4 ms·

Ad blockers are easily fingerprintable, which is why I block ad trackers from my /etc/hosts file, using this wonderful list: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ h

Ad blockers are easily fingerprintable, which is why I block ad trackers from my /etc/hosts file, using this wonderful list: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ You can also set up a cron job to periodically fetch and overwrite with an updated copy, such as once a week or so.

buckbova 12y ago
It also redirects your standard lemon-goatse-party.org type sites.
mindslight 12y ago
I always see this recommendation and write it off as people who probably don't know any better. But I noticed that you had also commented about Slackware, so I have to ask.. Doesn't using /etc/hosts in this way strike you as a bit "wrong" and terribly hacky with respect to blocking granularity? If I ever wanted to run a service on port 80, it seems like it would be annoying to configure it to avoid the dummy address. And I use /etc/hosts for my actual hosts, and while these uses aren't exclusive, it does set the tone for me. I personally run Adblock Plus and Ghostery in Iceweasel because it's the easiest way. There are certainly disadvantages to this, but it seems the proper setup would be to run something like privoxy, no?
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Well, yes, if you're on a server then polluting your hosts like that probably isn't good. I'm just a regular home user and more of a system programmer than a web developer, so for me it's fine. It's also a rat race of sorts, as is inherent with blacklisting over whitelisting. But I don't exclusively use this approach either, I spoof user agents, referers, X-Forwarded-For headers and have Privacy Badger running on Firefox, as well. I just use hosts as an alternative to ABP in particular, due to the lower baggage.
- lotsofcows 12y ago
  I use hosts for ad blocking and for testing locally. I guess I get a bit of junk in my logs but I've never really seen it as a problem. I keep meaning to see if I can serve up transparent swfs and html snippets automagically but I've never got around to it. You list two utilities for a single browser. If you use other browsers do you need other apps? The interesting thing about my hosts table is that I never bother carrying it across to a new computer and I only add domains to it when they actively irritate me. Even so, even companies like Google who are supposed to do non-intrusive "targeted" ads end up in there.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    Yes, you need to install each extension on each browser / user account. It's basically just a one time setup hit, although one of the few I haven't automated away. I currently use chromium but without any ad blocker, for viewing documentation and the like (and the occasional incognito window, especially for Amazon which loves to spam you based on searches) I'm liking the idea of a per-machine setup, but I'd look into rewriting proxies (like privoxy) for that. I personally want every known ad/tracker/etc blocked without interaction - one person cannot hope to easily keep up with the machines are doing, but so far via crowdsourcing it seems like we can.

buckbova 12y ago

It also redirects your standard lemon-goatse-party.org type sites.

mindslight 12y ago

I always see this recommendation and write it off as people who probably don't know any better. But I noticed that you had also commented about Slackware, so I have to ask.. Doesn't using /etc/hosts in this way strike you as a bit "wrong" and terribly hacky with respect to blocking granularity? If I ever wanted to run a service on port 80, it seems like it would be annoying to configure it to avoid the dummy address. And I use /etc/hosts for my actual hosts, and while these uses aren't exclusive, it does set the tone for me. I personally run Adblock Plus and Ghostery in Iceweasel because it's the easiest way. There are certainly disadvantages to this, but it seems the proper setup would be to run something like privoxy, no?

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Well, yes, if you're on a server then polluting your hosts like that probably isn't good. I'm just a regular home user and more of a system programmer than a web developer, so for me it's fine. It's also a rat race of sorts, as is inherent with blacklisting over whitelisting. But I don't exclusively use this approach either, I spoof user agents, referers, X-Forwarded-For headers and have Privacy Badger running on Firefox, as well. I just use hosts as an alternative to ABP in particular, due to the lower baggage.
lotsofcows 12y ago
I use hosts for ad blocking and for testing locally. I guess I get a bit of junk in my logs but I've never really seen it as a problem. I keep meaning to see if I can serve up transparent swfs and html snippets automagically but I've never got around to it. You list two utilities for a single browser. If you use other browsers do you need other apps? The interesting thing about my hosts table is that I never bother carrying it across to a new computer and I only add domains to it when they actively irritate me. Even so, even companies like Google who are supposed to do non-intrusive "targeted" ads end up in there.
- mindslight 12y ago
  Yes, you need to install each extension on each browser / user account. It's basically just a one time setup hit, although one of the few I haven't automated away. I currently use chromium but without any ad blocker, for viewing documentation and the like (and the occasional incognito window, especially for Amazon which loves to spam you based on searches) I'm liking the idea of a per-machine setup, but I'd look into rewriting proxies (like privoxy) for that. I personally want every known ad/tracker/etc blocked without interaction - one person cannot hope to easily keep up with the machines are doing, but so far via crowdsourcing it seems like we can.