4 ms·

privacy badger is annoyingly unspecific you can't block twitter's CDN on non-twitter sites, while allowing it on twitter itself, for example - - - This is al

privacy badger is annoyingly unspecific you can't block twitter's CDN on non-twitter sites, while allowing it on twitter itself, for example - - - This is all really FUDy regardless adblock plus's whitelist policy is detailed publicly for obvious reasons, yes they do take money, only from companies where that amount of money would be a drop in the ocean, other companies get in free. Its a case of not people paying to get in, but ABP devs making large companies pay a fee to get in, to help fund ABP. https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads-agreements - - - "Disconnect takes a pay-what-you-want approach" which is apparently nothing, or a subscription fee. which explains how money appears "but it is still developed by a for-profit company founded by a former Google engineer" from the site: "[...] and a consumer-and privacy-rights attorney." https://disconnect.me/privacy https://disconnect.me/privacy - - - ghostery is already addressed

bigbugbag 12y ago
Not sure what you mean about privacy badger whose point is to automatically detect and block third party tracking but doesn't block first party tracking yet which seems to be exactly the bahviour you want (it is planned as an option). It is also based on Do Not Track. For the others, apart from the arguably conflicting business model, as I said the issue is one of privacy, ads are unacceptable because they collect data about me without visitor consent. I use adblockers (and a variety of other tools) to protect privacy, save bandwidth and protect computers from malware.