eyes open to read newspaper and billboards just for ads, I think I have the right to voluntarily ignore them as I will not buy your shit or shill for you anyway and it is waste of both of our time. I do not mandate everyone look away, but give me the privilege too thank you very much. And I know a company cannot be trusted long term to defend this right as it is not in their interest, especially if it is their core model ad companies (all mentioned here Adblock, Ghostery, disconnect.me will change their tune if they have not already say). In short, do not use corporate-backed tools for this. Said companies always change their mind. [0] More info here: http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ http://jasonwryan.com/blog/2013/12/28/hostsblock/ UPDATE: Fixed cue typo. Thanks for pointing it out, Thomas, whoever you are.

fonosip 12y ago
DNS based Adblock, profile and Malware block. Make your Internet Faster and Safer with free http://BA.net/adblock http://BA.net/adblock

Vanayad 12y ago

I keep seeing people complaining about some ads being not filtered by ABP...why not just right click those ads and block them. No more ads. Haven't had any with it on for some time (except on some sites where I want to see the ads to help those specific communities)

rkrkrk21 12y ago

I use both of them so i wont care reading this post. All that matters to em to me is the I should not be wasting 15 seconds of my life in watching ads on youtube videos and the combo of ad block and ad block plus does it well for me.

emrikol 12y ago

What I've wanted for some time, and it seems hard for me to find, is a good ad blocker that only works on blacklists. I don't mind ads on some sites as long as they're non-intrusive. Once they start getting in the way of the content though, I want to blacklist the site. Everything I've seen so far (although I haven't put a LOT of time into searching) only works on all sites by default and you have to whitelist the ones you want to have ads enabled on.

walden42 12y ago
This is the feature I'm missing from the Firefox Adblock Plus. One of the Adblocks for Chrome has this (can't remember which one) and it was great. I only blocked ads on the site I wanted to. Hopefully they'll make it for Firefox.
nathan_long 12y ago
You can do this with AdBlock for Chrome - just unsubscribe from all the lists and add your own custom filters. The simplest way to block something yourself is just to right-click it and go through the menu.

andyl 12y ago

A great solution is to run DNSMASQ on your local network, and configure it to block unwanted domains. That way it works on any connected device automatically, with no plugins or browser overhead. There are plenty of guides - google it!

modzoo 12y ago

THE POINT OF THE AD BLOCKER IS TO BLOCK ADS. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. THE AUTHORS OF BOTH ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. its like supplying weapons to both sides of a war. and guys cut the "internet needs ads" crap. i have a couple of businesses and apps and make a profit because people value them and value the support i provide for them and recommend them. kind of like why hackernews works -- its legit recommendations, not some a$$w$%^ paying money for their article to float to the top...

ryandvm 12y ago
I wouldn't go as far as to say "the internet needs ads", but clearly if you're running an ad blocker, the sites you visit do need ads. Ad blocking is textbook prisoner's dilemma. As long as it's only being done by a minority, it's no big deal - but if we all do it, we're fucked.
- modzoo 12y ago
  i was harsh.. i do in fact know some people who depend on ad revenue to keep servers running. but ads on the internet are generally out of control and i think its a huge bubble, even the ad revenue that my friends rely on is just garbage that i would never want anybody to click on... anyway the main point stands - if you publish an ad blocker it should block ads. suddenly a simple concept gets really complicated when there is an "application process" and set of "criteria" by which ads can be whitelisted -- who defines this criteria? is it always published? am i donating to a project that is actually commercially supported? etc also was anybody else confused by this (from https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers): "Over 50 percent [of applicants] rejected because ads not acceptable. In all, we accepted only 9.5 percent of applicants." That math seems weird...
  - mhaymo 12y ago
    > who defines this criteria? is it always published? The ABP developers define and publish them here: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria The "acceptable ads" whitelist is accessible here: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx... > That math seems weird... From the page you linked: The actual acceptance rate is only 9.5 percent – there are a good amount of fake applications or communication breakdowns that account for this discrepancy.

dbg31415 12y ago

Changing your hosts file will work great. * http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts

crb 12y ago

Isn't Disconnect.me broadly, another "tracking-blocker"? How would Adblock be able to 'monetize' through installing it?

wreegab 12y ago

I pretty much all agree with all of Wladimir Palant's post. But I also have one problem regarding Adblock Plus' "acceptable ads" openness. When I read about their "acceptable ads" approach, I am led to believe the "acceptable ads" list contains all the sites which are whitelisted for purpose of "acceptable ads". I am invited to consult the list to see for myself which sites qualify.[1] Problem is, many web sites are not whitelisted through that publicly available list, but through the x-adblock-key HTTP header (which is not something disclosed up front to users). So in fact there is really a public list and a private list it appears (through the x-adblock-key header), while the public list is presented as all there is to "acceptable ads". [1] https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list

martin56 12y ago
No, there is no private list. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104070

heromat 12y ago

He surely just forgot to mention that Google allegedly payed 25 million € to Eyeo GmbH, the company behind Adblock Plus, in order to participate in the "acceptable ads" program, a "feature" which is turned on by default and allows users to "surf more comfortably". And that he is (or at least was) one of the directors. I'm most certain that there are people out there who would call this business model "blackmailing", but I could also be wrong. Source (in german): http://www.welt.de/wall-street-journal/article124441049/Googles-fragwuerdiger-Deal-mit-Adblock-Plus.html http://www.welt.de/wall-street-journal/article124441049/Goog...

apetresc 12y ago
> I'm most certain that there are people out there who would call this business model "blackmailing", but I could also be wrong. They would be wrong. It's not a great practice, but it's certainly not blackmail.
cdr 12y ago
Corrupt, yes, but blackmail isn't quite right. More like private security offering to look the other way if you can pay enough to make it worth their while.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kefka 12y ago
  It honestly looks like a mixture of blackmail and Tortious interference. Blackmail: pay us or we will cut your advertising revenue. Tortious interference: Your company counts on (double_digit)% ad revenue. We're going to harm you in significant ways... unless you pay.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    >Blackmail: pay us or we will cut your advertising revenue. As others have said, not blackmail, but extortion. Blackmail would be the threat of revealing embarrassing or financially harming information. >Tortious interference: Your company counts on (double_digit)% ad revenue. We're going to harm you in significant ways... unless you pay. Another name for that here in the US is racketeering, or running a protection racket. It's the classic "pay us X dollars or we'll destroy your store/break your kneecaps/kill your family" only with a digital/financial threat.

modzoo 12y ago

Reply from Wladimir Palant: "whitelisting websites if they serve only acceptable ads turned out unrealistic – nobody would do that right now. There needs to be more incentive to use acceptable advertising first." https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers https://adblockplus.org/blog/acceptable-ads-by-the-numbers

rurban 12y ago

"Privacy Badger" is the only option nowadays. No whitelisting, and no corrupt companies behind, doing the whitelisting.

conesus 12y ago

Adblock is the #1 culprit for bugs on NewsBlur. I get at least one report a day where some functionality is broken (sharing stories, saving stories, loading a user's feed list, etc). First thing I do now is ask them to disable Adblock. Doesn't even matter if they've told me if they have Adblock installed. I just assume if some random functionality is broken on my single-page site, it's Adblock's fault. I suppose I should look for a way to identify if a user is using Adblock, though I bet they've made that as difficult as possible. And if I identify a user using Adblock, I should let them know it's the cause of any bugginess.

fournm 12y ago
It hadn't even occurred to me that it might be causing my issues (minor annoyances so I didn't even think to report them, as a pentadactyl and vimium user I'm used to stuff randomly breaking). I'll have to remember to disable it on newsblur.
freehunter 12y ago
As an Adblock user, I always assume that any errors on any site are the result of Adblock, and my first troubleshooting step is to turn it off. It almost always is.
- visarga 12y ago
  I use AdBlock Plus and Disconnect Me on Chrome and my first step is to whitelist the site in Disconnect Me when it fails to work correctly.
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  I'd recommend against this strategy, in general, why would some core functionality of a website depend on the ability to contact ad servers? Sounds like a way to pressure people into not using ad blockers, and the threat needs to be responded to (and can be responded to) by that ad block. It's a really shitty game they are playing, because content providers can't win, but they can make the internet much worse.
  - 12y ago

discardorama 12y ago

I wouldn't mind ads if they didn't completely destroy the viewing experience on many sites. From the long load times (oftentimes the browser rendering will hang because some stupid JS from an ad server has trouble loading), to the distracting ads, it's a huge mess. That is why I use Ad Blocking.

msoad 12y ago

Maybe it sounds stupid, but I have both on my Chrome so whichever whitelists the other will remove. Problem solved! I have never ever seen ads since then

recursive 12y ago

I don't have this problem because I just choose not to use sites that have disrupting advertising.

nimish 12y ago

Use HTTP Switchboard. Faster, more powerful, and honest.

junto 12y ago

Although the naming of the two projects appears to be problematic at first, I'm guessing that many users will pick the Adblock PLUS over the Adblock, simply because 'Plus' feels like a superlative.

dudus 12y ago

<rant> Blocking ads is such a dick move. This should be made illegal. You are not entitled to change a website to your contempt and cut their main revenue source. If you want to use a website/app and it was made available with the Ad, then just suck it in or use a different one. To my eyes this is not very different than piracy. Where you use a software without paying for it's price. Advertising is the price you pay to use a service. Targeting is a technology to make that Ad as much relevant to you as possible. And yet there's a lot of negativity in here towards both. It's supposed to be a win-win-win solution for advertisers, publishers and users and yet are met with negativity and FUD. If you are here in HN you should think the same, because advertisement is what funds the industry you are in. </rant>

ntumlin 12y ago
While I agree that ads are a good thing for the internet as a whole, I certainly have the right to change what my computer does and shows me. The idea of making it illegal to block ads and modify webpages locally is so absurd I can't wrap my head around it. I don't even see how that could be enforced.
- goblin89 12y ago
  > The idea of making it illegal to block ads and modify webpages locally <…> I don't even see how that could be enforced. Say, modifying page source acquires questionable legal status (like port scanning or jailbreaking) and is removed from every major browser. Sadly, to me personally this doesn't seem too unlikely to happen in near future.
wreegab 12y ago
> Blocking ads is such a dick move. This should be made illegal. A law to enforce one very specific business model is a terrible idea. If only I could tip $2 the author for that video I watched and liked (like say, 10,000 other viewers) with as little overhead as possible... No donations, no subscriptions, just a tip with no further obligations. You think ad brokers would welcome this business model?
- 12y ago

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

Adblock Plus is malware. Period. Besides blackmailing advertisers into whitelisting their ads for money, last year it added a "typo correction" feature that would intercept "mistyped" url's and redirect you to the correct one. Except it blatantly redirected existing domains to that of competitors, and added referrer affiliate ID's to the URL so Palant could cash in. Despite claims to the contrary, that "feature" was initially on by default. That is pure malware, it has nothing to do with blocking ads. Palant is someone who's words should not be trusted. He's basically a successful malware blackmailer.

forgotAgain 12y ago

Since Chrome added "click to play" in plug-in settings I haven't used an ad blocker. With Flash ads no longer playing, my need for the blocker went away. The changeover to canvas ads is happening quickly and that may bring back my need. When I don't want to be tracked I rely on incognito mode.

gorhill 12y ago

I see Wladimir Palant has again commented on µBlock in his comment section [1]: > clear tendency to trade performance for memory use This has been a pattern with Wladimir Palant with regard to my work. Outright misrepresentation [2], or criticism through vague statements while never specific enough to understand what part of the code he is referring to. Nowhere in the code did I trade memory for CPU, both have always been of highest concern. Given that my benchmarks show µBlock does significantly better than ABP on both memory and CPU count, vaguely stating that "clear tendency to trade performance for memory use" is just plain nonsense. [3] I did ask him to be specific about his statement regarding how I implemented element hiding without injecting gigantic CSS stylesheet in every page and frame, but never received a response, and it is understandable why: he was misrepresenting. [4] [1] https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adblock-plus#c000761 https://palant.de/2014/07/29/which-is-better-adblock-or-adbl... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus... (bottom of the page) [3] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c39 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c39 Edit: added reference to CPU/mem benchmarks

e15ctr0n 12y ago

AdBlock Plus also increases the amount of memory used by Firefox, to the order of 60–70 MiB + about 4 MiB per iframe. https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-plus...

ksec 12y ago

Are there any other reason to use Ad Block software other then privacy and speed of surfing the internet?

cubbage 12y ago

Gabriel from AdBlock here. Here is AdBlock's response to Wladimir's post: http://blog.getadblock.com/2014/07/adblock-and-privacy.html http://blog.getadblock.com/2014/07/adblock-and-privacy.html